NEW TRENDS IN INDO-EUROPEAN LINGUISTICS Number 3 | August 30, 2021
@FIU 2.0*
Transitivity Direction in
Proto-Indo-European:
Direct, Inverse, and
Undirected Verb Forms
By Roland A. Pooth
Abstract. I present a novel reconstruction of the morphs
and categories of Proto-Indo-European verbal inflection.
I claim that the common ancestor of the Indo-European
languages exhibited hierarchical direct and inverse indexing of transitivity direction (Jacques & Antonov
2014). The novel model deviates from the traditional
model in that it is typologically different and based on a
combined methodology. I am using general linguistics
and the comparative method to complement each other. I
evaluate and interpret the results of the comparative
method against the background of cross-linguistic findings and a broader typological pattern. This article is part
of work in progress towards a revised reconstructed synchronic grammar of Proto-Indo-European.
Keywords: Linguistic reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European verbal inflection, transitivity direction, direct-inverse system, hierarchical indexing
D R . R O L A N D A . P O O T H was Senior Research Fellow at
Ghent University (Belgium). He lives in Cologne, Germany.
Born in 1972, he received his Ph.D. from Leiden University
several years later [E-mail: roland.pooth@gmx.de].
1. Introduction
1.1. Aim, Research Questions, and Methodological Dos and Don’ts
It may go against a dominant belief among philologists
and Indo-European linguists but the aim of this article is
to pursue the claim that Proto-Indo-European verbs had
hierarchical indexing and were not inflected by attachment of fusional “endings” for person, number, voice, aspect, tense, and mood to verb stems. Even if Indo-European languages like Vedic Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, and
Hittite etc. must be analyzed this way, the morphotactic
structure of their parent language Proto-Indo-European
might have been different. The general research questions pursued in this article thus run as follows.
Is it reasonable and possible to apply a proper linguistic
morph analysis to the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European
verb forms on their own, a bit more independently from
Indo-European grammar? And does such a morph analysis yield different results? Are the results typologically
sound, even if they are different from the traditional
model? And when we finally compare the independent
reasoning process to the standard, whose results are linguistically proper and more promising, and which model
is to be preferred?
For investigating these research questions, I make use
of a combined methodology. I believe that methods of
general linguistics and comparative philology should always complement each other. The established results of
Indo-European comparison are evaluated from the background of a typology-based linguistic morph analysis.
There is a long-standing discussion on the interplay of
typology and reconstruction in Indo-European Studies. It
has yielded intriguing theories, such as the Glottalic Theory. The need of typologically consistent reconstructions
has also been widely discussed for phonology (Kümmel
2015). Even if typologically informed reconstructions,
ranging from phonology to syntax, have been now
around for decades, one can still diagnose that the morphological and syntactic model of the proto-language
presented in the recent handbooks deviates from Classical Greek and Vedic Sanskrit grammar only minimally,
mostly in phonological features.
Here, the Proto-Indo-European word forms are not
solely analyzed from the average comparative perspective on Indo-European morph boundaries. My methodological reasons for using combined general linguistic and
comparative methods have been outlined in more detail
in my paper “Towards a rigorous linguistic reconstruction of morphs and categories” (Pooth 2017). The argumentation given there can be summarized here as follows. I claim that the application of the comparative
method to Indo-European morph boundaries and grammatical categories has yielded a highly problematic and
anachronistic model of Proto-Indo-European morphology and syntax. When judging from general epistemology and its distinction of reasoning processes, I diagnose
that the comparative reasoning is based on a circular deduction and a problematic axiom (see below). The German term “Nullhypothese” (‘zero hypothesis’) has been
used to refer to this axiom (Hill p.c.; see Appendix 3): it
is the assumption that Proto-Indo-European grammar,
morphs, and grammatical categories must or should be
identical to the ones occurring in Indo-European languages. It is further based on the principle claim that such
an assumption would be “less costly” and “most economical” way of assigning functions to reconstructed forms.
However, we can drop the question of economy here
because I argue that the Nullhypothese is unlikely. This
overrules any argument based on economy. I claim that
it is unlikely from the outset assuming that Proto-Indo-
*The FIU 2.0 is a homage to the social sculpture established by Joseph Beuys. The FIU logo is quoted from his “Aufruf zur Alternative”, Frankfurter
Rundschau, December 23, 1978 © by the author. Published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License CC BYNC 4.0: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
2
P O O T H , R O L A N D A . 2 0 2 1 . Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European
European grammar had the same categories and features
as occurring in Indo-European languages. I further generally argue that a circular back-projection of younger
morphs and categories is a corollary of the comparative
method, if this is the only method used for the linguistic
reconstruction of morphology and syntax. The circular
reasoning process can be illustrated as follows.
The morphological parsing of the standard model is
based on the preconception that PIE morphs and morph
boundaries should only be reconstructed by means of a
deductive reasoning process, which is based in morph
and category equations. The standard reasoning usually
implies that if Ancient Greek, Vedic Sanskrit, Hittite, and
all the other Indo-European languages agree in exhibiting
a particular grammatical category or feature x, we would
be allowed to automatically claim on this basis that
Proto-Indo-European also had this category or feature x,
only in a somewhat different phonological shape. Thus,
within an initial inductive step within the standard reasoning, the following “rule” is established on the IndoEuropean correspondences. Within a deductive step of
reasoning, the conclusion (C) is drawn. However, I argue
here that the whole deduction is based on the highly problematic axiom (B).
an unknown language of its own. I think this additional
step is really necessary as a linguistic test in order to
avoid the mentioned automatism and circularity. Thus, in
order to avoid a misleading back-projection of a younger
structural analysis to the preceding layer, we need to introduce another step of reasoning: We should now stand
back from Indo-European grammar. Analytical inferences concerning the proto-morphology and proto-syntax
should be drawn more independently from the younger
layer – and this is better done with a general linguistic
and typological epistemic background. A third research
question that can be pursued here more or less in between
the lines thus runs as follows: If an independent morph
analysis leads to results that are typologically different
from the traditional model, should we give up the assumption that Proto-Indo-European wasn’t too different
from Indo-European on the morphosyntactic level?
To sum up, from a general epistemological perspective
and from a general linguistic background, it is almost
self-evident that a proper linguistic update of the traditional comparative analysis is needed. The present article
aims at filling this gap.
I use the following representation for the steps of reasoning that have been outlined:
A. Rule based on facts: All Indo-European languages
agree in having a grammatical category or feature x (e.g.
person indexing like Vedic 3sg pres. ind. act. -ti). Having
this category or feature is thus a general “rule” that is based
on a corresponding Indo-European category or feature x.
B. Axiom: As an “unwritten law” it is often implied that
Proto-Indo-European morphology and syntax was identical
to Indo-European grammar and that a proto-language should
only exhibit the morphs and categories typically found when
comparing its daughter languages. However, this is in fact a
speculative assumption that may be probable for some of us,
but is not probable for others including me. As outlined, it
has been said that this should be our first and only Nullhypothesis (Hill p.c.). In other words, there is even a kind of
dogmatic “order” to consider this projection to be reasonable. In my view, however, it is epistemologically problematic and quite probably just a flaw.
C. The conclusion is usually drawn as follows: Given that
this axiom (B) must be true, we “must deduce” that ProtoIndo-European had the category or feature x.
a. TPnégwts. The German term T r a n s p o n a t refers to a word
form that is generated by simple back-projection of the respective Indo-European phonological rules, as if the word form and
its Indo-European meaning and grammatical function belonged
to Proto-Indo-European synchronic grammar without implying
that it really did. Transponate are marked by superscript TP
(Hittite nēkuz → TPnégwts). If it can be argued on positive internal evidence that such a Transponat should further be interpreted as a potentially realistic and reconstructable Proto-IndoEuropean word form, it is marked by superscript TP before the
asterisk (TP*négwts).
b. The term E q u a t i o n F o r m u l a is used here for a phonological Transponat that is based on a given Indo-European
equation and correspondence. It is important to distinguish two
sub-types of equation formulas:
ba. “Formally reliable” equation formulas are based on formation patterns that are less frequent, unproductive, not potentially innovative but potential relics in Indo-European languages, e.g. EFgwʰénti ‘he, she is killing him, her, it’, EFḱéioi
‘he, she is lying down, has been laid, put down’
bb. “Formally and functionally less reliable” equation formulas are based on formation patterns that are frequent, productive, and thus potentially innovative in Indo-European languages, e.g. EFbʰéreti (Vedic bhárati etc.).
It is not implied that all equation formulas can automatically
be reconstructed as a Proto-Indo-European word forms in their
very form and function – and without additional re-modelling
of the equation formula’s form and function.
Equation formulas are marked by superscript EF (Vedic
bhárati :: Gothic bairiþ etc. → EFbʰéreti). Especially such equation formulas that are based on frequent, productive, and thus
We can immediately see that this reasoning process is
problematic because it rather disallows PIE grammar to
be different. In order to solve this problem, I suggest that
we should test the standard model against a more independent linguistic analysis, which can be applied to reconstructable forms like */gwhént/ ‘he, she, is killed/slew
him, her, it’. In my view, this analysis should be applied
to the given reconstructed form-function correlates on
their own – as if they were potentially real word forms of
N E W T R E N D S I N I N D O - E U R O P E A N L I N G U I S T I C S Number 3
potentially innovative IE formation patterns are suspicious because they can be Scheingleichungen of parallel but independent innovations. Such equation formulas are marked by superscript LR for “less reliable” here (LRbʰéreti). Such forms are not
automatically reconstructed in their corresponding forms and
functions for Proto-Indo-European without additional methodological inferences and changes (Pooth 2017). This is a major
methodological disagreement between the traditional approach
and the one pursued here.
Finally, reconstructable PIE word forms are to be generated
by means of e x t e r n a l a n d i n t e r n a l reconstruction. E.g., the
reconstruction of PIE 3sg *bʰéro(i) is based on a less reliable
equation formula LRbʰéreti. The corresponding IE forms are
taken as parallel innovations. This EF1 is mapped upon or
against the more archaic formation pattern of EFḱéioi. It is
claimed that Vedic bhárati, Greek φέρɛι, etc. go back to a form
belonging to the formation type of Vedic śáye, etc. This finally
leads to the reconstruction of a 3sg detransitive form *bʰéro(i)
(Pooth & Orqueda 2021, Pooth 2014, Watkins 1969).
For methodological reasons, I thus distinguish among
provisional forms (“pro-forms”): Transponate and equation formulas. These “pro-forms” are considered as being
artificial products that can only constitute a provisional
basis for reconstructing the potentially realistic word
forms, morphs, formation patterns, and formal and functional categories of the Proto-Indo-European language.
1.3. Remnants of grammatical distinctions
not continued as such in IE languages
The axiom outlined above is heavily contradicted by formal and functional discrepancies among Indo-European
languages. If it was true that Proto-Indo-European morphology and syntax was identical to Indo-European
grammar, many issues would remain inexplicable, e.g.
the comparative issue that a form with *-u̯ é- is continued
as 1pl form in Anatolian languages but 1dual in Vedic
Sanskrit, Greek, etc. This section provides three cases
that can serve to illustrate the problems.
We all know that there are a few Proto-Indo-European
grammatical categories that are maintained in Ancient
Greek and Vedic but were abandoned or modified in
other Indo-European languages. For instance, the OPTATIVE (-IRREALIS) mood is maintained in Greek and Vedic
1
Abbreviations: EF = equation formula; TP = phonological
transponatum. IR = internally reconstructed word form.
2
In general, I follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules and make use of
the conventional glosses: ABS = “absolutive” or “anti-agentive” unmarked case, ACC = accusative case, ACT = active voice (agentive
with agentive verbs), AGT = agentive case, COL = collective number
(group-like sociative-associative plural ‘they are doing something
together’), DTR = detransitive or “protomiddle” voice, NDUR = non-
3
but is not continued/not existing in the Anatolian branch.
It has been modified to a general subjunctive from PIE to
Latin and Proto-Germanic: cf. Vedic Sanskrit 3sg and 3pl
2
imperfective (= “present stem”) optative active syā́ t syúr
3
= Old Latin subjunctive active siēt sient < Proto-IndoEuropean (henceforth PIE) 3sg *h1siéh1t and 3pl
*h1sih1ént *h1sih1érs *h1sih1ér → post-PIE *h1sih1r̥ ́ (s) >
Vedic syúr, etc. Further below, I return to the question
why we can reconstruct three different 3pl forms ending
in *-r-, *-rs, *-nt-.
On the other hand, a thorough Indo-European comparative investigation also reveals remnants of morphosyntactic distinctions that are NOT continued as such in a single Indo-European language. These grammatical categories are UNKNOWN and ABSENT from old Indo-European
languages or from Indo-European languages in general.
If these categories existed in the common ancestor grammar, they must have been abandoned or functionally
modified by the time the protolanguage developed into a
post-PIE variant cluster with posterior dialects in close
areal contact.
I argue here that, by additional application of the
method of internal reconstruction, we are able to detect
and identify such parallel independent innovative categories of the post-PIE dialects. These parallel innovations
presumably occurred shortly after the common PIE synchronic grammar broke up.
1.3.1. The 1+2|2+x inclusive category
A first illustrative example of a category that is non-existing in Indo-European languages but should better be
reconstructed for their ancestor, is the 1+2|2+x INCLUSIVE person category ‘we, that is, you and me/us’. It is
continued only modified as a first-person DUAL INCLUSIVE category in Early Vedic (RV, AV, e.g. Vedic ganvahi (TPgwm̥ u̯ édhh2) ‘we two, you (sg) and me, go (up) together’, attested in RV 8.69.7b). In later IE languages, it
is reflected as a first-person DUAL without clusitivity (that
is, it is both inclusive AND EXCLUSIVE) in Old Church
Slavonic and Gothic (Pooth 2011). This is a well-known
4
diachronic path.
durative (“aorist-like”) aspect, PL = plural number, PROG = progressive aspect, SG = singular number, TOP = topical referent, NTOP =
non-topical or “anti-topical” referent. The symbol > generally
means ‘… developed into … by sound law’ but here it also symbolizes the transitivity or causation direction (e.g., 2sg>3sg = 2sg
acting on/causing an effect in 3sg).
3
Weiss 2009: 416.
4
This development has been described by Dixon 2010 II: 194 for
several Australian languages.
P O O T H , R O L A N D A . 2 0 2 1 . Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European
4
Figure 1. 1dual forms from 1pl inclusive forms
5
PIE
Early Vedic
OCS, Gothic
1+2inclusive → 1dual inclusive → 1dual (incl|excl)
*gʷm-uó(s) → gan-vahi (middle) …
The fact that 1dual forms are overwhelmingly INCLUSIVE in the Early Vedic period is a functional trace and
positive evidence for this category, and constitutes the
decisive argument (Pooth 2011).
Another piece of evidence in this puzzle is the comparative fact that the Vedic 1dual nom. pronoun vā́ m (RV
6.55.1) and the 2dual acc. dat. gen. clitic vām are so very
similar. The formal identity leads to the following claim
of functional identity:
It points to a PIE pronoun *(h1)ué(h1), clitic *uo(h1) for
both 2dual and 1dual inclusive (Pooth 2016c, section 9).
The internal evidence thus supports the hypothesis that
PIE had a 1+2 INCLUSIVE that was likewise a 2nd person
INCLUSIVE/ASSOCIATIVE (‘you & an underspecified participant’ = ‘you and me’, ‘you and your companion’, ‘you
and your (uncountable or countable) company’). This can
be glossed as 1+2|2+X. Such a polysemy is not unknown
among the languages of the world. The pronominal polysemy fits with the polysemy of the corresponding verbal
category reconstructed here. Thus, the PIE suffix -u- can
be interpreted as a second person (addressee, oppositional, adversative) suffix underspecified for the other included/inclusive participant.
NB. The form *gʷmuó obviously lacked an additional number
suffix and was thus less specified, whereas two additional forms
2nd person inclusive sociative-associative *gʷm-uó-h1, plural
*gʷm-uó-s had additional number suffixes (they are structured
in parallel with the 1pl exclusive forms *gʷm-mé, *gʷm-mé-s).
The PIE form *gʷmuó(s) has been interpreted as a DETRANSITIVE (“proto-middle”) form by Pooth (2015) with the detransitive marker being the o-grade here. The active counterpart was
*gʷmué(s).
2nd person plus x category to 1st person DUAL by application of the method of internal reconstruction.
1.3.2. The PIE progressive aspect
A second illustrative example of a PIE grammatical category whose original function did not survive in any IE
language as such is the PROGRESSIVE aspect. Kloekhorst
(2017) argues for some functional traces in Old Hittite
“present” forms. Its exponent was the suffix *-i. The idea
that it encoded present tense cannot explain its overall
6
distribution (Pooth 2009a). This suffix wasn’t generally
attachable; only part of the verb forms took it, e.g. 1sg
active *gwhén-m-i ‘I am slaying, killing him, her, it’, 1pl
active *gwhn-més-i ‘we (excluding you) are ditto’ etc. We
can draw the straightforward inference that many PIE
progressive forms developed into post-PIE IMPERFEC7, 8
TIVE aspect and PRESENT or IMPERFECT tense forms
(Pooth 2009a).
It is an implication of this inference that the post-PIE
imperfective present category was marked by fusional
portmanteau suffixes only at a post-PIE stage, but NOT
BEFORE. The emergence of fusional TAM + voice endings with cumulative exponence *-mi, *-si, *-ti, *-mes(i),
*-u̯ es(i), *-ten(i), *-énti, etc. (and variants) must thus be
a SECONDARY functional and morphotactic innovation. In
other words, these fusional suffixes do not go back to PIE
in their Greek and Vedic forms and functions. The parallel independent post-PIE development can be illustrated
as follows.
Figure 2. The origin of IE present forms
PIE
progressive →
*gwhén-t-i
To conclude, we are able to identify a post-PIE functional narrowing of the PIE 1st+ 2nd person inclusive and
5
Abbreviations: PIE= Proto-Indo-European, PII = Proto-Indo-Iranian/Iranic, OCS = Old Church Slavonic, etc.
6
This suffix has hitherto been called “particle of the hic et nunc”,
but it is neither assured that it was a particle nor is “hic et nunc” an
adequate term. If it was a tense suffix, our expectation is that it was
attached to all verbs to form a present tense form, but this is not the
case (Pooth 2009a).
7
The development of progressive forms to imperfective present
forms is common (Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994).
8
These progressive forms were extended by productive endings
yielding new imperfective and present stems (Pooth 2017).
9
post-PIE
Hittite
imperfective (present) → present
wh
*g énti
kuēn-zi
↓
Vedic Sanskrit
imperfective present (later vs. perfective)9
hán-ti (vs. aor. vádhīt)10
The development of the PERFECTIVE (“aorist”) category was an
innovation of the so-called “Inner IE” parts of post-PIE dialect continuum, presumably innovated in close areal contact. It is mistaken
to reconstruct the traditional array of characterized aorist stems for
PIE, except for the athematic reduplicated aorist, but this must have
had a more specified (COMPLETIVE) meaning. Even “root aorist”
stems cannot be rendered canonical PERFECTIVE stems in PIE because many of them were still compatible with the progressive aspect, e.g. *dhéh1ti (Pooth 2016).
10
García Ramón (1998) noticed the suppletion of Vedic pres. hánti
vs. aor. vádhīt. But the lack of corresponding suppletive pairs
N E W T R E N D S I N I N D O - E U R O P E A N L I N G U I S T I C S Number 3
I return to the emergence of the “primary endings” and
“secondary endings” in more detail below. To sum up,
the back-projection of the Vedic and Greek so-called
“primary endings” onto PIE seems to be an anachronistic
mistake (thus already Beekes 1985).
1.3.3. The PIE collective number
Another example of a PIE category that was obviously
modified in post-PIE times is provided by the PIE COLLECTIVE (UNCOUNTABLE GROUP PLURAL) number category. E.g., PIE *uédor ~ *uédorh2 ‘water(s)’ (>*u̯ édo:(r))
besides PIE *uódr ~ *uóh1r ‘water’ (> Hittite wātar,
etc.). It relevant for the methodological purpose pursued
here to recognize that this number category is not maintained as a number category in any IE language. Nevertheless, it is one of the rare categories that comparative
philologists reconstruct for PIE grammar (see the discussion by Eichner 1985, Litscher 2014), even if this category is no longer existing in this particular function in the
old IE languages.
The PIE collective number forms are continued as neuter singular or plural, or feminine singular forms in the
later period: e.g., PIE *dóru-h2 ‘wood-COL’ → IE ‘woodPL’; Greek has a nom.-acc. SINGULAR n. τό ὕδωρ, gen.
ὕδατος ‘water’, whereas Hittite has a PLURAL n. widār ~
witār ~ wedār ‘waters’ (vs. sg. wātar ‘water’). The Greek
and Hittite forms seem to go back to PIE *uédor(h2)
(*udón, *udnós). The locative and the oblique forms are
continued as Vedic udán, udnás, etc. Greek reflects the
generalized zero-graded root *ud- but the original accent
on the root, whereas Hittite has the accent outside the
root. It is thus a well-known comparative fact that the IE
outcomes of PIE *uédor(h2) belong to different IE singular vs. plural number categories. Even if it is often assumed that *uédor(h2) was a neuter “singular” form that
could be used as a plural number form, it is clear that it
must have had a plural-like meaning in PIE.
For these reasons, Pooth (2015) has drawn the inference
that *uédor- was transnumeral and had both a GENERIC
reading ‘water in general, water as type’ and an uncountable COLLECTIVE number reading ‘group of waters’ (but
I only mention this here; discussing this hypothesis is not
necessary.)
The relevant methodological point is that the PIE form
*uédor(h2) is continued in different IE languages by two
different categories. Therefore, this comparative fact justifies the general assumption that there were major
speaks in favor of parallel but independent root suppletion in Ancient Greek vs. Vedic (Kölligan 2007).
5
changes of original PIE derivational and inflectional
grammatical categories (e.g. number categories).
To sum up, I consider it imperative that within a proper
linguistic reconstruction of the common ancestor of all
Indo-European languages it must be our task and duty to
reveal the semantic nature of all these lost and modified
categories by means of internal reconstruction grounded
in cross-linguistic patterns and based on general linguistic typology. Also, we must find reasonable motives for
why these categories were given up or modified when the
protolanguage broke up and developed into a bundle of
dialects.
To be clear, I think that it is unreasonable, and a kind
of “naïve skepticim”, to a priori doubt or neglect the realistic and probable existence of PIE grammatical distinctions that were different from the ones existing in IE
languages. All historical linguists are well aware that categories continually change their functional nature and
that such changes can happen quickly and radically. Assuming that the opposite was true for the period in between PIE and IE is contradicted by the overall cross-linguistic diachronic evidence. In my view, such a state of
mind is not a fruitful skeptical position.
2.
Comparative settings
Before we can analyze the Proto-Indo-European word
forms, we need to make use of the comparative method.
It is a comparative fact that the IE correspondences and
word or morph equations point to minimally three differently encoded third person finite verb forms, both singular forms (*-o, *-to *-sto), and plural forms (Figure 3).
These third person forms are provisionally termed D for
the ones with the segment *-t- (the voiceless alveolar
stop), S for the ones with the segment *-s- (the sibilant),
SD for the ones with a combined *-st-, and Z (zero) for
the ones without any of these segments. My further analysis is based on the following endings.
Figure 3. Active and “middle” endings
active
3SGZ
3SG.D
2PLD
2|3SGS
3SGSD
3PLZ
3PLD
3PLS
*-t*-te*-s*-er / -r̥
*-ent- / -n̥ t*-ers / -r̥ s
“middle”
*-o*-to*-so- (2SG)
*-stó*-ro*-ont- / -nto-
P O O T H , R O L A N D A . 2 0 2 1 . Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European
6
I use the term DETRANSITIVE (DTR) voice instead of
“middle” or “mediopassive” for the Proto-Indo-European
non-active voice category. I restrict the use of “middle”
to the post-PIE stage. The reasons for doing so have been
outlined in my dissertation (Pooth 2014). I must disagree
with the second anonymous reviewer, who believes that
active and detransitive cannot be used as terms for two
PIE voice categories.
Throughout the paper an opposition between “detransitive”
and “active” forms is discussed. These are categories of different type that should not be mixed up.
However, this comment is a gross misunderstanding of
both, the general linguistic terminology and the semantic
nature of crosslinguistic voice categories other than active and passive. The term “middle” is actually the one
that is less optimal, and detransitive is to be preferred at
minimum in Early Vedic and PIE.
I only reconstruct two voice categories for PIE, not
more than two. ACTIVE (LESS MARKED) voice vs. DETRANSITIVE (MORE MARKED) voice. The latter is what is sometimes termed “proto-middle” (Jasanoff 2003). It is a superordinate term for the common voice category that preceded the IE middle and perfect active forms, the Anatolian ḫi-conjugation, and many IE thematic active forms.
Its original functional scope is outlined in Pooth (2014)
and Pooth & Orqueda (2021).
The following forms are externally and internally reconstructable for a PIE stage. We can leave away unnecessary non-phonemic diacritics here.
*gwhén-s
*gwhn-só
wh
*g én-t
*gwhn-tó
*gwhn-ó
(TPǵénh1sto)
wh
The analysis is also based on three plural endings, at
least in the active voice:
*gwhn-ént
*gwhn-érs → *gwhn-éːr (via Szemerényi’s law)
IR
*gwhn-ér
*stéu-nt- / *dhughn̥ tó
*stéu-rs
IR
*stéu-r / *dhughró
IR
2.1. The alveolar morph *-tThe morph *-t- is usually taken for a regular fusional
third person singular portmanteau ending (e.g. *gwhént,
*gwhénti > Vedic hán, hánti etc.) However, many more
forms were marked by this morph *-t- in PIE; and the
alleged status as 3sg ending seem to be doubtful.
A segment *-t- is also found in the 3sg detransitive ending *-to- (> Vedic -ta = Greek -το = Hittite –ta etc.).
Since we also have an ending *-o- that lacks the *-t-, the
segmental string *-to- seems to consist of two separate
morphs, *-t- and detransitive *-o- (Pooth 2004a, 2009b,
2015). The third person plural forms displaying *-nt- vs.
*-nto- also show such a segment *-t-. Therefore, this segmental string seems to also consist of separable morphs
*-n- + *-t- and *-o-, respectively.
Figure 4. PIE forms exhibiting *-t-
+
*g n-ó > Young Avestan °γne (niγre). It can be equated
with the first part of Hittite kun-ati. I see no reason to doubt that
the latter reflects an old ending (pace the second anonymous
reviewer).
*gwhn̥ -tó is the expected 3sg with *-t-. It is based on many
other forms ending in *-to. This ending is widely attested.
*gwhn̥ -só is the expected form with *-s-. For -so cf. Greek ο, -σο (e.g. ἐφέρου ‘you were carried’) = Latin 2sg middle -re
(~ ris ~ rus), :: Vedic -se = Gothic -za, among others.
TP
ǵénh1sto is a Transponat of Vedic (á)jániṣṭa. It points to
a pleonastic ending *-sto-, which may be younger.
IR
*dhughn̥ tói > Vedic duhaté. EF-r̥ s is evidenced by Old Avestan cikōitǝrǝš. The k of Old Avestan cikōitǝrǝš (TPkwikwóitr̥ s)
may be analogical or points to variant with o-grade of the root
(Jasanoff 2003: 40, fn. 32). Old Avestan -ǝrǝ̄ points to *-r̥ without *-s.
TP
ǵusró is continued in Vedic ajuṣran. The Vedic 3pl middle
endings -ran, -ram go back to Proto-Indo-Iranic *-ra and PIE
*-ro. This was extended by *-n or *-m in paradigmatic analogy
to the 3pl active ending *-an < PIE *-ont or the 2d and 3du
active endings *-tām, *-tam, respectively.
IR
*stéu-nt- is based on the ablaut pattern of Vedic stáuti and
the corresponding Avestan participle stem stauuat- (nom. sg.
m. stauuas), which had the same structure. It is also based on
the 3pl ending of reduplicated patterns.
For all other matters, and for more equation formulas, I generally refer to the currently available handbooks.
ACT
DTR
DTR
ACT
DTR
3SG
*gwhént
*gwhntó
*stḗut
*stéuto
3PL
*gwhnént
*gwhnntó
*h1sónt → MIDDLE *h1sónto and
→ NEOACTIVE *h1sónt
*stéunt
*stéuont → *stéu̯ onto ~ *stéu̯ n̥ to
The shift of former PIE proto-middle forms to active
(neo-active) voice can be well-motivated on syntactic
grounds. I refer to my recent publication on this matter
(Pooth & Orqueda 2021). The term “neo-active” means
“ex-proto-middle form reanalyzed as new active form”
(cf. Jasanoff 2003).
The PIE 3pl detransitive form *h1sónt (vs. active
*h1sént) was reanalyzed as neo-active form from PIE to
post-PIE (Pooth 2011; 2014: chapters 7-8; Pooth &
Orqueda 2021).
N E W T R E N D S I N I N D O - E U R O P E A N L I N G U I S T I C S Number 3
7
Thus, it seems quite clear that an innovative pleonastic
3pl middle ending *-onto (> Hittite -anta = Vedic -anta,
etc.) developed from *-ont with further attachment of the
final *-o in analogy to *-n̥ to.
In addition to its occurrence in 3person forms, the segment *-t- is part of the 2pl endings *-te- (e.g. *h1stén(i);
*-teni is continued as Hittite -teni). There were a few analogical variants like *-tes. It is further part of the postPIE middle endings 2sg *-th2e- (with various analogical
extensions) and 2pl *-th2e(n).
It is a synchronic Vedic fact, that Early Vedic sigmatic
aorists typically pattern together with optatives that are
still asigmatic (Figure 7; Table 1).
Early Vedic sigmatic optatives derived from sigmatic
aorist stems are extremely infrequent. There are some
middle forms, for instance a 1sg aor. opt. mid. masīya
from 1man- ‘to think’, etc. However, the other optatives
are root optatives and are not derived from the underlying
sigmatic stem, but are templatically derived from the Vedic root, which is the basis for verb inflection in Early
Vedic.
Figure 5. More endings with internal *-t-
Figure 8. List of Vedic sigmatic aorist forms
2PL.ACT
2SG.DTR
2PL.DTR
2SG.DTR
2|3COL.DTR
*gwhnté*gwhnth2é*gwhnth2é*uóidth2e
*gwhntéh2-
→ 2pl active *-te→ 2sg middle *-thās
→ 2pl neo-active *-tha
→ 2sg neo-active *-tha
→ 2du neo-active *-tā(m)
I think that a detransitive ending preceded the Vedic 2pl active primary endung -tha ~-thanā̆.
Likewise, the IE 2/3DUAL active endings go back to prior
proto-middle 2|3collective (COL) forms (Pooth 2011).
2.2. The sibilant morph *-s- and Vedic
evidence for 3sg -s
In this section, I argue that we need to reconstruct a third
person singular ending *-s in one of the pre-Vedic stages
serving as the basis for the emergence of the so-called
“precative” optative aorist. This development runs in parallel with the one of the sigmatic aorist stem from 3sg
form with an inflectional suffix *-s- (thus already Watkins 1962; Figure 6).
Figure 6. The origin of the sigmatic stem (Watkins 1962)
3sg asigmatic
3sg sigmatic
*sḗǵh-t
*sḗǵh-s → *sḗǵh-st → TPsḗǵh-s-t
Thus, it is reasonable to claim that the morph *-s- was
not originally a sigmatic stem suffix but an inflectional
suffix in PIE. In order to back my claim up with evidence,
I provide a relevant example for the morphotactic tendency to generate stem suffixes out of former endings. It
should be kept in mind that this is an actually attested
case of what has been outlined by Watkins (1962).
3sg apās (root aorist?) aprās ahās hā́ s ájaiṣ yaus akṣār
atsār abhār bhā́ r asvār atān ayān áchān ákrān asyān
bhāk aprāṭ adhāk dhāk avāṭ ā ́ raik acait aśvait adyaut
dyaut asrāk (ānīt akārīt gārīt cārīt árāvīt asāvīt svānīt,
Narten 1964: 53f.)
2sg prā́ s (root aorist?) 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
3du asvārṣṭām
There is only one possible scenario that plausibly helps
to understand the Early Vedic situation. It runs as follows: We must conclude that the active forms of the optative were not derived from an underlying stem via linear suffixation in Early Vedic, but were derived templatically from the root as the ultimate inflectable base. Only
a few morphotactically younger forms are derived in a
de-thematic way from the sigmatic stem, e.g. masīya.
This was correctly seen by Jasanoff (2003):
The root aorist optative forms ... are simply the forms that
Indo-Iranian inherited from the optative of the PIE presigmatic aorist. Since the spread of *-s- across the extended
paradigm of the presigmatic aorist had apparently not yet
affected the optative in the parent language, Vedic and
Avestan continue to associate s-aorist indicatives ... with
optatives of ... root aorists. (Jasanoff 2003: 185)
The association of Vedic root optatives such as avyā-s,
etc. with the sigmatic aorist thus strengthens the hypothesis that the sigmatic aorist itself developed from a sigmatic 3sg belonging to a PIE root formation (Figure 6).
Figure 7. Vedic sigmatic stems and root optatives
2.2.1. The Vedic evidence
sigmatic stem
āvīt, āvīṣ-ur
(ví) yauṣ, yauṣ-úr
sákṣantmardhīṣ, mardhiṣ-ṭam
The scenario of the inflectional prehistory of the sigmatic
stem suffix is underpinned by the following evidence in
A, B, C, D (see also Kümmel 2015+, 2016, 2018).
root optative (see Table 1)
av-yā-s
(ví) yū-yā-s
sah-yā-s, sah-y-ur, sāh-yā-ma
mr̥ dh-yā-s
P O O T H , R O L A N D A . 2 0 2 1 . Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European
8
Table 1. Early Vedic 3sg 2sg root aorist optatives and their 1sg 1pl 3pl forms
verb
3SG
2SG
avyās
avyās
r̥ dhyās
r̥ dhyās
gam
gamyā́ s
gamyās
jñā
jñeyā ́ s
dah
daghyās
naś
aśyās
pā
peyās
bhū
bhūyā́ s
mr̥ dh
mr̥ dhyās
yam
yamyās
av
i
r̥ dh
3PL
1SG
1PL
r̥ dhyā́ ma
kr̥
kriyāma ~ kriyāsma
aśyur
bhūyā́ s
yā
aśyā́ m
aśyā́ ma
bhūyāsam
bhūyā́ ma
yeṣam
yu
yūyās
vr̥ j
vr̥ jyās
śru
śrūyā́ s
sah
sahyās
vr̥ jyā́ m
vr̥ jyā́ ma
śrūyāsam (AV)
sahyur
A. R̥ gvedic active sigmatic aorists frequently occur in
the 3sg (Narten 1964, Lubotsky 1997), see the list of
forms in Figure 8 (which includes the irregular “precative” jéṣma).
The isolated 3sg aor. act. acait ā ́ raik (a)dyaut are attested besides root aorist middles ácidhvam rikthās dyutāná- (Kümmel 2012, 2018), cf. YV (a)mauk besides AV
ámok, RV ámugdhvam (Kümmel 2018).
Possible relics of a 3sg SE -s are (as per Kümmel 2016,
2018):
(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 notice that Hittite pāšš-ḫi and Luwian pašš- ‘swallow’ point
to a PIE suffix (enlargement) *-s-.
(2) aprās ‘has/have filled’ RV (10x 3sg, 1x 2sg), subj. prā ́ s
(= pra.as), imp. prā ́ si, 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 r̥ tā́ vā hótā tám ū námobhir ā́ kr̥ ṇudhvam | agnír yád
vér mártāya devā́ n sá cā bódhāti mánasā yajāti is unlikely to
be *vay-ī-ṣ (Kümmel 2018).
(4) dhāyīṣ (RV 1.147.5d) utá vā yáḥ sahasiya pravidvā ́ n
márto mártaṃ marcáyati dvayéna | átaḥ pāhi stavamāna stuvántam ágne mā ́ kir no duritā ́ ya dhāyīḥ “Ja auch, du Starker,
welcher Sterbliche mit Vorsatz einen Sterblichen durch seine
zwei (Hände) schädigt, vor dem schütze, du Gepriesener, den
sāhyā́ ma
Preisenden. Agni, dass nicht irgendwer uns dem Unglück
übergebe!” (RP). 3sg is possible, because it usually occurs with
mā ́ kiṣ (Kümmel 2018).
(5) dhās HirGS 1.13.15 ĀpMB 2.10.17 tan ma ūrjaṃ dhāḥ
“[d]as verschaffe mir Kraft!” (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 (Narten
1964: 151f., Kümmel 2016). Here may belong Messapic
hipades ‘ἀνέθηκε’ (lit. ‘κατέθηκε’?) with -des (likely -dēs) <
*dhéh1-s – and other such sigmatic forms (D. Kilday p.c.).
(6) bhūṣ (optative syās?) in RV 10.11.9 = 12.9cd ā ́ no vaha
ródasī deváputre mā ́ kir devā ́ nām 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 mā ́ kiṣ (Kümmel 2018).
(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) (Narten 1964: 180, Anm.
515).
However, potential grammatical mistakes are (as per Kümmel
2018): TS/TB: TS 2,2,12,6 agnír dā dráviṇaṃ vīrápeśāḥ ~ dād
RV 10,80,4 TS 5,6,8,6 pitā ́ mātaríśvā ́ chidrā padā ́ dhāḥ (= AB
2,38,6f.) ~ dhāt KS 40,6 TB 2,5,4,15 ná=atārīr asya sámr̥ tiṃ
vadhā ́ nām ~ ná=atārīd RV 1,32,6 KB 27,4 asmāsu nr̥ mṇaṃ
dhāḥ ~ ā ́ smā ́ su nr̥ mṇaṃ dhāt MS 1,9,1: 131,9 TA 3,1,1.
N E W T R E N D S I N I N D O - E U R O P E A N L I N G U I S T I C S Number 3
B. Early Vedic exhibits a 3sg aor. opt. act. secondary
ending -s. Table 1 provides a list of the R̥ gvedic 3sg active so-called “precatives” and some corresponding root
aor. opt. active forms, cf. also AVŚ 16.2.4 śrūyāsam (for
jéṣma see above).
R̥ gvedic 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 r̥ dhet gamet -yamet vocet, VS vidét, pres. syā ́ t
bhávet, likewise 3sg perf. opt. forms, e.g. dadhyā ́ t
jagamyāt juguryā ́ t, 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- (thus
*ja(y)-īṣ-?). A 3sg in *°eṣ is not attested, but this can be
accidental (Kümmel 2016, 2018; 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 (1967b: 28), but such
an analysis is implausible and ad hoc:
Hier konnte beim Optativ das s-Formans vermißt worden
sein [but why? This assumption is not justified, nor
plausible]. 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. (Hoffmann 1967: 28; emphasis of “vermißt” mine)
Thus Jasanoff (1991: 113f.; 2003: 186ff.) (starting from
*-ī-ṣ → -yā-s), Harðarson (1993: 109-112), Gotō (2013:
93f.).
However, such an assumption is ad hoc and not plausible because the substitution usually takes the o p p o s i t e
d i r e c t i o n , and -s is replaced by -t, e.g. iṣ-aor. *átārHs(t)
> *átārīṣ → átārī-t ... ágrabhī-ṣ, ágrabhī-t, likewise ānīt
akārīt gārīt cārīt árāvīt asāvīt svānīt (Narten 1964: 53f.).
Thus, Hoffmann’s idea does not conform to the attested
inner-Vedic tendencies, also because the evident tendencies are the following:
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; Kümmel 2015+, 2018; Narten 1964: 200,
273); abhinas AVP 13.4.2 for RV abhinat < *abʱinat-s
(Kümmel 2015+, 2018, Hoffmann 1965: 188f. = 1975:
179f., cf. Pāṇ. 8.2.75).
2. RV bhūyā́ s → AV bhūyā-t confirms a spread of -t as
3sg ending, i.e., -t replaces -s from RV to AV, not vice
versa (Hoffmann 1967: 29 = 1976: 469). Likewise,
RVKh ájait, AV+ (a)nait aprāt ahāt, etc. for *ájaiṣ
9
*ánaiṣ aprās ahās; cf. also VS asrat for *asras (Kümmel
2015+, 2018).
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 aorist (Narten
1964: 71), cf. AV+ avāts-īt, dhākṣ-īt, anaikṣ-īt besides
regular 1sg -s-am, etc.
For the given reasons, a younger emergence of a 3sg
ending -s is highly unlikely. The -s is much more plausibly an (archaic) 3sg ending, and I think Burrow was correct about it from the beginning:
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).
Old Avestan corresponds to Early Vedic in this respect.
To sum up, it is evident that the 2sg 3sg -yā́ -s was reanalyzed as *-yā́ s-Ø with 2sg 3sg zero ending -Ø and
spread over to a few 1st person forms. 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 (Harðarson 1993: 110,
Kümmel 2018).
This is an attested case of WATKINS’ TRANSFORMATON,
because the 2|3sg form with ending -s is reanalyzed as a
stem suffix plus zero ending within Early Vedic.
The same is quite likely for *-s → *-s-Ø and other IE
stem suffixes in a period before Vedic. It should be
acknowledged that the transformation/reanalysis is evident and provable within Early Vedic. This can finally
back up the assumption of a similar morphotactic reanalysis in a preceding stage, where pretty much the same
thing happened to the ending *-s when it was reanalyzed
as sigmatic aorist stem suffix.
Figure 9. List of Vedic forms
1sg
2sg
3sg
1pl
3pl
2du
diṣīya (3dā ‘distribute’) bhakṣīyá masīya (1man
‘think’) mukṣīya rāsīya
maṃsīṣṭhās
darṣīṣṭa maṃsīṣṭa mr̥ kṣīṣṭa yāsīṣṭa (2yā), redupl. aor.
rīriṣīṣṭa (RV 6.51.7d) ririṣīṣṭa (RV 8.18.13c), root
aor. padīṣṭá (5x RV),
bhakṣīṣṭa (AB)
bhakṣīmáhi maṃsīmáhi vaṃsīmáhi ~ vasīmahi
sakṣīmáhi
maṃsīrata
trā́ sīthām
10
P O O T H , R O L A N D A . 2 0 2 1 . Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European
C. More sigmatic endings in Early Vedic
Early Vedic had corresponding 2sg and 3sg aor. opt.
mid. endings -sthās, -sta. The R̥ gveda displays special
sigmatic 2sg 3sg aor. opt. endings, cf. also SV bhakṣ-ī-ta
~ AB bhakṣ-ī-ṣṭa (Narten 1964: 43ff.). See the following
list of forms (Figure 9).
R̥ gvedic iṣ-aorist “precative” middles are 3sg janiṣīṣṭa
vaniṣīṣṭa, 1pl tāriṣīmahi, vandiṣīmahi sāhiṣīmahi (cf.
Narten 1964: 67), cf. 2sg yāsisīṣṭhās (RV 4.1.4b), AV
maṃsīṣṭhā ́ s sāsahīṣṭhā ́ s modiṣīṣṭhās. Thematic aor.
videṣṭa (AV 2.36.6), śoceṣṭa (+śuceṣṭa) ĀpMB 1.9.3
(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+, 2018: “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-Iranic
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- ~
i
ric ‘let’, pres. irinaxti). These sigmatic 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 ririṣīṣṭa (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 clearly
contradict the idea of a secondary “precativization”.
D. On the origin of RV -jániṣṭa
The type RV -jániṣṭa was (unconvincingly) 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+, 2018). Insler (1995) suggests that 2sg -ṣṭhās < *-s-th2e-, but as seen by Kümmel
(2015+, 2018), 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-Iranic root aor. mid. 2sg */ʥánHstHās/, 3sg */ʥánH-sta/ < *ǵénh1-sto with 3sg ending *sto, thus likewise PII*/ʥánH-stām/ < *ǵénh1-stah2(m).
NB. A proto-middle origin is evident for the 2du 3du
forms RV janiṣṭām, AV janiṣṭam, since -jániṣ- is otherwise middle all over (medium tantum). Another otherwise fully middle paradigm (-vr̥ ṇī-) also includes 2du 3du
“active” RV 1.180.4b avr̥ ṇītam, AVP 1.92.1 vr̥ ṇītām.
Moreover, the Vedic 3rd dual ending -tām < *-tah2(m) is
still used as a middle (not active) ending in RV 10.4.6,
where 3du adhītām (-tām) even has a passive meaning
and belongs to the aorist middle (adhithās, adhita,
adhīmahi, etc.), cf.
RV 10.4.6 tanūtyájeva táskarā vanargū́ raśanā́ bhir daśábhir
abhi àdhītām
“So wie zwei den Leib hingebende, im Wald umhergehende
Räuber, mit den zehn Zügeln (raśanā́ bhir daśábhir, sc. mit den
10 Fingern) wurden die beiden (sc. Reibhölzer) [...] festgemacht” (Pooth 2011).
2.2.2. Comparative evidence for 3sg *-s
There are obvious IE comparanda. These also point to an
inflectional 3sg suffix *-s.
Hittite shows sigmatic ~ asigmatic 3sg pret. act. endings, e.g. ākiš (a-ak-ki-iš) (OS) → ak-ta (NS, OH/NS
NH) (Melchert & Hoffner Jr. 2008: 189, 215; Kloekhorst
2008: 167), cf. also OH a-ša-aš-ta from the ḫi-pres. ašaši
(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) (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)) (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)) (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, see Oettinger 2002: 408, Kloekhorst
2008: 328).
The Proto-Anatolian sigmatic ending *-s(t) p e r f e c t l y
e q u a t e s with Proto-Indo-Iranic *-s(t) (and its middle
counterpart *-sta). Tocharian AB also show sigmatic 2sg
2pl 3sg act. pret. endings, cf. Figures 10ab (Malzahn
2010: 38ff. and chapters 7-9).
Figures 10a (Malzahn 2010: 38ff. and chapters 7-9)
2sg
3sg
2pl
ā̆-inflection
TB
TA
-ā̆sta
-āṣt
-a
-Ø/-āṃ
-ā̆s(o) -ās
non-ā̆-inflection
TB
TA
-asta
-äṣt
-sa
-äs/-sām
-as/-so
reconstruction
PT
*-stā
*-sā
*-sä ~ *-så
(NB. Malzahn 2010: 514 reconstructs PT 2pl *-sās)
N E W T R E N D S I N I N D O - E U R O P E A N L I N G U I S T I C S Number 3
Figures 10b (Malzahn 2010: 38ff. and chapters 7-9)
2sg
3sg
2pl
2pl
PT
*-stā
*-sā
*-sä
*-så
reflecting
*-sth2e
*-sh2e (?)
*-se or *-so
*-seh2
internally comparable with
*-th2e
*-th2e
*-te, *-ste, 2sg *-sto
*-teh2- (> PII 2/3du *-tām)
When taken together, the comparative evidence points
to a 2sg proto-middle segmental string *-sth2e(i), cf.
Proto-Tocharian 2sg pret. *-stā, Hittite (NH) 2sg pret.
ind. -(i)šta (e.g. pa-it-ta (OH/MS), pé(-e)eš-ta (NH);
Kloekhorst 2008: 614), Latin 2sg perf. ind. act. -istī < istei, e.g. CIL 10 gesistei, Greek -σθα, e.g. Homeric
Greek τίθησθα, etc.
It is conclusive that the traditional segmentation into
sigmatic stem plus ending †-s-th2e(i) must be an anachronistic mistake.
It has been suggested that Hittite -(i)šta is an inner-Anatolian creation (differently Jasanoff 2003: 119,
Kloekhorst 2008: 802). But this hypothesis is rather
weakened by the IE equations. 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 (Kloekhorst 2007). This points to PIE
sigmatic 2pl active endings *-ste(-), *-ste(n)(i). Therefore, Latin °sti° (-istis) and Hittite -šte° (-šten(i)) make
up a comparative equation that is unlikely secondary at
least with regard to the sigmatic morph.
An interesting and relevant paradigm regarding the sigmatic morph in Early Vedic is the one of 1sg cyávam, 3pl
cyavante (:: Old Avestan š́ auuaitē), which has a sigmatic
2sg cyoṣṭhās. These two forms point to a PIE “Narten” (=
durative) proto-middle 1sg *kwiéuh2e(i) (TPkwi̯ éu̯ (h2)om),
3sg *kwiéuo(i), 3pl *kwi̯ éu̯ n̥ to(i) ~ *kwi̯ éu̯ onto(i) and a sigmatic 2sg *kwiéusth2e (later + TP-es) (2/3collective
*kwi̯ éusteh2).
Remarkably, Vedic 2sg cyoṣṭhās has the sibilant exactly in the paradigmatic position where we would expect
it from the given comparative perspective – and thus
points to an ending *-sth2e(-).
2.2.3. Pleonasm *-s → *-st
It is conclusive that PIE had a set of 2sg 3sg (2pl 3pl)
sigmatic endings (thus also Kümmel 2016, 2018) with a
hitherto UNKNOWN function – one that should have been
different from *-t-.
Figure 11. Post-PIE pleonasms
PIE
*-s
*-so
*-(e)rs
post-PIE, dialectal
~ *-st → *-s-t
~ *-sto → *-s-to
→ *-sn̥ t, *-sn̥ to, *-sonto → *-s-n̥ t, *-s-n̥ to, ...
11
These endings merged with the non-sigmatic ones
yielding PLEONASMS, e.g. PIE *klép-t → root aorist (vs.
*klḗp-t → “Narten type”), PIE *klép-s → *klép-st →
post-PIE sigmatic aor. *klép-s-t, cf. Latin clepsit ~ clēpit
(Pike 2009), and likewise *klḗp-s → *klḗp-st → sigmatic
aor. *klḗp-s-t.
Latin thus shows clear reflexes of both *klḗp-t and
*klép-s. The corresponding middle *klépto → post-PIE
*klḗptor(i) with analogical lengthened grade > Toch. A
klyepträ ‘touches’.
Cf. further Vedic (á)stóṣṭa < TPstéusto.
The sigmatic segment was transferred to other persons.
This assumption is paralleled and thus backed up by the
development of sigmatic root aorist optative forms to
“precative” stems in Early Vedic. We can conclude that
the sigmatic aorist suffix, both its form (as a stem) and its
function (as aorist), should NOT be reconstructed for the
common protolanguage of Hittite, Tocharian, Vedic,
Greek.
The reconstruction of a sigmatic aorist stem for the
common proto-language of all IE languages seems to be
a severe anachronistic mistake. Like the Anatolian
branch, PIE obviously lacked a sigmatic aorist stem.
Based on the comparative method it seems true that the
addition of *-t- to *-s- yielded *-st- Initiually, this was a
secondary suffix pleonasm, similar to the one that affected the old so-called “dental-less ending” of the 3sg
middle, cf. Hittite -at = Vedic 3sg aor. injunctive middle
-at (aduhat) < *-ot with additional morph *-t vs. earlier
*-o without *-t.
A primary status of *-s- (and *-st-) as ending is evident
from Hittite and Vedic. The same status seems to hold for
Proto-Tocharian and Toch. A and B (Figures 10ab; Malzahn 2010: 38-44, 192).
Cf. also Toch. A -ṣ (< TP-si); Vedic (ŚB) °seci (<
*sóikwi) vs. Toch. A 3sg subj. V sekaṣ (TPsóikwHsi). Recall that *-a- < *-H- was generalized as a stem suffix in
Proto-Tocharian (Jasanoff 2003, chapter 6-7, §93ff.;
Malzahn 2010: 274-316; with further references).
The old assumption that the *-s- was lost in the first
person and third person plural forms in Proto-Tocharian
and Proto-Anatolian is highly unlikely.
To conclude, the pre-Vedic “secondary ending” of the
3sg *-s (or *-st) clearly corresponds to Hittite -š, -št(a).
This correspondence can be taken for an external comparative proof that *-s (or *-st) occurred in PIE 3sg forms
(Figure 12).
Figure 12. A Hittite-Vedic equation
Hittite
-š, -št(a) =
Vedic
-s
PIE
*-s
P O O T H , R O L A N D A . 2 0 2 1 . Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European
12
However, such a comparative equation must still be a
mystery and riddle for comparative philology, because
“another” third-person singular ending *-s alongside *-t
does not make much functional sense when interpreted
within the canon of categories expressed by the “secondary” endings. However, the two variants are much more
important than hitherto assumed.
We can conclude that this suffix was the same sibilant
morph *-s- that developed into a sigmatic stem suffix
from post-PIE to Proto-Indo-Iranic and Proto-Greek and
some other IE languages – either by the time some of
them (perhaps) formed a common proto-sub-branch or
independently from each other in close areal contact.
It is conclusive that several IE languages other than
Proto-Anatolian and Proto-Germanic reflect a post-PIE
morphological reanalysis of the first part of *-st- as a new
sigmatic stem suffix (→ EF-s-t).
Based on the given comparative evidence, it is further
possible to reconstruct a proto-middle counterpart *-so~ *-sto- via internal reconstruction, e.g. *stéuso ~
*stéusto > Vedic (á)stóṣṭa. It is quite likely that the ending *-so- (> Proto-Indo-Iranic 2sg pres. ind. mid. *-sai,
Proto-Greek *-soi, etc.) was not an original PIE second
person form, but a PIE second-and-third person form.
If true, it was reinterpreted as a post-PIE 2sg middle
ending due to the following analogy proportion:
2sg *-si :: 3sg *-ti = X → 2sg *-so- :: 3sg *-to-
2.2.4. Corresponding *-r-s
The corresponding sigmatic 3pl forms were obviously
marked by a sigmatic 3pl ending *-rs (*-r̥ s), cf. Old
Avestan 3pl cikōit-ǝrǝš.
The third person plural optative form, e.g. Vedic syúr,
seems to go back to *h1s-ih1-r̥ ́ s (or *h1s-ih1-r̥ ́ ). This 3pl
form *h1s-ih1-r̥ ́ s seems to be a blend of the endings -r̥ s
and -érs, and was thus preceded by PIE *h1sih1érs. This
form, in turn, was structured like the one with the alveolar
morph *h1sih1ént > Old Latin sient.
The same ending *-rs is found with e-grade (*-eːr) reflected as Hittite 3pl preterit active ending -er (~ -īr ~ eir ~ -ēr) < *-eːr.
This is a relatively obvious outcome of the PIE wordfinal sequence */érs/ via Szemerényi’s law (Jasanoff
2003). It is continued as the first part of Old Latin -ēre
and -ērunt (< *-eːr extended by *-i and *-ont, respectively (Weiss 2009: 393).
To conclude, *-rs is separable into two agglutinated
morphs:
*-r- (3PLURAL) + *-s (category S)
2.3. The zero morph
A third 3person finite verb form was the so-called “dental-less stative” form (e.g. Vedic śáye etc.). However, the
term “stative” is functionally inappropriate because these
do not have an overall stative meaming (Pooth 2000).
Such 3sg forms were marked by the absence of the two
morphs *-s- or *-t- in the slot to the left of the *-o- in PIE
detransitive forms like *stéuo(i).
*-Øo- :: *-so- :: *-toCf. Young Avestan +ni-γne ‘is knocked down’ = kuna°
of Hittite kunati, Vedic stáve ‘is praised’, etc. The plural
forms, e.g. *ǵusró (from *ǵeus- ‘to taste, choose; please
someone; like, find pleasure in something’) were marked
by *-ro(-) without any sibilant or alveolar morph (cf. RV
1.71.1b ajuṣran). The corresponding active plural forms
were marked by the *-r (*-r̥ ) with no further extension,
cf. Old Avestan -ǝrǝ̄.
The form *-er with e-grade is still found as the first part
of Old Latin 3pl perfect ind. -erunt < *-er + (extended
11
by) *-ont/*-n̥ t.
The third person singular forms of the *uóide(i) type
and a zero-marked 3sg form *ǵónh1(i) of a “pre-passiveaorist inflectional type” also belonged to this category Z,
simply because there is no stop *-t- or sibilant *-s- before
the vowel in *uóid-e(i) and *ǵónh1(i).
Figure 14. PIE forms exhibiting zero
3SG
ACT
DTR
ACT
DTR
DTR
DTR
ACT
It is not necessary to reconstruct *-is-ont in this particular case
(pace Weiss 2009: 393). Jasanoff 2003: 33, fn. 11 claims that -erunt
> Vedic duhé, duhré
cf. Old Avestan -ǝrǝ̄
> Vedic 3sg śáye
> Vedic 3sg véda etc.
> Vedic 3sg jani, ájani
→ Old Latin dederunt
...
DTR
11
3PL
*gwhnér
*dhughó(i) *dhughró(i)
*mélh2rA
*ḱéio(i)
*uóide(i) IRmelh2órB
*ǵónh1(i)C
*di-dh3ér
*dé-dh3oD
should go back to *-iront (cf. -imus, etc.), but this is likewise unnecessary: -erunt from *-er is straightforward.
N E W T R E N D S I N I N D O - E U R O P E A N L I N G U I S T I C S Number 3
Additional notes to this Figure 14.
A. This 3pl form belonged to the *stḗuti type. The protoactive forms of the this so-called “Narten type” merged with the
PIE *uóide(i) type yielding a post-PIE new imperfective (including habitual) mixed paradigm *u̯ óid-ei, *u̯ óid-e ~ *u̯ ḗids(t) (Jasanoff 2003; Pooth 2016, 2017).
B. I think that, e.g., IRmelh2ór ‘they (always) grind’ was the
original 3pl form of the *mólh2e(i) type. This form must have
been modified to post-PIE *melh2r̥ ́ (s) ~ *molh2r̥ ́ (s) with and
without paradigmatically levelled o-grade. Some plural form,
e.g. *u̯ id-r̥ ́ (s), had zero-grade in analogy to the other non-reduplicated 3pl forms *gwhnéːr, *gwhnént, etc. The analogical
spread of the zero-grade in such 3pl forms is supported, e.g., by
Vedic stuvánti ← *stéu̯ n̥ ti. Kloekhorst (2012) thinks that Hittite
would confirm that the zero-grade was original in this type, but
Jasanoff (2003: §27) is correct by claiming that there is independent evidence for an e-grade in the corresponding reduplicated type, cf. Vedic ádīdhayur, avivyacur, where the guṇa ablaut-grade of the root must be archaic. Therefore, there is Vedic
evidence for a 3sg perfect *u̯ eu̯ i̯ ókwe :: 3pl with e-grade
*u̯ eu̯ i̯ ekwr̥ ́ (s) besides *u̯ eu̯ idr̥ ́ (s). As just mentioned, I follow the
idea that the *u̯ óide(i) type merged with the “Narten type”
*stḗus(t) (and *stḗut) in Late PIE (Jasanoff 2003). Within a
“mixed paradigm” we can expect the given IE ablaut variants.
Recall that Hittite -ar can go back to both *-r̥ and *-or.
C. The PIE *ǵónh1(i) type merged with the aorist-like part
of the *ǵusó or *dhughó(i) type in post-PIE. This yielded another mixed paradigm which is reflected as Vedic middle root
aorist. Vedic abudhran abudhram both go back to *bhudhró. I
assume that forms of this shape originally belonged to the
*dhughó(i) type and were structured in parallel with *dhughntó(i)
(with *-r- instead of *-nt-). I think that the old 3pl form belonging to *ǵónh1(i) was *ǵnh1ór. Its structure matches the one of
*h1sónt(i) (again with *-r- instead of *-nt-). The issues with this
merger are a bit more intricate; 3pl forms of this type seem to
be allomorphs of the type that once corresponded to the amphikinetic active forms, cf. 3pl active *h1sént(i) :: 3pl protomiddle *h1sónt(i). I will have to return to this difficult matter
elsewhere. It is not relevant here.
D. This zero-marked form was later pleonastically extended
by the productive 3sg ending *-to(i) in post-PIE first yielding
*dédh3oto(i) → later analogical *dédh3eto(i) > Vedic dáda-te
(Pooth 2014).
2.4. Number marking by means of vowel
transposition
In several published and pre-published papers of mine
(Pooth 2004a, 2009b, passim), I have made the analytical
claim that the morph *-m- marking the 1sg active (“present” and “aorist”) forms was not specified for number
and the very same morph that also marked the 1pl (exclusive) active and middle endings
13
*h1és-m- :: *h1s-m-é(-s)
Actually, there is hitherto no alternative explanation for
why *-m- occurred in both forms that can explain the
concomitant ablaut alternation at the same time. The pattern is paralleled by the relationship between what is usually reconstructed as 3sg and 2pl forms, respectively.
*h1és-t- :: *h1s-t-é(-n)
On this additional structural basis, I can base my inferences that the morph *-t- was originally the same
morph marking both 3sg and 2pl forms with the difference in number being marked by the position of the
vowel _é_ within the word form via internal reconstruction.
I also reconstruct the following minimal pair now.
*dʰéh1-s- :: IR*dʰh1-s-é(-n)
We can see that the position of the vowel outside the
base (or root) encoded derived forms that were internally
derived and internally modified from underlying basic
forms. (We all know that similar patterns occurred in the
PIE noun inflection and derivation; and I claim that such
a system of internal modifications constitutes the origin
of IE ablaut.)
We have already seen that the same morphs also occur
in middle endings.
*´-o / *-ó
*´-t-o / *-t-ó
*´-s-o / *-s-ó
(not to forget TPstéusto > Vedic (á)stóṣṭa etc.)
We have also seen that the same morphs also occur in
3pl form. It is still a mystery why they are reconstructable
as a set of three forms with different shapes.
*-ér / *-r̥
*-én-t / *-n̥ -t
*-ér-s / *-r̥ -s
Given that this is an obvious marking pattern, I must
now claim that the morphs *-t- and *-s- cannot be original PIE person-and-number indexing morphs, but must
have had a different original function in PIE. It seems obvious to me that they had nothing to do with numbermarking, and I return to this matter below. Number was
originally coded either by a different position of the
vowel within the word form or by more specific number
suffixes (1PL *-s- and 2PL *-n-) or by combining both
strategies.
Even if I suppose that I am wrong, how can the devil’s
advocate explain the pattern differently and in a reasonable way? I cannot see a way that is more reasonable. I am
forced to analyze the pattern as I do here.
P O O T H , R O L A N D A . 2 0 2 1 . Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European
14
3. How to analyze these three morphs?
3.1. Three morphs for two IE functional
distinctions?
As a given result of the application of the comparative
method to the Indo-European material, the word forms
were coded by three different morphs
*-t-, *-s-, and zero
The comparative evidence, when taken together and analyzed this way, rather speaks against the existence of a
binary opposition of “primary” vs. “secondary” endings
in the common ancestor language. The most straightforward explanation is definitively not to leave the two ending sets the way they are in Greek and Vedic Sanskrit.
Not touching any IE functional distinctions would enforce us to functionally reduce the three morphs to just
two morphological categories because Greek and Vedic
both basically distinguish two opponent sets of “primary”
vs. “secondary” suffixes, not three (when we leave away
the special proto-middle endings of the perfect stem).
Given that the comparison actually leads to one more set,
such a reduction would need many troublesome ad hoc
explanations. In short, we would have to get rid of one of
the three sets. However, the less costly and easiest explanation is to infer that these three morphs once indicated
three different verbal categories, not two, simply because
their number is three, not two. These verbal categories
were presumably given up from PIE to post-PIE. They
are provisionally termed categories D, S, and Z here.
grammatical categories that have vanished or were modified in between PIE and its daughter languages.
Comparative philologists should really recognize that
this is an unfortunate blind spot of the comparative
method. When it is only this method that is applied to
grammatical categories, the results of comparison are unreliable and there is no chance whatsoever to uncover
morphosyntactic categories and syntactic constructions
that were lost or modified.
However, it is undeniable that the application of the
comparative method actually results in a formal distinction of three different morphs, not two. Assigning a functional value to these three morphs, therefore, cannot be
done by application of the comparative method. It must
be done via inductive reasoning against a background of
general linguistic diachronic typological knowledge and
findings.
As illustrated, it is evident that these three morphs functionally merged and were integrated into the bundle of
post-PIE so-called “secondary endings” in IE languages.
Consequently, I must claim that the development of specific “secondary” endings only followed the emergence
of the “primary” imperfective present forms and endings
from PIE PROGRESSIVE aspect forms, see Figure 15
(Pooth 2009a).
Figure 15. The origin of the IE endings from progressive and non-progressive forms (Pooth 2009a)
PROGRESSIVE
3.2. Assigning functions to D, S, Z other
than “primary” vs. “secondary”
A proper identification of the morphosyntactic functions
of these three lost verbal categories of PIE cannot be done
on the basis of IE correspondences and the comparative
method, because these three categories D, S, Z have vanished without a functional trace, leaving only formal
traces.
I can admit that a reconstruction of verbal categories
that are not in the canon of the IE verbal categories is not
provable and cannot be falsified by comparative means.
However, I can argue now that the lack of comparative
proof is just due to the use of the wrong method for this
particular purpose. The lack of comparative falsification
is a corollary of the problem that IE category equations
(e.g. Greek dual = Vedic dual, etc.) cannot be used for the
reconstruction of PIE categories and their exponents because they do not offer reliable results with regard to
initial functional shift
post-PIE
PIE
→
IMPERFECTIVE PRESENT
*-m-i
*-s-i
*-t-i
*-n-t-i
*-é-n-t-i etc.
*-mi
*-si
*-ti
*-n̥ ti
*-énti etc.
PIE
NON-PROG
second shift
post-PIE
“secondary” → perfective/preterit etc.
*-m
*-s
*-t
*-r-s etc.
*-m̥
*-s ~ *-st
*-t
*-r̥ s ~ *-r̥ etc.
The IE secondary functions of the “secondary” endings must not be functionally back-projected onto the
protolanguage. E.g., the overt coding of perfective (“aorist”) aspect and past tense is clearly secondary. Notice,
however, that I exclude the optative, whose function is
not secondary in my view. Optative-irrealis forms were
already optative (-irrealis) forms in PIE, but they lacked
the progressive suffix *-i for obvious reasons.
N E W T R E N D S I N I N D O - E U R O P E A N L I N G U I S T I C S Number 3
In short, I claim that the distinction of “primary” imperfective present endings from secondary endings is
only a post-PIE to post-PIE innovation. This may explain
relics like Vedic kr̥ thás (aorist injunctive) with irregular
“primary” ending (Pooth 2011: 478, fn. 12).
3.3. We can’t base the assignment on IE
categories at this stage
As outlined, the comparative reconstruction of morphosyntactic functions and grammatical categories – and
their formal exponents – is methodologically unreliable
and linguistically insufficient (Pooth 2017). The reasons
are quite simple.
Conclusions which are solely based on the application
of the comparative method to IE morphosyntactic categories and their markers can only be provisional, not only
because morphosyntactic functions and grammatical categories that have vanished completely or were modified
cannot be compared. The plain fact that the original morphosyntactic categories and their exponents do not exist
in their original forms and functions in IE languages does
not mean that they did not exist. The issue is a severe pitfall of comparative philology (Pooth 2017).
However, even if comparative equations alone and per
se cannot prove or disprove a given hypothesis regarding
the linguistic reconstruction of morphology, syntax, and
lexical categories, this does not mean that a proper linguistic reconstruction of morphosyntax is impossible, nor
does it imply that the comparative method cannot be used
as a starter.
We can use further means of reasoning for our purpose.
In my view, it is necessary to first use the comparative
method in order to supply the word forms and their potential meanings. At a final stage of our reasoning process, however, it is necessary to think out of the “comparative box”. As for grammatical categories, a plausible
and potentially real and realistic descriptive analysis and
reconstruction can be established by inductive and deductive reasoning and by combining the results of comparison with diachronic linguistic typology. Such a way
of doing linguistic reconstruction implies using ALL the
multiple linguistic methods known from general and historical linguistics and comparative philology. The linguistic reconstruction presented in this paper is “polymethodological” in this sense (Pooth 2015, 2016, 2017).
12
I use the terms PROXIMATIVE and OBVIATIVE for the two hierarchically indexed participants or arguments here, although these notions are also often termed proximate and obviate.
15
In short, my further reasoning process is not just based
on a single comparative observation – but on two.
1. FIRST OBSERVATION, BASED ON EXTERNAL COMPARATIVE AND INTERNAL PIE EVIDENCE.
There is a relevant formal similarity strengthening the
conclusion that these three lost categories D, S, Z were
verbal DEICTIC-DIRECTIONAL categories. The two morphs
*-t- and *-s- are comparable to the deictic morphs *t- vs.
*s- which are found in the PIE demonstrative pronoun
system, cf. PIE *só > Vedic sá, PIE *tó- > Vedic tá-, etc.
2. SECOND OBSERVATION, BASED ON DIACHRONIC TYPOLOGY
There is a relevant grammaticalization or grammaticization path which is of major relevance here. It has become an established insight that “erstwhile deictic-directional markers” constitute a “natural diachronic pathway
for the grammaticalization of semantic inverse systems”
(Givón 2001 I: 166).
A very useful typology of such direct-inverse systems
has been provided by Jacques & Antonov (2014).
DIRECT marking typically indicates that proxima12
tive/proximate participant or argument higher on the
person hierarchy is acting on the lower obviative/obviate
participant or argument, while INVERSE marking encodes
the opposite direction.
3.4. A possible deduction
I am in the position to draw the following conclusion via
deductive reasoning:
1. THE GIVEN INTERNAL EVIDENCE (VIZ. THE COMPARATIVE FACTS): It is internally evident that the two morphs
*-t- and *-s- look exactly like deictic-directional markers
that occur as morphs in the demonstrative stems *só-,
*tó-. To be fair, it is not absolutely assured that they were
– but at least it is absolutely clear that they exactly look
like deictic-directional markers. This formal identity is
taken as comparative fact and sufficient internal evidence
here. [Reviewer #3 objected against this as follows:
The inflectional elements -t- and -s- are said to look “exactly” like the demonstrative stems *só- and *tó-. Actually,
there is one phoneme each that matches, but PIE *só …
does not match the verbal ending *-s, nor does *tód match
the ending *-t. The “formal identity” invoked is rather imprecise and it seems hazardous to invoke grammaticalization as a black box.]
16
P O O T H , R O L A N D A . 2 0 2 1 . Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European
However, this critique is based on an anachronistic
analysis of the given PIE forms. The most basic radical
stem (that is, the pronominal root) of the PIE sigmatic
demonstrative pronoun, whatever its original function
may be, was not *só- but a mono-phonemic *s-.
The root and the vowel must be separated; *só- was just a
secondary “derived” adnominal stem of that pronoun. There
were more stems derived from this root, e.g. *sí-/*sé- and probably an adverb *sú and a clitic *=se. In addition, there was another (I say OBVIATIVE) pronoun *tí-/*té (adnominal *tó-) with
an adverb *tú and clitic *=te. The idea that pronominal stems
with the structure *Có- were adnominal and corresponding full
pronouns (heads of an NP) had the structure *Cí- is not mine,
but Warren Cowgill’s (quoted by Ringe 2006 as “in one of his
lessons”; but there is no paper on that). Again, what was objected by reviewer#3 is quite problematic. Reviewer#3 may disagree with my functional reconstruction, but what he or she
claims to be “actually true” and “imprecisely invoked” on a formal level is rather formally imprecise itself.
2. THE “RULE”/DIACHRONIC PATTERN: A GRAMMATICALIZATION PATH: It is a diachronic “rule” or regularity
that “erstwhile deictic-directional markers” constitute a
“natural diachronic pathway for the grammaticalization
of semantic inverse systems” (Givón 2001 I: 166; as already mentioned).
3. THE CONCLUSION: It is plausible to identify these
three lost categories with verbal deictic-directional grammatical categories belonging to the domain of transitivity
direction. Typologically speaking, this assumption is
plausible and possible, if not even most probable, as outlined below.
I must admit that this way of reasoning is only similar
to a classical deduction. There is general law, rule, or regularity, i.e. the mentioned grammaticalization (or grammaticization) path; there are given facts, i.e. the given internal evidence, formal identities and functional similarities. Of course, this deduction does not exclude other
possibilities because the rule cannot be exceptionless,
and the functional identity of formally identical morphs
cannot be 100% proven. However, the formal identity of
*-s- and *-t- with deictic-directional *s- and *t- and their
functional similarity (referent tracking, referent indexing), when taken together with the well-known diachronic path, make other prehistorical possibilities LESS
EXPECTED AND A BIT LESS LIKELY in a probabilistic sense.
Let us have a look at the possible alternatives.
3.5. Possible alternatives
First of all, suggesting that these three lost categories D,
S, Z once were aspect categories is actually not very plausible because there is little that speaks in favor of it. *-t-
is found in endings of both the IE imperfective and perfective aspect. I admit that *-s- is reflected as marker of
perfective aspect in IE languages, although this does not
hold true for Anatolian languages and Hittite. As mentioned, it is quite unlikely that an original sigmatic stem
suffix was transformed into a second-person and thirdperson past tense suffix in this branch. It is more likely
that the opposite happened outside Anatolian.
And what about the second person singular *-s-?
Should we functionally separate the two morphs, or
shouldn’t we? Questions like these are relevant for a
proper analysis of the equation formulas and the reconstruction of morphosyntactic categories.
The traditional approach (that is, the one operating with
fusional person-indexing) cannot answer such questions
without making ad hoc assumptions. For instance, many
of the suffixes (e.g. *-s- and *-s-) have to be declared to
be just homophones, although it is likewise unprovable
that they really were.
Even worse, such questions are not usually touched at
all within the standard theory. As mentioned, it is often
taken for a god-given truth that PIE grammar was (almost) identical to Ancient Greek and Vedic Sanskrit
grammar, except for its phonology. As argued above, I
really find that such a preconception is unlikely from the
outset. Thus, I think that it is rather not plausible to suggest that these markers were inflectional portmanteau
endings and functionally identical with the IE “primary”
vs. “secondary” endings (pace Lundquist & Yates 2018).
If we made this assumption, we would not be able to
give a diachronic justification for the given variation. We
would have to ignore the morphological problems. We
would have to claim that there were person-indexing
markers that were “just homophones”, although this
would be a bit at odds with person-indexing without pronouns otherwise, and we would also not be able to prove
it.
In that case, we would have to neglect a proper linguistic analysis of PIE word forms, as provided here. We
would have to make rather unlikely claims, e.g. claims
like a “secondary precativization”, as illustrated above.
We would have to ignore the formal and functional
identity of reconstructed morphs, as presented above.
The internal evidence would remain completely unexplained, and no additional knowledge would be gained.
In the end, PIE morphosyntax would remain a decalcomania of Greek and Vedic grammar.
We could solve the issue by setting up categories like a
“stative voice” to describe forms like *gwhnó(-) ‘someone
is, was slain’ and *stéuo(-). But this would be of little
plausibility, because the existence of a “stative” is contradicted by the IE comparative evidence. The relevant
middle forms do not generally indicate a state, nor are
N E W T R E N D S I N I N D O - E U R O P E A N L I N G U I S T I C S Number 3
they intransitive, but transitive in several cases (and in
Hittite). There is nothing that speaks in favor of the assumption that PIE had a state-indicating “stative” verbal
voice category (Pooth 2000).
Also, original marking of tense distinctions is unlikely
and almost excluded.
The Vedic “injunctive” is not a modal category Hoffmann (1967) was wrong. It is still rather an archaic tenseneutral (non-tensed) category that can be termed a polyfunctional OLD INDICATIVE and HORTATIVE-IMPERATIVE
category. Its existence strongly points to a preceding nontensed type of language. In other words, we can conclude
that PIE lacked marked tense distinctions.
Accordingly, a PIE 3sg *gwhént(i) could be used both
with present and past tense reference (Pooth 2009a,
Kloekhorst 2017). Assuming that the three categories
were specific tense categories makes little sense when
seen from the perspective of systematic polyfunctionality. Although PIE maybe had a non-obligatory morph,
namely the so-called “augment” *(h1)é(-), for particularly specifying something functionally similar to past
tense, its potential existence cannot disprove the argument that PIE was non-tensed because its PIE function
might have been different from past tense.
Moreover, these endings were not just person markers.
Such an assumption cannot explain the fact that the very
same markers *-s- and *-t- coded both second and third
person forms. Finally, these markers were not specified
for singular, dual, or plural number. If one suggested this,
one would not be capable of explaining the fact that the
same segments *-t-, *-s-, and zero occur both in singular
and plural forms. See the structural argumentation given
in section 2.4.
To sum up, our answer of the question regarding a possible original function of these categories D, S, Z must be
that original marking of person, number, voice, tense, aspect, and mood distinctions is almost ruled out – or at
least rather unlikely.
17
the first to “somehow envision” that the original functional distinction belonged to the domain of transitivity
and transitivity direction (‘who is acting on whom’), it is
clear that nobody has ever reconstructed a hierarchical
direct-inverse system for PIE before.
Let me conclude as follows. On the primary basis of the
comparative method, secondarily extended by cross-linguistic linguistic diachronic typological patterns, we are
able to plausibly reconstruct three different PIE verb
forms of the second person and third person singular, plural, and collective number, respectively.
The PIE second and third person forms are given in Figure 16. The PIE verb in question is *gwhen- ‘to slay, kill,
beat, chase, hunt’.
Figure 16. Directed and undirected PIE verb forms
D =
S =
Z =
DIR
INV
UDR
*-t*-s*-Ø-
D =
S =
Z =
DIR
INV
*-t*-s*-Ø-
UDR
ACTIVE voice
3|2SG
*gwhént
*gwhéns
*gwhénA
2PL
*gwhnté(n)
*gwhnsé(n)
*gwhné(n)B
3PL
*gwhnént
*gwhnérs
*gwhnér
DETRANSITIVE
3SG
voice
2SG
*gwhnth2é C
*gwhnsh2éC
*gwhnh2éA
D =
S =
Z =
DIR
INV
UDR
*-t*-s*-Ø-
*gwhntó
*gwhnsó
*gwhnó
D =
S =
Z =
DIR
INV
UDR
*-t*-s*-Ø-
2COL
*gwhntóm
*gwhnsóm
*gwhnóm
2|3COL
*gwhntéh2(m)
*gwhnséh2(m)
*gwhnéh2(m)
D =
S =
Z =
DIR
INV
UDR
*-t*-s*-Ø-
3PL
*gwhnntó
2PL
*gwhnth2é(n)C
*gwhnsh2é(n)C
*gwhnh2é(n)A
*gwhnró
3.6. Conclusion
It is conclusive that these markers were markers of a different domain, such that is non-existing in IE languages.
This functional domain can now be identified as a verbal
deictic-directional domain.
We can conclude that the domain of TRANSITIVITY DIRECTION is a perfectly suitable candidate and remains the
most likely option.
NB. I am happy to give some credit to the Leiden
School at this point in our discussion. Kortlandt was on
the right track when he suggested that *-to- goes back to
a “transitive middle” marker (Beekes 1995, 2011). However, even if other scholars may deserve the merit to be
Additional notes to Figures 16
A. In my view, the 2pl in *-h2é of the detransitive voice
merged with the active in *-é. Both are reflected by the Vedic
2pl perf. ind. act. -á, e.g. Vedic vid-á.
B. The zero-marked 2sg form was used in imperative function, cf. Hittite 2sg imp. kuenni < *gwhén-i.
C. Parallel to the third-and-second person collective forms in
*-téh2(-m) (→ Proto-Indo-Iranic 3-and-2-dual active *-tām),
the 2pl detransitive forms were reanalyzed as belonging to the
neo-active voice category form PIE to post-PIE. *-sh2e seems
to be reflected in Proto-Tocharian (cf. Figures 10a and 10b
above), whereas *-th2e is reflected as the Vedic primary 2pl
pres. ind. (neo-) active ending -tha (Pooth 2011).
P O O T H , R O L A N D A . 2 0 2 1 . Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European
18
4. Why is *-s- the inverse marker?
[2]
I am indebted to Guillaume Jacques for asking me a quite
important question that needs special treatment in this
section.
[3]
“Why do you reconstruct *-s- as inverse marker but not *-t-?”
(Jacques p.c.)
The following internal evidence provides some reasons
for doing so. The reconstruction can be based on the following three arguments. Two of them (1. and 3.) are outlined here in more detail.
1. First of all, the suffix *-s- was also used as a SOURCE
marker in ablative-genitive case forms (e.g. genitive
*dém-s ‘family’s, of the family’, *négwt-s ‘dusk’s, of
dusk’, *diéus ‘daylight’s, sky-god’s, of daylight, skygod’, ablative-genitive *diués, etc.). The *-t- had a deictic meaning, e.g. *tód *dóm ‘DEMONSTRATIVE house, to
DEMONSTRATIVE house’. I can infer that *-s- coded a direction towards the primary (i.e. topical, proximative/proximate) participant originating from the second
participant as the SOURCE of the causation, whereas the
*-t- coded causation towards a GOAL, that is, direction
from the primary (i.e. topical, proximative/proximate)
participant to the second participant. The following examples can serve to illustrate what is implied here:
(1) a. *gwhén-t
slay:NONDUR|NEUTRAL:ACT:SG-DIRECT\3
literally, ‘agentive slaying of topical participant to second participant’
b. *gwhén-s
slay:NONDUR|NEUTRAL:ACT:SG-INVERSE\3
literally, ‘agentive slaying of topical participant
(hither) from second participant (as the starting point
of the action)’
Inferences like this one must of course be based on possible diachronic sources of direct and inverse markers. It
has been proposed that word forms indicating a CISLOCATIVE direction (‘hither’) towards the speaker (or towards the topical participant) are a possible source of inverse markers (Jacques & Antonov 2014: 325ff.).
In order to illustrate this diachronic path, let me quote
Jacques & Antonov (2014: 325ff.); the numbers of their
examples are mine.
“The term ‘cislocative’ is used to refer to markers expressing a motion towards the speaker, both directional (‘verb
hither’) and associated motion (‘come to verb’) ones. The
inverse marker in Nez Percé (Sahaptian) used in local scenarios with second person acting on first person has grammaticalized from an earlier cislocative marker, reconstructed for Proto-Sahaptian as *-im (Rude 1997, 122).
héexn-e
see-PST
I saw you.
héxn-ím-e
see-CIS-PST
You saw me. [PST = PAST, CIS = cislocative]
Interestingly, this marker has also grammaticalized into
the ergative case suffix which appears on the non-SAP
agent in mixed scenarios in cases where one would expect
inverse marking on the verb (Rude 1997, 121-2).
[4] hi-héxn-e
háama-nm
3S/A→SAP-see-PST man-ERG
The man saw me/you. (NEZ PERCÉ)
[...] In still other languages, we observe a formal similarity between some inverse or direct markers and various
types of third person markers including agent, patient, or
possessive affixes. The clearest case is the inverse prefix
found in Sino-Tibetan (Rgyalrongic and Kiranti) languages.
As first noticed by DeLancey (1981b), the Situ Rgyalrong
third person possessive prefix wə- is formally identical to
the inverse marker. This is also true of other Rgyalrong languages and of some Kiranti languages that have an inverse
marker, such as Bantawa [...]. The similarity between the
two sets of prefixes is striking and suggests a grammaticalization from a third person marker into an inverse marker.
While the exact pathway remains unclear and thus requires
further investigation, it is possible that non-finite verb
forms carrying a third person possessive prefix were reanalyzed as finite ones. In the case of Sino-Tibetan languages,
this scenario probably occurred in the ancestor of both
Rgyalrongic and Kiranti languages [...].”
(end of quote)
Such a bidirectional “poly-grammaticalization” in Nez
Percé from CISLOCATIVE both to inverse direction and ergative case marking looks very similar to what is found
in PIE morphology.
In PIE, the sigmatic agentive (viz. pre-nomimative)
case suffix *-s (e.g. PIE *póti-s ‘lord’, *h2nér-s ‘man’ >
post-PIE *h2néː(r)) and the ablative-genitive SOURCE suffix *-s (e.g. PIE *négwts) were thus formally identical
with the verbal deictic-directional suffix *-s-.
This typological parallel strengthens the conclusion
that *-s- was a cislocative-like inverse marker and *-tthe corresponding direct marker.
2. A second argument may run as follows. It is perhaps
more likely claiming that the PROGRESSIVE DIRECT forms
(e.g. *gwhénti), not the inverse forms, were later generalized as a post-PIE third person singular imperfective present forms. However, although this idea may perhaps
serve as an argument, it needs an additional investigation
on its own.
3. Probably the best indication is the following one. The
internal evidence is provided by the neuter (= proto-neuter or “inanimate”) demonstrative form *tód. (The term
“inanimate” does not only refer to lifeless things, but is
N E W T R E N D S I N I N D O - E U R O P E A N L I N G U I S T I C S Number 3
meant as a grammatical cover term, much the same as
“masculine”.) It is highly likely that the proximative
demonstrative stem *s- (*só-, etc.) could not be used to
refer to neuter (= proto-neuter or inanimate) nouns because these referents could only be OBVIATIVE. This conforms to a cross-linguistic typological pattern found in
hierarchical marking systems. It speaks in favor of the
inference drawn here. Thus, the fact that the demonstrative stem *s- (*só-, etc.) could not be used to refer to
proto-neuter or inanimate nouns can strengthen the claim
that the stem *tó- was an OBVIATIVE adnominal demonstrative stem, whereas *só- was PROXIMATIVE.
I can integrate the obviative function of *-t- into my
general hypothesis as follows. The suffixes *-s- and *-tseem to go back to original P-indexing (not A-indexing)
suffixes, and might thus ultimately be related to the PIE
PT-indexing clitics (*=se, *=te).
The abbreviations S, A, P, T(heme), R(ecipient) indicate the respective referents that can be compared with
the notions of intransitive subject (S), transitive subject
(A = most agent-like argument), and transitive object (P
= most patient-like argument; Haspelmath 2011).
For my model of the PIE case-marking and alignment
system see Pooth & Orqueda (2021).
(5) a. *h2nér-s
*gwhén-t
man-AGT
slay:NDUR:ACT:SG-DIR/OBVP\3
‘man (proximative A) slew obviative P’
19
clauses, presumably extending its function to the domain
of intransitive S-marking.
The PIE direct-inverse markers presumably occurred in
intransitive clauses as well – either generally or for encoding switched referents, as in (7ab) further below.
To round off the typological picture, I can briefly add
that it is quite likely that there were two general verb classes:
A. agentive or “unergative” verbs, *gwhen- ‘to slay,
kill’. With these verb, *-s- encoded the proximative P and
the obviative S (= Sa).
B. “ambient force verbs” or “unaccusative” verbs, e.g.
*bhueh2-/bhuh2- ‘to grow’. With these verbs, *-s- encoded
the proximative inagentive S (= Sp). A sub-class, which
I call *mérti class, was intransitive and could only be
combined with a proto-neuter S. Since these were always
obviative, the -t- encoded the obviative S (Spobv) here.
*gwhén-t
man (P)
slay:NDUR:ACT:SG-DIR/OBVP\SG
‘proximative A slew obviative man (P)’
(6) c. *h2nér
d. *h2nér
*bhuéh2-s ~ *bhúh2-s
man (Sp)
grow:NDUR:ACT:SG-INV/PROXP\SG
‘proximative P grew to be a man (causally affected by
an “obviative” natural force)’
e. *séh2ul
*mér-t
sun (Spobv)
vanish:NDUR:ACT:SG-DIR/OBVP\SG
‘sun (proto-neuter = obviative) vanished’
b. *h2nér
*gwhén-s
man
slay:NDUR:ACT:SG-INV/PROXP\3
‘obviative A slew proximative man (P)’
The hypothesis that PIE had such verb classes is typologically plausible. However, a further discussion of
these issue must be postponed.
c. *h2nér-s
*gwém-t
man-AGT
come:NDUR:ACT:SG-DIR/PROXS\3
‘man (proximative S) came hither/thither’
5. Implications for PIE syntax
w
d. *h2nér-s
*g ém-s
man-AGT
come:NDUR:ACT:SG-INV/OBVS\3
‘man (obviative S) came hither/thither’
(6) a. *h2nér
*gwhén-m
man
slay:NDUR:ACT:SG-1A\SG
‘I (A) slew man (P)’
b. *h2nér
*bhuéh2-m ~ *bhúh2-m
man
grow:NDUR:ACT:SG-1S\SG
‘I (S) grew to be a man, became a man’
As illustrated (6ab), PIE indexing is reconstructed with
an active first-person suffix -m- for A|S. This was true
1person indexing, since it indicated 1person A|S only.
The idea that the other two suffixes were P-indexing suffixes implies that there was a kind of “split-indexing”
system in PIE grammar. The 1person indexing (-m) was
a kind of “subject-marking” (with A = S), whereas the 2|3
indexing was hierarchy-triggered P-marking in transitive
It is cross-linguistic and typological common knowledge
that direct forms are in principle and by definition used
to indicate that the participant causing a change of state
in another participant is either higher on a grammaticalized animacy or topicality hierarchy – or is in TOPIC function. On the other hand, inverse forms are used to indicate
that the causing participant is lower on that hierarchy or
non-topical (Givón 2001 I: 166, Jacques 2010, Jacques &
Antonov 2014). To be fair, languages with direct vs. inverse systems considerably vary in the use of these forms
(Thompson 1989, Zúñiga 2006, Jacques 2010).
Nonetheless, it is a typological implication of the hypothesis outlined in this paper that PIE had a person or
animacy and topicality hierarchy – and hierarchically
triggered direct-inverse indexing. It is further evident that
PIE displayed grammatical core case marking. This fact
makes it a bit more different from other systems with hierarchical alignment.
The system I reconstruct here implies that with third
person referents, the direct marking indicated that the
P O O T H , R O L A N D A . 2 0 2 1 . Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European
20
causing participant was topical and PROXIMATIVE and
that the transitivity direction was towards a second nontopical or OBVIATIVE one. The inverse transitive marking
served to code the opposite direction. The following reconstructed sentences can illustrate this difference.
(7) a. *h2nér-s
*gwén
*Kuás-t
man-AGENTIVE woman
kiss:NDUR:AGT:SG-DIR\3
‘man (PROX) kissed woman (OBV)
(10) *h2nér-s
man-AGT
(8) a. ʁdɤrʑi kɯ
ɬamu
Rdorje ERG
Lhamo.ABS
‘as for Rdorje, he saw Lhamo’
pɯ-a-mto
AOR-3SG>3-see (DIR)
(11) *h2nér-s
man-AGT
*médhu
*dáh3-t
honey.ABS give/take:NDUR-DIR
*páh3-s *=kwe
swallow:NDUR-INV =and/with/alike
‘mani gave honey to someonej
and that personj swallowed it’
There were perhaps other oppositions encoded by *-svs. *-t-. I can briefly add that third person inverse optative forms might have been used if the speaker was emotionally involved in the event.
(12) a. *h2nér
*bhuh2-iéh1-s
man.ABS grow-OPT-INV\3
‘I WISH he would grow to be a man,
if only he grew to be a man’
b. ɬamu
ʁdɤrʑi kɯ
pɯ́-wɣ-mto
Lhamo.ABS
Rdorje ERG
AOR-INV-see:3>3SG
‘as for Lhamo, Rdorje saw him’
A similar, but not identical system with direct-inverse
distinction is found in Koyukon (Athabascan, Alaska,
USA; these are examples (3, 4, 56, 48) of Thompson
1989: 2, 3, 10, 11):
*dh3-t-ó
give/take:NDUR-DIR-DTR
*páh3-t *=kwe
swallow:NDUR-DIR =and/with/alike
‘mani took honey and hei swallowed it’
b. *h2nér *gwén-s
*Kuás-s
man woman-AGENTIVE kiss:NDUR:AGT:SG-INV\3
‘as for man (PROX), woman (OBV) kissed him’,
‘the man was kissed by the woman’
A typolological comparandum of a language combining ergative vs. absolutive case marking with direct vs.
inverse marking is provided by Japhug Rgyalrong
(Jacques 2010: 135, his example):
*médhu
honey
b. *h2nér
*bhuh2-iéh1-t
man.ABS grow-OPT-DIR\3
‘he would grow to be a man (if this or that happened)’
6. Answering the Research Questions
Cross-linguistically, such direct-inverse systems are often used to encode switch-reference (Thompson 1989:
13). It is thus inferable that PIE also made use of it to
code switched referents:
At this point in our discussion, I am in the position to give
answers to my research questions.
1. We have seen that it is generally possible to apply an
independent morph analysis to the reconstructed ProtoIndo-European verb forms on their own. This methodologically step is not intellectually dangerous.
2. The independent analysis has led to results that are
typologically different from the traditional model. These
results are methodologically proper, typologically plausible, and actually quite promising. In order to decide
which model is to be preferred, the differences of the reasoning processes and the differences of the results need
to be discussed within our field,14 from the perspective of
both, comparison and linguistic typology.
3. I suggest that we should better give up the default
hypothesis that Proto-Indo-European grammatical categories were functionally identical to Indo-European ones.
This axiom is unjustified. The need of such a “Nullhypothese” is debatable (see Appendix 3).
13
14
(9) a. John
yi-nee-ł-’aanh
yi-THM-CL(ł)-see13
‘John is looking at him/her’
b. John
bi-nee-ł-’aanh
bi-THM-CL(ł)-see
‘as for him/her, John is looking at him/her’
c.
ts’i-nee-ł-’aanh
INDEF/1PL-CL(ł)-see
‘s.o./we/he/she is looking at him/her/it’
d.
nee-l-’aanh
THM-CL(li)-see
‘s.o. is watching him/her; she/he is being watched’
Thompson 1989 uses THM for “thematic prefix”, CL for “classifyer” (one of these “classifyers” is identified with middle voice
marking).
After its first mention in 2002 (Pooth 2004a) within the following
18 years, the novel Templatic Model of PIE morphology has been
widely ignored within the field of Indo-European Linguistics.
N E W T R E N D S I N I N D O - E U R O P E A N L I N G U I S T I C S Number 3
7. Appendix
7.1. A verb paradigm
The following Paradigm Grids 1–3 provide an overview
of verb forms of the most basic PIE verbal inflectional
type or “aspectual binyan” (Pooth 2016, 2017). It’s provisionally termed nondurative-neutral (NDUR) aspect.
Grid 1. The PIE nondurative active transitive forms
>1
1SG>
1PL.EXCL>
1PL.INCL>
2SG>
2PL>
3SG>
3PL>
3’SG>
3’PL>
>2
gwhéns
gwhnsé(n)
gwhéns
gwhnérs
gwhéns
gwhnérs
>3
>3’
gwhénm
gwhnmé(s)A
gwhnué(s)A
gwhént
wh
g nté(n)
gwhént
gwhnént
21
Additional notes to Grids 1–3:
Again, the PIE verb is *gwhen- ‘slay, kill, beat, chase hunt’
again (> Vedic han-, etc.). I gloss the obviative third-person as
3’. > means ‘acting on/directed to’ here. For the time being, I
use the label “nondurative” for this aorist-like aspectual category. One may use the label “aorist” as well, but not in its Greek
definition
A. This suffix *-s was a partially optiomal, partically obligatory 1pl marker and should not be confused with the inverse
suffix here. The partially obligatory 2pl suffix was *-n. The one
used in 3pl forms was *-r- before zero and *-s-, and *-n- before
*-t-. This 3pl suffix looks like the nominal so-called “heteroclitic” suffix *-r- ~ *-n-.
B. Perhaps the direct/inverse forms were used for more consistent subject reference-tracking – as already mentioned above.
If true, the unmarked singular forms were mainly used in the
imperative mood.
C. In the session on my manuscript on academia.edu, I had
the following question: Should I use an intransitive verb like
*gʷem- here? I think that it is not to be excluded that “intransitive” (unmarked/undirected) forms of transitive verbs had a
meaning like ‘subject slew (someone/something)’, whereas the
transitive forms had a meaning ‘subject slew referent’. I am
grateful to Onno Hovers (p.c.) for pointing me to this matter:
“That’s how the subjective conjugation works in the Uralic
Grid 2. The corresponding detransitive forms
>1
1SG>
1PL.EXCL>
1PL.INCL>
1COL.EXCL>
1COL.INCL>
2SG>
2PL>
2COL>
3SG>
3PL>
3COL>
3’SG>
3’PL>
3’COL>
>2
>3
>3’
gwhnh2é
gwhnmó(s)A
gwhnuó(s)A
gwhnmó(h2)
gwhnuó(h2)
wh
g nsh2é
gwhnth2é
wh
wh
g nsh2é(n)
g nth2é(n)
gwhnséh2
gwhntéh2
wh
g nsó
gwhntó
?
gwhnntó
wh
g nséh2
gwhntéh2
gwhnsó
?
gwhnséh2
Grid 3. The PIE nondurative undirected formsC
1SG
1PL.EXCL
1PL.INCL
2SG
2PL
2COL
3/3’SG
3/3’PL
3/3’COL
ACTIVE
DETRANSITIVE
gwhénm
gwhnmé(s)
gwhnué(s)
gwhénB
gwhné(n)
—
gwhénB
gwhnér
—
gwhnh2é
gwhnmó(s)
gwhnuó(s)
gwhnh2é
gwhnh2é(n)
gwhnéh2(m)
gwhnó
gwhnró
gwhnéh2(m)
languages that have this (Ugric, Samoyedic, Mordvinic).
But the Uralic subjective can also take an object which is
then indefinite. So, subjective ‘I slew’ ~ ‘I slew something’
~ ‘I slew some reindeer’ versus objective ‘I slew it/him/her’
~ ‘I slew the reindeer’.” (O. Hovers)
7.2. A Comment
I am grateful to Douglas G. Kilday (p.c.) for the following comment (via academia.edu, his original comment is
shortened):
“I think the view that PIE deictic-demonstrative *-s- was proximative (not specifically 2nd pers. sg.), and *-t- was obviative
(not specif. 3sg.), helps explain the evidence for 3sg. verbal *-s
in Germanic as well as Messapic, Phrygian, and scattered Vedic
injunctives. Old Norse has generally 3sg. pres. -r < *-esi identical to 2sg., with scattered remnants of 3sg. *-ð. The Northumbrian dialect of Old English also has 3sg. pres. -s, against -þ in
West Saxon, with 2sg. -st throughout West Gmc. generally explained by epenthesis in collocations with postposed *þū (n.b.
however “singes þu” in the Cuckoo Song, ca. 1240). The notion
that the simple 2sg. form could have displaced the 3sg. in ON
and Nthb. OE isn’t plausible. What is plausible, within the
framework of PIE prox. *-s- and obv. *-t-, is that Proto-Germanic inherited both as verbal endings, and used them both as
3sg. pres. suffixes, generally *-s- when the verb preceded the
subject and *-t- (later *-þ, *-ð) when it followed.”
7.3. Die “Nullhypothese”
I am grateful to Eugen Hill (p.c.) for providing me with
the following definition (via academia.edu; with a minor
omission (…)).
22
P O O T H , R O L A N D A . 2 0 2 1 . Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European
“Are you familiar with the concept which in German is called
the Nullhypothese (…)? It works roughly the following way: If
3sg. act. opt. of thematic verbs in the IE daughter languages either presupposes *-oid (Skt -ed) or is compatible with *-oid (Gk
-oi, Goth -oi, OCS -i) then the easiest assumption = reconstruction is PIE *-oid. This reconstruction can be wrong. But unless
this has been shown by reference to facts, PIE *-oid remains the
Nullhypothese which everybody prefers to thinkable alternatives (such as PIE *-oi + analogical dental in Indo-Iranian or
whatever). I fail to see what is circular [reasoning] or a petitio
principii here.”
[See https://www.academia.edu/s/d329085630.]
I can respond here that such a reconstruction is unlikely and
prone to be wrong on the Proto-Indo-European grammatical
level, simply because thematic stems are post-PIE innovations
and go back to athematic 3sg proto-middle forms. This has been
shown by references to comparative and language-internal facts
such as voice-marking patterns and is also evident on a comparative morphological and syntactic basis (Pooth & Orqueda
2021, Pooth 2014, Jasanoff 2003, Meillet 1931). Consequently,
I find it rather unlikely that PIE had optative forms derived from
such thematic stems. (By the way, the post-PIE (or “Proto-Nuclear-Indo-European”) thematic optative morphologically and
phonemically had a sequence */-o-ī-t/ with a hiatus between the
thematic vowel and the optative suffix.)
What I find close to circular here or at minimum highly problematic – as outlined above – is the assumption that PIE “must”
have had the same morphs and formal and functional categories
as (most of) its daughters “in the default case”. Conversely, I
think we need to always base a hypothesis on more positive evidence than just equations. To further illustrate my point, it is
okay for me to assume that the athematic optative formation
pattern is a PIE modal category because this assumption can be
based on what I have termed “reliable equation formulas”. Distinguishing between reliable and unreliable equation formulas
is thus based on more positive evidence than just equations (that
is, frequency of formation patterns, productivity, etc.). I think
that the “Nullhypothese” is unreliable exactly in the moment
when it comes to unreliable Scheingleichungen and reliably archaic hapaxes and scattered relics. It is only logical that by the
moment we base a hypothesis about the existence of a given
PIE category on more evidence than just unreliable equation
formulas, the “Nullhypothese” becomes obsolete, simply because we have a more substantial hypothesis now. To my mind,
the “Nullhypothese” is more dangerous than helpful because it
may very easily lead to more problematic claims that are
“nullhypothesis-internal”. E.g., it may lead to the claim that the
Anatolian branch must have lost the “thematic optative” or that
a specific form (e.g. a hapax) cannot be inherited because there
is no perfect equation etc. However, I thank you, Eugen, because you have made a point that is of course relevant for doing
linguistic reconstruction. The value of such a “Nullhypothese”
needs more methodological discussions in the future.
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgements go to Christopher Miller for correcting my Denglish.
Reviewers’ comments
Three reviewers commented on a preceding version of
this manuscript, which was rejected.
Dear Dr. Pooth,
Reviewers’ comments on your work have now been received. Based on
these and our own assessment, we regret to have to inform you that your
paper cannot be accepted for publication in the Journal of Historical
Linguistics.
The reviewers’ and editors’ comments are attached below for your information.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider your work.
Journal of Historical Linguistics
It’s only fair and okay for me to provide the reader with
all the information the reviewers gave me.
Reviewer #1
The paper deals with a potentially interesting topic, that is, the
possibility to reconstruct the Proto-Indo-European verbal system as originally reflecting a direct/inverse system. While this
hypothesis is in principle intriguing and worth pursuing, the
paper is overall poorly written and presents a number of fundamental flaws. The author fails to make a compelling case for the
underlying hypothesis and the work is simply not up to the scientific standards required to be considered for publication. All
in all, the paper cannot unfortunately be published in this current form and I recommend rejection.
[RP: The hypothesis is intriguing and worth pursuing?
Thanks for this at least.]
General remarks: The paper is overall extremely difficult to
read, especially keeping in mind the general readership of the
JHL. Most of the notions concerning Proto-Indo-European and
Indo-European languages in general introduced in the paper are
poorly if not defined. This makes it almost impossible for the
reader to follow the author’s main argument. The paper should
be rewritten keeping the potential readership in mind (or else it
should be submitted to a specialized journal).
[RP: I did this. I submitted it to Indogermanische Forschungen (Melanie Malzahn, Vienna), but the paper was rejected without peer review the very next day.]
Structure: the paper has an overall reasonable structure, but
still presents some flaws. The introduction should be entirely
reworked. As of now, it is not clear what the focus of the paper
is, nor what the specific research questions to be addressed are.
Moreover, it is not clear at all how the three cases presented in
1.1-1.3 are relevant to the rest of the paper. If the goal is to exemplify the methodology, only one such case would be sufficient (see also remark below).
Methodology: the methodology of the paper is problematic.
The supposed methodological innovation of the paper is first
presented in fn. 4 but other methodological remarks are scattered all over the paper, even in pp. 20-21, where a long (and
yet somewhat uninformative) methodological discussion is
placed. It would have been better to have a single methodological section discussing all these issue in much more detail and
N E W T R E N D S I N I N D O - E U R O P E A N L I N G U I S T I C S Number 3
in a more accessible way. Concerning the methodology itself,
the author makes a number of claims of novelty but all these
result uncompelling (see specific notes on the pdf). For example, it is simply not true that reconstructions of PIE do not
normally take also into account the findings of linguistic typology, as there is a longstanding discussion in the field on this
point (which is entirely omitted by the author in the paper).
Data: the data is usually arranged in a particularly confusing
way, with little if no explanation of the forms (this is esp. true
for Section 2). This concerns both forms in IE languages as well
as reconstructions. With respect to the latter, it is also unclear
where these come from. Are these the author’s reconstructions?
Are they taken from some source? [They are mine.]
Argumentation: the argumentation appears to be ill-thought.
The paper lacks a clearly defined research question, which
makes it difficult to evaluate whether the author has fulfilled
their own agenda. In particular, without a clear preliminary
presentation of the ‘traditional’ reconstruction of the PIE verbal
system (see below), it is difficult to evaluate whether the reconstruction proposed by the author actually constitutes an improvement or what its specific advantages are.
[RP: Presenting the ‘traditional’ reconstruction is absolutely
unnecessary here because it can easily be found in any of the
currently available handbooks.]
Use of references: this is probably one of the most problematic aspects of the paper. Overall, the author fails to seriously
engage with the existing scholarship. This is especially problematic, because the author repeatedly points out that their paper constitutes a major break from the traditional reconstruction
of PIE. However, it is never specified which reconstruction the
author has in mind. There are almost no references to the supposedly ‘traditional’ views that the author is criticizing, so that
instead of an actual (more or less justified) critique to an existing model, the paper reads as an exposition of the author’s personal beliefs without much support. This also leads to a number
of gross misrepresentations of several major points, such as the
limits of the comparative methods, the ‘post-mono-comparative’ method and the ‘debunking’ of the Greco-Aryan model (p.
22). The author presents these as novelties, while in fact these
are issues that have long been discussed among specialists, but
none of the existing scholarship is cited (not even to disprove
it). Another puzzling point is that, especially for the non-specialist readership of the journal, it is almost impossible to tell
what in the paper represents mainstream IE linguistics and what
are instead the author’s own proposals, especially because on
many fundamental issues (e.g. middle *-o/*-to p. 7) only work
by Pooth is cited. In this connection, it is disturbing that on
many fundamental issues the only available reference is to unpublished manuscripts, while there is more than abundant existing scholarship on individual points that is systematically
omitted.
[RP: Other scholarship is “systematically omitted”, simply
because other views are irrelevant for my own analysis that is
presented here. I don’t need to give reference to all papers that
have treated PIE inflection. Most other scholars agree in reconstructing person indexing instead of hierarchical indexing for
PIE. Discussing the whole literature would only blow up the
23
paper to an unreadable size. Everybody engaged in Indo-European Studies should know the comparative facts. I generally refer to all currently available handbooks.]
Specific remarks: see the attached pdf. (These were minor
points and needn’t be reproduced here.)
Reviewer #2
General Comments: The author’s criticism that the historicalcomparative method has traditionally been applied in a manner
that tends to project back the synchronic typology of the oldest
descendant language to the protolanguage is well-taken. Given
the minimal time depth involved in the present case of PIE (by
any conception known to this reviewer), one would tend to expect rather that there has been a considerable change in the synchronic typology. One need think only of the history of Greek,
or of English for that matter. It is also entirely in order to consider that the synchronic typology of PIE may be of a radically
different type from that of Ancient Greek, Sanskrit, or Hittite.
[RP: Thanks.]
However, one must never lose sight of the goal of language
reconstruction: to account for the facts of the attested languages—how have they come to have the grammars that they
have? And there are a number of serious problems with the author’s present concrete attempt to elucidate the attested verbal
systems from a radically new and different PIE starting point.
[RP: No, the goal of language reconstruction is to reconstruct
the language as potentially realistic language spoken by native
speaks – not just to explain attested facts. I disagree. This may
be the ultimate goal of reconstruction for some of us, but it is
not my ultimate goal. My goal is to describe Proto-Indo-European synchronic grammar in a proper way.]
Reviewer#2: (1) The statement on p. 6 (lines 151-2) that “It
is a comparative fact that the IE correspondences and word or
morph equations point to minimally three different PIE third
person finite verb forms, both for singular and plural” is an
egregious overstatement.
[No, it is not. The comparative facts do point to 3sg forms in
*-o-, -to-, 2sg -so- and -t- and -s-, 3pl form in *-nt- *-rs, *-r.
That’s at least three 3pl forms, the rest can be analyzed the way
done here.]
The author is of course entitled to base further internal reconstruction on whichever interpretation of the comparative results
s/he wishes, but the author’s penchant for identifying virtually
every *-t- and *-s- component of verbal suffixes and endings
far exceeds reasonable bounds.
[No, I disagree. It is actually quite reasonable.]
Homophony is conceded only in very limited cases (e.g., p.
30, line 922 in the note on the first plural endings). The problem
with this unrestrained identification is that such atomism also
permits almost unlimited possibilities for functional analysis.
To cite merely one example, why should we believe that the
*-t- of various second plural endings has anything to do with
the *-t- of the third singular?
[RP: Because plural or nonsingular number was obviously
coded primarily by transposing the vowel to a different vowel
slot – and because this makes up a pattern:
*gʷʰén-m → NSG *gʷʰn-m-é
*gʷʰén-t → NSG *gʷʰn-t-é
(see section 2.4.)]
24
P O O T H , R O L A N D A . 2 0 2 1 . Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European
Predictably, the distribution and very existence of the zero
ending is particularly shadowy. As to the *-s- morph (p. 8ff.),
as is duly acknowledged, the author is not the first to suppose
that the third singular ending *-s is a source of a suffixal *-sappearing in some languages, though this is by no means still a
matter of consensus. And this reviewer happens to agree that
the *-s- that appears in various endings before *-t- has a far
wider distribution than some acknowledge. But there is virtually no agreement regarding the relationship of the suffixal
*s’s and the ending *-s.
[RP: Now what’s the purpose of this comment? Am I wrong
because there is no concensus? Am I wrong because someone
must have had the same idea before, so that my idea can be acceptable? But I acknowledge what is marked in bold type.]
It is also disingenuous to say (p. 18, 537-40) “Not touching
any IE functional distinctions would enforce us to functionally
reduce the three morphs to just two morphological categories
because Greek and Vedic both basically distinguish two opponent sets of “primary” vs. “secondary” suffixes, not three (when
we leave away the special proto-middle endings of the perfect
stem).” The “proto-middle/perfect” morphs ARE the third set
beside the “primary” vs. “secondary” (NOT the invented zero
morph), so one cannot claim that the more standard system tries
to operate with just two functional categories (likewise p. 19,
559-61).
[Disingenuous? Really? I wrote “when we leave away the
special proto-middle endings of the perfect stem”. I did this because the “proto-middle/perfect” obviously could be marked by
the morphs -t- (-th2e) and zero before a vowel (-Øe), which is
similar to (-Øo). The claim that the standard system tries to operate with just two functional categories “primary” vs. “secondary” is okay because the perfect endings are often said to belong
to the “secondary” endings (i.e. the set without *-i).
No, the zero morph is not invented. It is evident: *stéuo has
it. *gwhnó has it, too. The “third” set of perfect active endings
seems to be secondary. I take the stance that the perfect endings
are post-PIE innovations (Pooth 2014).]
The author may vehemently disagree with all previous attempts to reconstruct a typologically coherent synchronic PIE
system (in functional terms) that can account for the attested
systems, but cannot pretend that none have been made.
[Have I? I am just saying that these are all back-projections
of IE morphs and categories, namely, a back-projection of the
Greek and Vedic Sanskrit tripartite aspect stems (“present”,
“aorist”, “perfect” and their fusional endings.]
One must again protest that it is not a FACT “that the very
same markers *-s- and *-t- coded both second and third person
forms”. This is a claim of the author.
[RP: No, this critique is not justified, and my claim is actually
descriptively okay, simply because *-s- looks like *-s- and *-tlooks like *-t-. So, I can descriptively claim that these are the
“same” markers. I said in the paper that I base the analysis on
formal identify of morphs – not only on a back-projection of IE
categories.
Therefore, it is the personal claim of the reviewer that *-s- in
3sg forms and 2sg forms were “homophonous” and two different morphs in PIE. He or she obviously follows the standard
reasoning of back-projecting IE categories onto PIE, thus separating identical morphs for problematic reasons, which I still
don’t trust, nor can I consider such a reasoning process as being
more reliable than mine.
(2) It is of crucial importance to the author’s analysis that *sóbe a “proximative/proximate” demonstrative stem (finally so
characterized explicitly p. 26, 802–3). Nowhere does the author
give any evidence for this function of *só-, which implicitly
seems to be contrasted with that of *tó- (loc. cit.). It certainly
has been suggested that *só- may have had second-person
deixis (Klein 1986), which would be grist for the author’s mill.
However, Klein argues this for the combined *só/tó- and not
for a proximal value, but rather that of near the addressee (Latin
iste). The author must therefore seriously address the matter of
the deictic value of *só-.
[RP: Thanks for the reference, but Klein may be wrong. As I
see it, PIE had two endophoric demonstrative pronouns *sí(*só- etc.) and *tí- (*tó- etc.). The proximative value can explain its distribution very well. The obviative value of the latter
can explain its use as 2sg pronoun (> Proto-Anatolian *ti). The
matter is currently being discussed.]
(3) However, the principal weakness of the presentation here
is that the author utterly fails to spell out remotely adequately
how one is to derive from the PIE system sketched and illustrated on pp. 26–29 and in the appendixes to at least the attested
systems of Vedic Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, and Hittite (to Latin
would also be a desideratum). All of these languages share the
features of an active vs. mediopassive, and a new reconstruction
of the latter has now been offered by Inglese (2020), although
he prudently leaves some points about the PIE function open.
[RP: This is done in Pooth & Orqueda 2021. I cannot do everything in one paper. This paper is just an initial outline of the
hypothesis.
No, it is not “imprudent” to have an idea about the PIE function of the protomidde that is different from Silvia Luraghi’s
view that middle inflection was just a lexical feature of a special
verb class. I must disagree on that matter because the counterevidence is legion, although we both agree that the IE middle
marking does not go back to reflexive marking, see Pooth 2014,
Pooth & Orqueda 2021.]
One also would like to know something about how anaphora
is treated in direct/inverse systems. While the status of subject
anaphoric pronouns à la Anatolian is an open question, one can
hardly avoid reconstructing anaphoric direct object pronouns
for PIE. How did these arise/what was their role in a PIE with a
direct/inverse system?
[RP: A system with direct/inverse marking doesn’t actually
need anaphoric “direct object pronouns” because two participants are typically implied in the verb form, if the verb is a transitive or labile verb. But PIE presumably had a set of patient/theme clitics, e.g. *=me, *=se, *=te etc.]
For the author’s scenario to be taken seriously, the path(s)
from the reconstruction offered to the facts of the attested languages must be laid out in far more detail.
N E W T R E N D S I N I N D O - E U R O P E A N L I N G U I S T I C S Number 3
[By the moment the alignment changed to nominative-accusative, the direct/inverse system collapsed, the markers merged,
and the fusional morphotactic structure emerged. This is outlined in Pooth & Orqueda 2021.]
Minor comments: Page 6, line 260: Hittite kunati ‘was/has
been killed’ is a hapax in a New Hittite deposition. While the
ending -ati requires that it be older than the date of the composition, its archaicity may be questioned, since in Old Hittite, the
passive of ‘to kill, slay’ is supplied by ak(k)- ‘to die’.
[RP: I have no doubts about the archaic status of kunati, even
if it should be attested in a New Hittite deposition (but see Alwin Kloekhorst’s comment below) – and the reviewer’s argument is weak. It seems to be based on a misunderstanding about
verb semantics, because kunati is from ‘to kill, slay’ and ak(k)is a verb meaning ‘to die’, so these are two different verbs in
Hittite with a different meaning. As far as I can tell, a typical
passive category does not exist in Hittite, so he or she needs to
provide at least some examples for what he actually means by
“passive” in Hittite. Is it a special construction with neuter ergative? But this is not the same as a passive. In other words, the
comment is problematic.
When judged from the overall IE correspondences, *gwhéncould form detransitive voice forms. As argued, I reject the idea
that voice marking was just a lexical feature of a class of verb
in PIE.
I am grateful to Alwin Kloekhorst (p.c. on facebook) for the
following comment on Hittite kunati.
Alwin Kloekhorst: “In this specific case, I don’t see anything
wrong with Roland’s argument that kunati is an important form.
It is attested in a text that HethKonk dates as “mh.” (so the reviewer is the one that has a non-standard opinion on this matter), and it indeed seems to show the basic shape *CC-ó, which
in Hittite is only found in a few middles that form a closed category and that are all of an Indo-European origin. So, if kunati
indeed means something like ‘was slain’ (which seems to fit the
context) I would agree with Roland that it could well represent
a PIE formation *gʷʰn-ó. What further consequences Roland attaches to this idea, I don’t know: I haven’t seen his article.”]
p. 22, lines 674–5: while the results are not necessarily incompatible with the author’s larger PIE reconstruction, the author must acknowledge and respond to the serious attack on the
very existence of an “injunctive” in the traditional sense for PIE
by Hollenbaugh (2018) and (2020).
[I think that the Vedic “injunctive” cannot be considered as
being a modal category and has been mistreated by Hoffmann
(1967), and I have already presented my issues with that 16
years ago and published the argumentation 12 years ago (Pooth
2009a). Due to the Corona-lockdown, I have currently no access to his paper. I wonder if he has cited my work]
References:
Hollenbaugh, Ian. 2018. Aspects of the Indo-European Aorist and Imperfect: Re-evaluating the evidence of the R̥gveda and Homer and
its implications for PIE. Indo-European Linguistics 6.1–68.
——. 2020. A New Approach to Prohibitive Constructions in the
R̥gveda and the Atharvaveda. JAOS 140, 777–802.
Klein, Jared. 1996. "Sá-figé" and Indo-European Deixis. Historische
Sprachforscung 109, 21–39.
25
Reviewer #3
p. 2. “by means of the deductive reasoning of the comparative method” – Shouldn’t this be “inductive”?
[RP: The comparative method is inductive in generalizing
sound laws from IE form-function correspondences, but sound
laws are irrelevant here. Deriving PIE morphs and categories
from IE morph and category equations is based on the axiom
that PIE and IE morphs and categories must be identical, as outlined.]
fn. 1: For readers less acquainted with the Sanskrit data, it
would be useful to give a list of the abbreviations of the texts
quoted (RV = Rigveda, etc.).
p. 3: “the Vedic 1dual nom. pronoun vā́ m ... and the 2dual
... vām are so very similar.” Is similarity a sufficient argument
for assuming historical identity? [RP: Of course, it is.]
p. 3: Throughout the paper an opposition between “detransitive” and “active” forms is discussed. These are categories of
different type that should not be mixed up. RP: No, that’s a misunderstanding of the general linguistic terminology and the PIE
voice opposition (Pooth & Orqueda 2021). I only reconstruct
two voice categories for PIE: active voice vs. detransitive voice.
The latter is what is termed “proto-middle”.
p. 3: “The PIE form *gwmmós has been interpreted as a detransitive form by Pooth (2015)” – This is thus taken for granted
here, but unavailable for the readers of this paper. At least
some discussion of this claim would be useful. [RP: No, this is
not necessary here. The paper is available to everyone and
downloadable. Or else, send me an e-mail.]
p. 4: Why is the development of *-mi etc. as a present tense
marker post-PIE? What is the argument for assuming that *-i
was an aspectual marker? [RP: See Pooth 2009].
p. 6: Figure 3 presents reconstructions based on one form
each. This looks circular, note especially “in Vedic, we can expect *haté”. What is this expectation based on? [RP: Every
Indo-European linguist should know that.]
p. 7: What warrants the assumption that we are dealing with
the same morpheme *-t- in *-to- and *-nto-? Does -n- appear
independently elsewhere as a marker for 3pl? [RP: The assumption is warranted by the marking symmetry in the corresponding
active forms: *-nt- *-rs- *-r- = *-t- -s- zero.
No, -n- doesn’t appear independently elsewhere as a marker
for 3pl, but as a plural marker of 2pl, e.g. *gʷʰnté-n.]
p. 8 et passim: The Vedic forms should probably be supplied with meanings and references to the respective roots. Not
all Sanskrit text examples are translated. It would be recommendable to supply translations.
[RP: This is not necessary and would only blow up the paper to twice its size. You need to have some knowledge of Sanskrit to understand a paper in Indo-European Linguistics.]
p. 10: It is unclear to me what “potential mistakes” refers
to. [RP: Potential grammatical mistakes of the singer or writer.
I changed that.]
p. 11: “Cf. also Jasanoff (1991: 113f. ...)” This should probably go into a footnote.
p. 12 “Regarding these facts, any denial of the importance
of Watkins’ Law for IE languages is not reasonable.” What is
the background of this remark? Either leave it out or engage in
a discussion with the arguments brought forward against it.
[RP: The background of this remark is the recent skepticism
against Watkins’ law. Eugen Hill has written on this and played
26
P O O T H , R O L A N D A . 2 0 2 1 . Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European
down its importance, but I can’t find the paper right now (due
to Corona).]
p. 13: Supply meanings for the Hittite forms.
p. 16: note C on the history of -sva: if it is irrelevant for the
paper, one should leave it out. [OK, this is not in this version
anymore.]
p. 18: “D, S and Z have vanished without a functional
trace.” But D and S are continued in the daughter languages.
What about “source determination” in grammaticalization?
Would we not expect to find traces of earlier functions in later
uses?
[RP: No, that’s a different story. My story is rather about
mergers of patterns and markers and a subsequent functional
redistribution of *-t- and *-s- in terms of exaptation.]
p. 20: “Conclusions which are solely based on the application of the comparative method ...”: How can one compare
things that, as the author states, “have vanished completely”.
Are we comparing chimaeras? [RP: I have no idea, what this
comment is about.]
p. 20: “to think out of the comparative box”: hence to use
internal reconstruction, this is nothing new as for the method
applied in the paper.
p. 21: The inflectional elements -t- and -s- are said to look
“exactly” like the demonstrative stems *só- and *tó-. Actually,
there is one phoneme each that matches, but PIE *só … does
not match the verbal ending *-s, nor does *tód match the ending
*-t. The “formal identity” invoked is rather imprecise and it
seems hazardous to invoke grammaticalization as a black box.
[RP: This critique is based on a misleading view on the given
forms. I replied to it in the text, as given above.]
Do we want to make similar claims regarding the -m- of the
1st person, the oblique stem of the 1st person singular pronoun
*me-, the -m used as object marker and e.g. the prefix PIE *me‘toward’? Again, the premise made in the paper that such similarity is meaningful must be accepted without being verifiable.
[RP: No, not necessarily. But homophony is not always the
preferred option; formal identity of morphs principally points
to functional identity – and this must always be taken into account and investigated.]
p. 22: “slewn”? “slain” is meant. [RP: Oops, I am not a native
speaker of English. I am German. Such things sometimes happen to me. Corrected!]
p. 22f.: Is the proposed interpretation of -s- and -t- as direct/inverse markers the only option? It seems a bit like a rabbit
pulled out of the hat. [RP: Thanks for the rabbit, but I think it is
the most probable option, as argued.]
p. 24: The beginning of chapter 4 should probably be rephrased putting “G. Jacques (p.c.)” in a footnote.
p. 27: Are there other languages with the kind of split between 1. vs. 2/3. person as proposed here? [RP: Marking splits
between 1person and 2|3 are common.]
p. 29: What is the hypothesis based on claiming that -s- was
used “if the speaker was emotionally involved in the event”.
How could this be tested on data of attested IE languages? [RP:
It is based on the Vedic “precative”. It sometimes indicates that
the speaker is emotionally involved in the event. This is why it
has been termed “precative”.]
Appendix II: probably reformulate this quotation into a
brief discussion with reference as p.c. Kilday in a footnote.
References
Bauer, B. L. M. 2009: Residues as an aid in Internal Reconstruction, Internal Reconstruction in Indo-European. Methods, Results, and Problems. Ed. by J. E. Rasmussen & T.
Olander. Copenhagen, 17-31.
Beekes, R. S. P. 1995, second edition 2011: Comparative IndoEuropean Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia. Second
edition. Revised and corrected by Michiel de Vaan. Amsterdam & Philadelphia.
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.
DeLancey, S. 1981: The category of direction in Tibeto-Burman, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 6 (1), 83-101.
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010–2012: Basic Linguistc Theory. Volume
I–II 2010, Volume III 2012. Oxford.
Eichner 1985: Das Problem des Ansatzes eines urindogermanischen Numerus ‘Kollektiv’ (‘Komprehensiv’), in: Grammatische Kategorien, Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII.
Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin 20.25. Februar 1983. Ed. by B. Schlerath & V. Rittner. Wiesbaden, 134-169.
García Ramón, J. L. 1998: Indogermanisch *gu̯ hen- ‘(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.
Givón, T. 2001: Syntax. Volume I & II. Amsterdam.
Gotō, T. 1987: Die „I. Präsensklasse“ im Vedischen. Wien.
― 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.
Haspelmath, M. (2011): On S, A, P, T, and R as comparative
concepts for alignment typology. Linguistic Typology 15,
535–567.
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
N E W T R E N D S I N I N D O - E U R O P E A N L I N G U I S T I C S Number 3
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. 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.
Jacques, G. 2010: The inverse in Japhug Rgyalrong, Language
and Linguistics 11 (1), 127-57.
Jacques, G. & A. Antonov 2014: “Direct/inverse systems”,
Language and Linguistics Compass 8/7, 301-318.
Jamison, S. W. 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. 1991: The ablaut of the root aorist optative in
Proto-Indo-European, Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 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 IndoEuropean Studies. Bremen, 47-68.
Klaiman, M. H. 1992: Inverse Languages, Lingua 88, 227-61.
Kloekhorst, A. 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.
― 2008: Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden & Boston.
― 2017: The Old Hittite and the Proto-Indo-European tenseaspect system. Indogermanische Forschungen 122 (1), 295308, doi: 10.1515/if-2017-0015
Kölligan, D. 2007: Suppletion und Defektivität im griechischen
Verbum. Bremen.
Kümmel, M. J. 1996: Stativ und Passiaorist im Indoiranischen.
Göttingen.
― 1998: Wurzelpräsens neben Wurzelaorist im Indogermanischen, Historische Sprachforschung 111, 191-208.
― 2012: Typology and reconstruction. The consonants and
vowels of Proto-Indo-European, 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.
― 2012b: Monosyllabic lengthening in Vedic aorists? International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 9, 51-63.
― 2015+, 2018 (handout, see Kümmel 2018): Anatolisches und
indoiranisches Verbum. Erbe und Neuerung: 100 Jahre Ent-
27
zifferung des Hethitischen. Paper given at Morphosyntaktische Kategorien in Sprachgeschichte und Forschung. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft in Marburg
21.-23. September 2015, downloadable from https://unijena.academia.edu/MartinKümmel
― 2015: The Role of Typology in Historical Phonology. In:
The Oxford Handbook of Historical Phonology. Ed. by Patrick Honeybone and Joseph Salmons. Oxford: OUP.
― 2018: Anatolisches und indoiranisches Verbum. Erbe und
Neuerung. In: 100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen. Morphosyntaktische Kategorien in Sprachgeschichte und Forschung. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 23 September 2015 in Marburg. Herausgegeben von Elisabeth Rieken. Unter Mitwirkung von Ulrich Geupel und Theresa Maria Roth. Wiesbaden, 239ff.
― 2016: Is Ancient Old and Modern New? Fallacies of Attestation and Reconstruction (with Special Focus on Indo-Iranian). In: D.M. Goldstein, S.W. Jamison, & B Vine (eds.).
2016. Proceedings of the 27th Annual UCLA Indo-European
Conference. Bremen, 79-96, downloadable from https://unijena.academia.edu/MartinKümmel
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: Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben.
2. erw. und verbesserte Auflage. Wiesbaden.
Lubotsky, A.M. 1997: A R̥ gvedic Word Concordance. 2 Volumes. New Haven, Connecticut.
― 2013: The Vedic paradigm for ‘water’, in: Multi Nominis
Grammaticus Studies in Classical and Indo-European linguistics in honor of Alan J. Nussbaum on the occasion of his
sixty-fifth birthday, ed. by A.I. Cooper, J. Rau & M. Weiss.
Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press, 159-164.
Lundquist, J. & A. D. Yates 2018: The Morphology of ProtoIndo-European. In: Comparative Indo-European Linguistics:
An International Handbook. Eds. M. Fritz, B. Joseph, J.
Klein,
see
http://www.pies.ucla.edu/resources/ady/papers/IEmorph-F.pdf
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. (1931): Caractère secondaire du type thématique
indo-européen. Bulletin de la Société de linguistique de Paris
32, 194–203.
Melchert, H. C. 1998: Traces of PIE Aspectual Contrast in Anatolian, Incontri Linguistici 20, 83-92.
― 2012 (ed.): The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings of the
Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Los
Angeles 13-16 September 2010. Wiesbaden.
― 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
28
P O O T H , R O L A N D A . 2 0 2 1 . Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European
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: 270-282).
― 1995: Kleine Schriften. Band I. Hrsg. von Marcos Albino
und Matthias Fritz. Wiesbaden.
Neri, S. & R. Schuhmann 2014 (eds.): Studies on the Collective
and Feminine in Indo-European from a Diachronic and Typological Perspective. Leiden & Boston.
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, Internal Reconstruction in Indo-European.
Ed. by J. E. Rasmussen & T. Olander. Copenhagen, 205-212.
**Pooth, R. A. 2000: Stativ vs. Medium im Vedischen und
Avestischen, Historische Sprachforschung 113, 88-116.
— 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. Hg.
von T. Krisch & T. Lindner. Wiesbaden, 473-83.
— 2012: Zum Aufkommen transitiver Verben in frühen Vedischen am Beispiel 1r̥ , The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings
of the Conference of the Society for Ind-European Studies,
Los Angeles 13-16 September 2010. Ed. H. Craig Melchert.
Wiesbaden, 267-84.
— 2014: Die Diathesen Aktiv vs. Medium und die Verbsemantik
im Vedischen der R̥ gveda-Saṃhitā. Proefschrift, PhD dissertation. Defended 2014-10-23. Universiteit Leiden, Leiden
University Repository, https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl
— 2014b (ms.): More evidence for Proto-Indo-European transfixes: Two types of “lengthened grades”, ms. version 201412-05
— 2015: Proto-Indo-European Nominal Morphology. Part 1.
The Noun, Language Arts 1, issue version 2015-12-23, ms.
version 2015-12-23.
— 2016: Proto-Indo-European Verb Morphology. Part 1. Inflection, Language Arts 2, issue version 2016-03-11, ms. version 2016-03-11
— 2016b (talk, ms.): “Is the “tēzzi principle” a plausible inference”, The precursors of Proto-Indo-European: the IndoHittite and Indo-Uralic hypotheses. Workshop at the Leiden
University Centre for Linguistics, 9-11 July 2015
— 2017a: Proto-Indo-European Nominal Morphology. Part 2.
Adjectives, Language Arts 5, issue version 2017 Apr 22, author manuscript version 2017 Apr 22
— 2017: Towards a Rigorous Linguistic Reconstruction of
Morphs and Categories, Language Arts 6, issue version 2018
May 22, author manuscript version 2018 May 22
— 2018. Linguistic Reconstruction of Inflectional Categories:
The Three Original Functions of Indo-European -i-Presents.
FIU Indo-European Lingustics Report 1 (ms. version 28 February 2018)
— 2018b (ms.): Linguistic Analysis and Comparative Philology: The Case-Marking System of Proto-Indo-European. Ms.
version 17 October 2018
— 2018c. A gender issue at ‘hand’: Hittite ki-eš-šar and its prehistory. Research Comment, ms. 27 March 2018
— 2019 (ms.). On the origin of the Vedic subjunctive, pre-published manuscript
Pooth, R., P.A. Kerkhof, J. Barddal, L. Kulikov The Origin of
Non-Canonical Case Marking of Subjects in Proto-Indo-European: Accusative, Ergative, or Semantic Alignment. Indogermanische Forschungen 124, 245–263.
Pooth, R., and V. Orqueda (2021): Alignment change and the
emergence of the thematic conjugation from Proto-Indo-European to Indo-European: A wedding of hypotheses. In:
Transactions of the Philological Society. In press.
Renou, L. 1952: Grammaire de la langue védique. Lyon/Paris.
Rude, N. 1997: On the history of nominal case in Sahaptian,
International Journal of American Linguistics 63, 113-43.
Thompson, C. L. 1987: An Introduction to Athabascan languages. Yukon-Koyukuk School District,
https://uafanlc.alaska.edu/Online/CA975T1987b/CA975T19
87b.pdf
— 1989: Pronouns and Voice in Koyukon Athapascan: A textbased 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.
Tremblay, X. 2008: Iranian Historical Linguistics in the Twentieth Century – Part Two. Indo-European S Bulletin 13/1, 1–
51.
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.
[I haven’t read the second edition yet:
http://www.beechstave.com/weiss.html]
Willi, A. 2018: Origins of the Greek Verb. Cambridge U.P.
Zúñiga, F. 2006: Deixis and Alignment. Inverse Systems in Indigenous Languages of the Americas. Amsterdam & Philadelphia.
[**You can find most of my work on
https://leidenuniv.academia.edu/RolandPooth]
Köln-Nippes, zuletzt in Sülz am Montag, den 30. August 2021
1
Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European:
2
Direct, Inverse, and Undirected Verb Forms
3
Abstract: I present a novel reconstruction of the system of the Proto-Indo-European verbal inflection by arguing
4
that the common ancestor of all Indo-European languages exhibited direct vs. inverse vs. undirected verb forms
5
and thus hierarchical direct vs. inverse indexing of transitivity direction (viz. ‘who is acting on/directed to whom’;
6
see Jacques & Antonov 2014). The presented model deviates from the traditional comparative model in that it is
7
typologically different and based on a combined methodology. I am using general linguistics and the comparative
8
method to complement each other. I evaluate and interpret the results of the comparative method against the back-
9
ground of cross-linguistic findings and a broader typological pattern. This article is part of work in progress to-
10
wards a novel synchronic grammar of Proto-Indo-European.
11
Keywords: Linguistic reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European verbal inflection, transitivity direction, direct-in-
12
verse system, hierarchical indexing
13
1.
14
It may go against a dominant belief among philologists and Indo-European linguists, but I argue here
15
that Proto-Indo-European verbs were NOT inflected by attachment of fusional portmanteau “endings”
16
for person, number, voice, aspect, tense, and mood to verb stems that exhibited or lacked ablaut distinc-
17
tions. Even if Indo-European languages like Vedic Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, and Hittite must be ana-
18
lyzed this way, it is claimed here that the morphotactic structure of their parent language Proto-Indo-
19
European was different. In the present article, I use a combined methodology; methods of general lin-
20
guistics and comparative philology are complementing each other. The established results of Indo-Eu-
21
ropean comparison are thus evaluated from the background of a typology-based linguistic analysis. The
22
Proto-Indo-European word forms are NOT solely analyzed from an Indo-European comparative perspec-
23
tive on Indo-European morph boundaries. The reasons for using combined general linguistic and com-
24
parative methods follow the ones recently laid out in a paper on the methodology of a more rigorous
25
linguistic reconstruction of morphs and categories (Pooth 2017). In that paper, it is argued that anach-
26
ronistic morphosyntactic segmentations and categorizations are a cogent corollary of the application of
27
the comparative method to Indo-European morph boundaries and categories, if this is the only method
28
used for morphosyntactic linguistic reconstruction. It is argued that a more independent morphosyntactic
29
analysis needs to be applied to the proto-forms and their functions: one that is grounded on the given
30
reconstructed form-function correlates ON THEIR OWN – as if they were potentially real word forms of
31
an unknown language of its own – in order to avoid a misleading linguistic analysis of the parent lan-
32
guage. Analytical inferences concerning the proto-morphology and proto-syntax should thus be drawn
33
more independently from the younger Indo-European layer. This needs to be done with a general lin-
34
guistic and typological epistemic background. That paper finally diagnoses that this internal analysis
35
has not been done adequately yet because the traditional morphosyntactic model of the protolanguage
36
is still predominantly based on classical Greek grammar and thus on a typological knowledge of the
Introduction
2
37
nineteenth century. It is further based on the preconception that PIE morphs and morph boundaries
38
should only be reconstructed by means of the deductive reasoning of the comparative method (viz. by
39
morph and category equations). From a general linguistic background, it is almost self-evident that a
40
linguistic update of the traditional morphosyntactic comparative analysis is urgently needed. The present
41
article aims at filling this gap.
42
There are a few Proto-Indo-European grammatical categories that are maintained in Ancient
43
Greek and Vedic but were abandoned or modified in other Indo-European languages. E.g., the OPTA-
44
TIVE-IRREALIS
45
branch and has been modified to a general subjunctive from PIE to Latin and Proto-Germanic: cf. Vedic
46
Sanskrit 3sg and 3pl imperfective (= “present stem”) optative active1 syā́ t syúr = Old Latin subjunctive
47
active siēt sient 2 < Proto-Indo-European (henceforth PIE) 3sg *h1siéh1t and 3pl *h1sih1ént *h1sih1érs
48
*h1sih1ér → post-PIE *h1sih1r̥ ́ (s) > Vedic syúr, etc. Further below, I return to the question why we can
49
reconstruct three different 3pl forms ending in *r *rs *nt.
modal category is maintained in Greek and Vedic but is not continued in the Anatolian
50
On the other hand, a thorough Indo-European comparative investigation also reveals remnants
51
of morphosyntactic distinctions that are NOT continued as such in a single Indo-European language.
52
These grammatical categories are UNKNOWN and ABSENT from old Indo-European languages or from
53
Indo-European languages in general. If these categories existed in the common ancestor grammar, they
54
must have been abandoned or functionally modified by the time the protolanguage developed into a
55
post-PIE variant cluster with posterior dialects in close areal contact.3 I argue here that, by additional
56
application of the method of internal reconstruction, we are able to detect and identify such parallel
57
independent innovative categories of the post-PIE dialects. These parallel innovations presumably oc-
58
curred shortly after the common PIE synchronic grammar broke up.
59
1.1.
60
An illustrative example of a category that is non-existing in Indo-European languages but should better
61
be reconstructed for their ancestor, is the 1+2|2+x INCLUSIVE person category ‘we, that is, you and
62
me/us’. It is continued only modified as a first-person DUAL INCLUSIVE category in Early Vedic (RV,
1
The Proto-Indo-European 1+2|2+x inclusive category
In general, I follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules and make use of the conventional glossing:
ABS
= “absolutive” or “anti-
agentive” unmarked case, ACC = accusative case, ACT = active-agentive voice,
AGT
= agentive case, COL = collective number
(group-like sociative-associative plural ‘they are doing something together’),
DTR
= detransitive voice,
NDUR
= nondurative
(“aorist-like”) aspect, PL = plural number, PROG = progressive aspect, SG = singular number, TOP = topical referent, NTOP = nontopical or “anti-topical” referent. The symbol > generally means ‘… developed into … by sound law’ but here it also symbolizes
the transitivity or causation direction (e.g., 2sg>3sg = 2sg acting on/causing an effect in 3sg).
2
Weiss 2009: 416.
3
For the notion of a “Late” or “Vulgar” Proto-Indo-European dialect continuum and variant cluster see Pooth 2015.
3
63
AV, e.g. Vedic ganvahi (TPgwm̥ u̯ édhh2)4 ‘we two, you (sg) and me, go (up) together’, attested in RV
64
8.69.7b). In later IE languages, it is reflected as a first-person DUAL without clusitivity (that is, it is both
65
inclusive AND EXCLUSIVE) in Old Church Slavonic and Gothic (Pooth 2011). This well-known5 dia-
66
chronic path can be illustrated as follows.
67
Figure 1. The development of 1dual forms from 1pl inclusive forms
68
PIE6
Early Vedic
69
1+2inclusive →
1dual inclusive
70
*gʷm-uó(s)
→
OCS, Gothic
→ 1dual inclusive|exclusive
gan-vahi (middle)
71
The fact that 1dual forms are overwhelmingly INCLUSIVE in the Early Vedic period is a func-
72
tional trace and positive evidence for this category, and constitutes the decisive argument (Pooth 2011).
73
Another piece of evidence in this puzzle is the comparative fact that the Vedic 1dual nom. pronoun vā́ m
74
(RV 6.55.1) and the 2dual acc. dat. gen. clitic vām are so very similar. This points to a PIE pronoun
75
*(h1)ué(h1), clitic *uo(h1) for both 2dual and 1dual inclusive (Pooth 2016c, section 9). The internal
76
evidence thus supports the hypothesis that PIE had a 1+2 INCLUSIVE that was likewise a 2nd person
77
INCLUSIVE/ASSOCIATIVE
78
panion’, ‘you and your (uncountable or countable) company’). This can be glossed as 1+2|2+X. Such a
79
polysemy is not unknown among the languages of the world. The pronominal polysemy fits with the
80
polysemy of the corresponding verbal category reconstructed here. Therefore, the PIE suffix -u- can be
81
interpreted as a second person (addressee, oppositional, adversative) suffix underspecified for the other
82
included/inclusive participant. The form *gʷmuó obviously lacked an additional number suffix and was
83
thus less specified, whereas two additional forms 2nd person inclusive sociative-associative *gʷm-uó-h1,
84
plural *gʷm-uó-s had additional number suffixes (they are structured in parallel with the 1pl exclusive
85
forms *gʷm-mé *gʷm-mé-s). The PIE form *gʷmuó(s) has been interpreted as a DETRANSITIVE (“proto-
86
middle”) form by Pooth (2015) with the detransitive marker being */o/ here. The active counterpart was
4
(‘you & an underspecified participant’ = ‘you and me’, ‘you and your com-
Abbreviations: EF = equation formula; TP = phonological transponatum. IR = internally reconstructed word form. The term
“transponatum” is pseudo-Latinized German Transponat and refers to a form that is generated by simple back-projection of
the respective IE sound laws, as if the form and its function belonged to PIE synchronic grammar without implying that it really
did. Equations formulas, especially such based on productive (viz. potentially innovative) IE formation patterns (e.g. 3sg
EF
bʰéreti), can principally be secondary Scheingleichungen due to independent parallel innovations (e.g., an independent par-
allel innovation of a simple thematic verb stem EFbʰére/o- in areal contact). Therefore, equation formulas should not automatically be reconstructed in their corresponding forms and functions for PIE without additional methodological inferences (Pooth
2017). This is a major methodological disagreement between the traditional comparative approach and the one pursued here.
5
This development has been described by Dixon 2010 II: 194 for several Australian languages.
6
Abbreviations: PIE= Proto-Indo-European, PII = Proto-Indo-Iranian/Iranic, OCS = Old Church Slavonic, etc.
4
87
*gʷmué(s). To conclude, we are able to identify a post-PIE functional narrowing of the PIE 1st+ 2nd
88
person inclusive and 2nd person plus x category to 1st person DUAL by application of the method of
89
internal reconstruction.
90
1.2.
91
Another illustrative example of a PIE grammatical category whose original function did not survive in
92
any IE language and was functionally modified (most probably immediately after PIE broke up) is the
93
PROGRESSIVE
94
marker of this PIE aspect category was the suffix *-i. This suffix was attachable to many non-progres-
95
sive verb forms in word final position, e.g. *gwhénm-i ‘I am slaying, killing someone, him, her, it’,
96
*gwhnmés-i ‘we (exclusive) are ditto’, etc. 7 We can draw the inference that most PIE progressive forms
97
developed into post-PIE IMPERFECTIVE aspect and PRESENT tense forms8, 9 (Pooth 2009a, Kloekhorst
98
2017). It is an important implication of this inference that the post-PIE imperfective present category
99
was then, but NOT BEFORE (!), marked by fusional portmanteau suffixes. The emergence of fusional
100
TAM + voice portmanteau endings *-mi, *-si, *-ti, *-mes(i), *-u̯ es(i), *-ten(i), *-énti, etc. must thus be
101
a SECONDARY functional morphotactic innovation. In other words, these new fusional suffixes do not
102
necessarily go back to the PIE proper parent language in their Greek or Vedic forms and functions. The
103
parallel independent post-PIE development can be illustrated as follows.
The Proto-Indo-European progressive aspect
104
aspect (but see Kloekhorst 2017 for its functional traces in Old Hittite; Bauer 2009). The
Figure 2. The development of IE imperfective present or general present forms
105
PIE
106
PROGRESSIVE
wh
107
*g én-t-i
108
post-PIE
Hittite
→ IMPERFECTIVE (PRESENT) → PRESENT
*gwhén-ti
kuēn-zi
→ Vedic Sanskrit
109
IMPERFECTIVE PRESENT
(later vs. PERFECTIVE)10
110
hán-ti
(vs. aor. vádhīt)11
7
This suffix has hitherto been called “particle of the hic et nunc”, but it is neither assured that it was a particle nor is “hic et
nunc” an adequate functional term. It is unlikely that it was a tense suffix (Pooth 2009a).
8
The development of progressive forms to imperfective present forms is common (Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994).
9
These progressive forms were extended by productive endings yielding new imperfective and present stems (Pooth 2017).
10
The development of the PERFECTIVE (“aorist”) category was an innovation of the so-called “Inner IE” parts of post-PIE dialect
continuum, presumably innovated in close areal contact. It is mistaken to reconstruct the traditional array of characterized aorist
stems for PIE, except for the athematic reduplicated aorist, but this must have had a more specified (COMPLETIVE) meaning.
Even “root aorist” stems cannot be rendered canonical PERFECTIVE stems in PIE because many of them were still compatible
with the progressive aspect, e.g. *dhéh1ti (Pooth 2016).
11
García Ramón (1998) noticed the suppletion of Vedic pres. hánti vs. aor. vádhīt. But the lack of corresponding suppletive
pairs speaks in favor of parallel but independent root suppletion in Ancient Greek vs. Vedic (Kölligan 2007).
5
111
I return to the emergence of the “primary endings” and “secondary endings” in more detail below. To
112
sum up, the back-projection of the Vedic and Greek so-called “primary endings” onto PIE seems to be
113
an anachronistic mistake.12
114
1.3.
115
Another example of a PIE category that was obviously modified in post-PIE times is provided by the
116
PIE COLLECTIVE (UNCOUNTABLE GROUP PLURAL) number category. E.g., PIE *uédor ~ *uédorh2 ‘wa-
117
ter(s)’ (>*u̯ édo:(r)) besides PIE *uódr ~ *uóh1r ‘water’ (> Hittite wātar, etc.). It relevant for the meth-
118
odological purpose pursued here to recognize that this number category is not maintained as a number
119
category in any IE language. Nevertheless, it is one of the rare categories that comparative philologists
120
reconstruct for PIE grammar (see the discussion by Eichner 1985, Litscher 2014), even if this category
121
is no longer existing in this particular function in the old IE languages.
The PIE collective number
122
The PIE collective number forms are continued as neuter singular or plural, or feminine singular
123
forms in the later period: e.g., PIE *dóru-h2 ‘wood-COL’ → IE ‘wood-PL’; Greek has a nom.-acc. SIN-
124
GULAR n. τό ὕδωρ, gen. ὕδατος ‘water’, whereas Hittite has a PLURAL n. widār ~ witār ~ wedār ‘waters’
125
(vs. sg. wātar ‘water’). The Greek and Hittite forms seem to go back to PIE *uédor(h2) (*udón, *udnós).
126
The locative and the oblique forms are continued as Vedic udán, udnás, etc. Greek reflects the general-
127
ized zero-graded root *ud- but the original accent on the root, whereas Hittite has the accent outside the
128
root. It is thus a well-known comparative fact that the IE outcomes of PIE *uédor(h2) belong to different
129
IE singular vs. plural number categories. Even if it is often assumed that *uédor(h2) was a neuter “sin-
130
gular” form that could be used as a plural number form, it is clear that it must have had a plural-like
131
meaning in PIE. Therefore, Pooth (2015) has drawn the inference that *uédor- was transnumeral and
132
had both a GENERIC reading ‘water in general, water as type’ and an uncountable COLLECTIVE number
133
reading ‘group of waters’, although discussing this hypothesis is not necessary here. The relevant meth-
134
odological point of our concern is that the PIE form *uédor(h2) is continued in different IE languages
135
by two different categories and that this comparative fact can be read as comparative evidence justify-
136
ing the general assumption of some major changes in PIE derivational and inflectional number catego-
137
ries – and major changes in morphosyntactic (e.g. number) categories more generally.
138
To sum up, I consider it imperative that within a proper linguistic reconstruction of the common
139
ancestor of all IE languages it must be our task and duty to reveal the semantic nature of all these lost
140
and modified categories by means of internal reconstruction grounded in cross-linguistic patterns and
141
based on general linguistic typology. Also, we must find reasonable motives for why these categories
142
were given up or modified when the protolanguage broke up and developed into a bundle of dialects. I
12
Thus Beekes 1995.
6
143
would like to make this methodological point even stronger here. To my mind, it is unreasonable, or
144
naïve, to a priori doubt or neglect the existence of PIE grammatical distinctions that were different from
145
the ones reflected by the IE languages. All historical linguists are well aware that categories normally
146
continually change their functional nature. Assuming that the opposite was true for the period in between
147
PIE and IE is contradicted by cross-linguistic diachronic evidence. In my view, such a state of mind is
148
not a reasonable skeptical position.
149
2.
150
Before we can analyze the PIE word forms more properly, we need to first make use of the comparative
151
method. It is a comparative fact that the IE correspondences and word or morph equations point to
152
minimally three different PIE third person finite verb forms, both for singular and plural. These third
153
person forms are provisionally termed D for the ones with the segment -t- (the voiceless alveolar stop),
154
S for the ones with the segment -s- (the sibilant), SD for the ones with a combined -st-, and Z (zero) for
155
the ones without any of these segments. I operate with the notions of “equation formulas” and “transpo-
156
nata” here to make sure that this is a preliminary methodological step but not yet the ultimate recon-
157
struction (see footnote 4).
Comparative settings
Figure 3. IE equation formulas (EF) and transponata (TP)
158
EF
159
3SG
160
Z
EF
-Ø- (2SG)
161
D
EF
162
163
EF
MIDDLE
example
IE forms
EF
-o-
TP wh
Young Avestan +°γne :: Hittite kun-ati
-t-
EF
-to-
EF wh
in Vedic, we can expect *ha-té
S
EF
-s-
EF
-so- (2SG)
EF wh
g n̥ só(i)
(2SG)A
SD
EF
-st-
EF
-sto-
TP
ǵénh1sto
Vedic (á)jániṣṭa
ǵusró
Vedic ajuṣranB
ACTIVE
g nó
g n̥ tó
164
3PL
165
Z
EF
-ér/-r̥
EF
-ro-
TP
166
D
EF
-ént-/-n̥ t-
EF
-(o)nto-
TP h
S
EF
167
-érs/-r̥ s
d ughn̥ tó
TP w
w
k ik óitr̥ s
Vedic duhaté
Old Avestan cikōitǝrǝšC
168
169
Additional notes to Figure 3:
170
A
Cf. Greek -(σ)ο (e.g. ἐφέρου ‘you were carried’< *ephere-so) = Latin 2sg middle -re (~ ris ~ rus), etc. ::
171
Vedic -se = Gothic -za, etc.
172
B
173
in paradigmatic analogy to the 3pl active ending *-an < PIE *-ont or the 2du and 3du active endings *-tām,
Cf. Vedic -ran, -ram go back to Proto-Indo-Iranian/Iranic *-ra (< *-ro) extended by *-n and *-m (or both)
174
*-tam, respectively.
175
C
176
to variant with o-grade of the root.
Cf. Jasanoff (2003: 40, fn. 32). The k of Old Avestan cikōitǝrǝš (TPkwikwóitr̥ s) may be analogical or points
7
177
2.1.
178
The morph *-t- is usually taken for a regular fusional PIE third person singular portmanteau ending, e.g.
179
*gwhént, *gwhénti > Vedic hán, hánti, etc. However, many more forms were marked by this alveolar
180
suffix *-t- in PIE. A segment *-t- is also found in the 3sg middle (= detransitive) ending *-to- (> Vedic
181
-ta = Greek -το = Hittite -ta, etc.). This string *-to- can be split up into two separate morphs, *-t- and
182
detransitive *-o-, respectively (Pooth 2004a, 2009b, 2015). Furthermore, the third person plural forms
183
displaying *-nt- vs. *-nto- also show such a segment *-t-. Thus, these segmental strings are separable
184
(sic!) into *-n- + *-t- and *-o-, respectively.
185
The alveolar morph *-t-
Figure 4. PIE forms exhibiting *-t-
186
3SG
3PL
187
ACT
*gwhént
*gwhnént
188
DTR
*gwhntó
*gwhnntó, *h1sónt → post-PIE *h1sónt ~*h1sóntoA
189
ACT
*stḗut
*stéunt
190
DTR
*stéuto
*stéuont → post-PIE *stéu̯ onto ~ *stéu̯ n̥ toA
191
Note to Figure 4: AThe PIE 3pl detransitive form *h1sónt (vs. active *h1sént) was reanalyzed as neo-
192
active13 form from PIE to post-PIE (Pooth 2011; 2014: chapters 7-8). An innovative pleonastic 3pl middle
193
ending *-onto (> Hittite -anta = Vedic -anta, etc.) developed from *-ont + *-o in analogy to *-n̥ to.
194
In addition to its occurrence in third-person forms, the segment *-t- is part of the 2pl endings *-te(n) ~
195
*-tes (vel sim.), e.g. *h1stén(i), etc. It is further part of the post-PIE second person middle endings sg.
196
*-th2e (vel sim.), pl. *-th2e(n).14
197
Figure 5. More PIE forms exhibiting the segment *-t-
198
2SG
2/3COL (→2/3DUAL15)
*gwhnté(n)
199
ACT
200
DTR
*gwhnth2é
201
DTR
*uóidth2e
202
DTR
13
2PL
*gwhnth2é(n) (→ Vedic 2pl neo-active -tha ~-thanā̆)
*gwhntéh2 → neo-active *-tā(m)
Cf. Jasanoff 2003. The term “neo-active” means “ex-proto-middle form reanalyzed as new active form”. A syntactic moti-
vation for the proto-middle to neo-active voice shift is provided in Pooth (2004b); see also Pooth & Orqueda forthc.
14
Cf. Pooth 2011, 2015.
15
Cf. Pooth 2011.
8
203
2.2.
204
Other third person finite verb forms were marked by a sibilant suffix *-s-. In this section,16 I argue that
205
we need to reconstruct a third person singular ending *-s in one of the pre-Vedic stages serving as the
206
basis for the emergence of the so-called “precative” optative aorist. I thus conclude that the sibilant
207
morph *-s- was an inflectional suffix, not originally a sigmatic stem suffix.
The sibilant morph *-s-
208
I can provide a relevant example for the morphotactic tendency to generate stem suffixes out of
209
former endings. Recall that Early Vedic sigmatic optatives derived from sigmatic aorists are extremely
210
infrequent. There are some middle forms, for instance a 1sg aor. opt. mid. masīya from 1man- ‘to think’,
211
etc. However, the other optatives are root optatives which are not derived from the underlying sigmatic
212
stem, but are templatically derived from the Vedic “root” (= the ultimate inflectable base).
213
Figure 6. Vedic sigmatic stems and root optatives
214
sigmatic stem
root optative (see Table 1)
215
āvīt, āvīṣ-ur
av-yā-s
216
(ví) yauṣ, yauṣ-úr
(ví) yū-yā-s
217
sákṣant-
sah-yā-s, sah-y-ur, sāh-yā-ma
218
mardhīṣ, mardhiṣ-ṭam
mr̥ dh-yā-s
219
Figure 7. The origin of the sigmatic stem (Watkins 1962)
220
3sg asigmatic
*sḗǵh-t
221
3sg sigmatic
*sḗǵh-s → *sḗǵh-st → TPsḗǵh-s-t
222
Figure 8. List of Vedic sigmatic aorist forms
223
3sg
apās (root aorist?) aprās ahās hā́ s ájaiṣ yaus akṣār atsār abhār bhā́ r asvār atān ayān áchān ákrān
224
asyān bhāk aprāṭ adhāk dhāk avāṭ ā ́ raik acait aśvait adyaut dyaut asrāk (ānīt akārīt gārīt cārīt
225
árāvīt asāvīt svānīt, Narten 1964: 53f.)
226
2sg
prā́ s (root aorist?) ákrān yāṭ ayās adyaut
227
1sg
ayāsam ajaiṣam (prec. TS jeṣam) stoṣam abhārṣam áspārṣam áhārṣam ayāṃsam
228
3pl
dhāsur ayāsur hāsur ábhaiṣur yauṣur áchāntsur amatsur
229
2pl
naiṣṭa áchānta
230
1pl
ájaiṣma (prec. jéṣma) ábhaiṣma
231
2du
yauṣṭam
232
3du
asvārṣṭām
16
The argumentation is partially based on Pooth (2017).
9
233
There is only one possible explanation that plausibly helps to understand the Early Vedic situation. It
234
runs as follows. The active forms of the optative were not derived from an underlying stem via linear
235
suffixation in Early Vedic, but were derived templatically from the root as the ultimate inflectable base.
236
Only a few morphotactically younger forms are derived the de-thematic way from the sigmatic stem,
237
e.g. masīya. This was correctly seen by Jasanoff:
238
The root aorist optative forms ... are simply the forms that Indo-Iranian inherited from the optative of the
239
PIE presigmatic aorist. Since the spread of *-s- across the extended paradigm of the presigmatic aorist had
240
apparently not yet affected the optative in the parent language, Vedic and Avestan continue to associate s-
241
aorist indicatives ... with optatives of ... root aorists. (Jasanoff 2003: 185)
242
The association of root optatives such as avyā-s, etc. with the sigmatic aorist strengthens the hypothesis
243
that the sigmatic aorist itself developed from a sigmatic 3sg form of the PIE root formations, as illus-
244
trated in Figure 7. This is underpinned by the following evidence (cf. Kümmel 2015+, 2016, 2018):
245
246
a. R̥ gvedic active sigmatic aorists frequently occur in the 3sg (cf. Narten 1964, Lubotsky 1997), see
the list of forms in Figure 8 (which includes the irregular “precative” jéṣma).
247
The isolated 3sg aor. act. acait ā ́ raik (a)dyaut are attested besides root aor. mid. ácidhvam rikthās
248
dyutāná- (cf. Kümmel 2012, 2015+, 2018), cf. YV (a)mauk besides AV ámok, RV ámugdhvam (cf.
249
Kümmel 2015+, 2018). Possible relics of a 3sg SE -s are (as per Kümmel 2015+, 2016, 2018):
250
(1) apās RV 5.29.8, since more forms are root aorists (ápām ápās ápāma) ~ 3sg ápāt (RV 2.37.4,
251
6.38.1, 8.69.11, 8.92.4). But notice that Hittite pāšš-ḫi and Luwian pašš- ‘swallow’ point to a PIE suffix
252
(enlargement) *-s-.
253
(2) aprās ‘has/have filled’ RV (10x 3sg, 1x 2sg), subj. prā ́ s (= pra.as), imp. prā ́ si, cf. AV aprāt.
254
(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
255
Malzahn 2002), cf. 2sg pres. inj. véṣ RV 4.3.13, 4.7.8, 6.15.14; RV 1.77.2 yó adhvaréṣu śáṃtama r̥ tā́ vā
256
hótā tám ū námobhir ā́ kr̥ ṇudhvam | agnír yád vér mártāya devā́ n sá cā bódhāti mánasā yajāti is unlikely
257
to be *vay-ī-ṣ (cf. Kümmel 2015+, 2018).
258
(4) dhāyīṣ (RV 1.147.5d) utá vā yáḥ sahasiya pravidvā ́ n márto mártaṃ marcáyati dvayéna | átaḥ
259
pāhi stavamāna stuvántam ágne mā ́ kir no duritā ́ ya dhāyīḥ “Ja auch, du Starker, welcher Sterbliche mit
260
Vorsatz einen Sterblichen durch seine zwei (Hände) schädigt, vor dem schütze, du Gepriesener, den
261
Preisenden. Agni, dass nicht irgendwer uns dem Unglück übergebe!” (RP). 3sg is possible, because it
262
usually occurs with mā ́ kiṣ (cf. Kümmel 2015+, 2018).
263
(5) dhās HirGS 1.13.15 ĀpMB 2.10.17 tan ma ūrjaṃ dhāḥ “[d]as verschaffe mir Kraft!” (cf. Burrow
264
1957: 64f.) occurs besides a highly archaic 3sg opt. īśīya, cf. 3pl dhāsur RV 7.97.5, subj. dhāsathas RV
265
1.160.5, dhāsathā RV 1.111.2 (cf. Narten 1964: 151f., Kümmel 2016). Here may belong Messapic
266
hipades ‘ἀνέθηκε’ (lit. ‘κατέθηκε’?) with -des (likely -dēs) < *dhéh1-s – and other such sigmatic forms.
10
267
(6) bhūṣ (opt. syās?) in RV 10.11.9 = 12.9cd ā ́ no vaha ródasī deváputre mā ́ kir devā ́ nām ápa bhūr
268
ihá syāḥ = AV 18.1.25 AVP 18.59.5 “fahre herbei zu uns die beiden Welthälften. Sei nicht als einer der
269
Götter weg/Dass keiner der Götter weg sei; mögest du hier sein!” (Kümmel); 3sg for bhūṣ is at least
270
possible, because it mainly occurs with mā ́ kiṣ (cf. Kümmel 2015+, 2018).
271
(7) abheṣ ‘has feared’ AB 1.20.3 prāṇo vā ayaṃ san nābher iti. tasmān nābhis. tan nābher nābhitvam
272
“The breath being here hath not feared (they say); therefore is it the navel; that is why the navel has its
273
name” (Keith) (cf. Narten 1964: 180, Anm. 515).
274
However, potential mistakes are (as per Kümmel 2015+, 2018): TS/TB: TS 2,2,12,6 agnír dā
275
dráviṇaṃ vīrápeśāḥ ~ dād RV 10,80,4 TS 5,6,8,6 pitā ́ mātaríśvā ́ chidrā padā ́ dhāḥ (= AB 2,38,6f.) ~
276
dhāt KS 40,6 TB 2,5,4,15 ná=atārīr asya sámr̥ tiṃ vadhā ́ nām ~ ná=atārīd RV 1,32,6 KB 27,4 asmāsu
277
nr̥ mṇaṃ dhāḥ ~ ā ́ smā ́ su nr̥ mṇaṃ dhāt MS 1,9,1: 131,9 TA 3,1,1.
278
b. Early Vedic exhibits a 3sg aor. opt. act. secondary ending -s. Table 1 provides a list of the R̥ gvedic
279
3sg active so-called “precatives” and some corresponding root aor. opt. active forms, cf. also AVŚ 16.2.4
280
śrūyāsam (for jéṣma see above).
281
Table 1. Early Vedic 3sg 2sg root aorist optatives and corresponding 1sg 1pl 3pl forms
verb
av
i
r̥ dh
3SG
2SG
avyās
avyās
r̥ dhyās
r̥ dhyās
3PL
1SG
1PL
r̥ dhyā́ ma
kr̥
kriyāma ~ kriyāsma
gam
gamyā́ s
jñā
jñeyā ́ s
dah
daghyās
naś
aśyās
pā
peyās
bhū
bhūyā́ s
mr̥ dh
mr̥ dhyās
yam
yamyās
gamyās
aśyur
bhūyā́ s
yā
aśyā́ m
aśyā́ ma
bhūyāsam
bhūyā́ ma
yeṣam
yu
yūyās
vr̥ j
vr̥ jyās
śru
śrūyā́ s
sah
sahyās
vr̥ jyā́ m
vr̥ jyā́ ma
śrūyāsam (AV)
sahyur
sāhyā́ ma
282
R̥ gvedic siṣ-aorist ind. and “precative” forms are attested from gā and 2yā (cf. Narten 1964: 70, Lubotsky
283
1997: 1149, 1151: 1sg ind. act. ayāsiṣam, 2sg opt. mid. yāsisīṣṭhās (RV 4.1.4b), 3sg ind. act. ayāsīt, opt.
284
mid. yāsīṣṭa, 2pl ind. act. áyāsiṣṭa, 3pl ind. act. agāsiṣur ayāsiṣur, 2du inj. act. yāsiṣṭám (3du ind. act.
285
RVKh 5.7.3c prāyāsiṣṭām); cf. 3sg subj. gāsiṣat yāsiṣat.
286
287
3sg opt. forms of thematic stems show -t, e.g. aor. sanet, AV r̥ dhet gamet -yamet vocet, VS
vidét, pres. syā ́ t bhávet, likewise 3sg perf. opt. forms, e.g. dadhyā ́ t jagamyāt juguryā ́ t, etc.
11
288
An irregular “precative” type is RV yeṣam (and jeṣma?), AV+ stheṣam, etc., YV khyeṣam. It
289
exhibits the suffix -īṣ- and should be analyzed as *°a(H)-īṣ- (*ja(y)-īṣ-?). A 3sg in *°eṣ is not attested,
290
but this can be accidental (cf. Kümmel 2015+, 2016, 2018, Jamison 2009, Hoffmann 1967b: 32 = 1976:
291
472f., 1968 = 1975: 247, fn. 4).
292
293
The 3sg SE -s was taken as (irregular) innovation by Renou (1952: 291) and Hoffmann (1967b:
28) – but such an analysis is implausible and ad hoc:
294
Hier konnte beim Optativ das s-Formans vermißt worden sein [but why? This assumption is not justi-
295
fied, nor plausible]. Es wurde deshalb bei der 2. Sg. die Personalendung s in *yūyās nach der 2. Sg. yaus
296
als Aorist-Formans s interpretiert und demzufolge zur 3. Sg. yaus eine 3. Sg. RV yūyās geschaffen. (Hoff-
297
mann 1967: 28; emphasis of “vermißt” mine)
298
Cf. also Jasanoff (1991: 113f.; 2003: 186ff.) (starting from *-ī-ṣ → -yā-s), Harðarson (1993: 109-112),
299
Gotō (2013: 93f.). This assumption is ad hoc and not plausible because the substitution usually takes
300
the opposite direction, and -s is replaced by -t, e.g. iṣ-aor. *átārHs(t) > *átārīṣ → átārī-t ... ágrabhī-ṣ,
301
ágrabhī-t, likewise ānīt akārīt gārīt cārīt árāvīt asāvīt svānīt (cf. Narten 1964: 53f.). All in all, Hoff-
302
mann’s idea does not conform to inner-Vedic tendencies:
303
(1) RV yāṭ → ind. áyās (RV 3.29.16) confirms a spread of -s as 2sg (not 3sg!) ending; cf. also srās
304
for *srāṭ (AV 11.2.19, 26; cf. Kümmel 2015+, 2018, Narten 1964: 200, 273); abhinas AVP 13.4.2 for
305
RV abhinat < *abʱinat-s (cf. Kümmel 2015+, 2018, Hoffmann 1965: 188f. = 1975: 179f., cf. Pāṇ.
306
8.2.75).
307
(2) RV bhūyā́ s → AV bhūyā-t confirms a spread of -t as 3sg ending, i.e., -t replaces -s from RV to
308
AV, not vice versa (cf. Hoffmann 1967: 29 = 1976: 469). Likewise, RVKh ájait, AV+ (a)nait aprāt
309
ahāt, etc. for *ájaiṣ *ánaiṣ aprās ahās; cf. also VS asrat for *asras (Kümmel 2015+, 2018).
310
(3) The genesis of the siṣ-aorist (3sg *áyās → áyās-īt) conforms to the general tendency to introduce
311
the endings 2sg -īs and 3sg -īt in the sigmatic aor. (cf. Narten 1964: 71), cf. AV+ avāts-īt, dhākṣ-īt,
312
anaikṣ-īt besides regular 1sg -s-am, etc.
313
314
For the given reasons, a younger emergence of a 3sg ending -s is unlikely. It is more plausibly an
(archaic) ending, and Burrow was correct:
315
Taking the Vedic system where s occurs only in the second and third person singular, it is clear that in the
316
active the suffix is -yā- and that -s is in both cases termination. (Burrow 1954: 40)
317
Recall that “the optative of the sigmatic aorists is still acrostatic, but asigmatic in Gāthic (Narten 1984),
318
whereas the sigmatic stem has been generalized in [the m]iddle (opt. 1sg rāŋ́hē Y 12.3)” (Tremblay
319
2008: 29). Old Avestan corresponds to Early Vedic in this respect.
320
It is evident that the 2sg 3sg -yā́ -s was reanalyzed as *-yā́ s-Ø with 2sg 3sg zero ending -Ø and
321
spread over to a few 1st person forms. Thus, the RV provides evidence for a morphological reanalysis
12
322
of a 3sg aor. opt. -yā-s to a new “precative” stem suffix: RV kri-yās-ma, bhū-yās-am, AV śrū-yās-am
323
(cf. Harðarson 1993: 110, Kümmel 2015+, 2018).
324
This is an attested case of WATKINS’ LAW, because the 3sg form with ending -s is reanalyzed
325
as a stem suffix plus zero ending within Early Vedic. The same is quite likely for *-s and other IE stem
326
suffixes in a period before Vedic. It should be acknowledged that this law is provable within Early
327
Vedic, as it can be based on an evident inner-Vedic morphotactic reanalysis. Regarding these facts, any
328
denial of the importance of WATKINS’ LAW for IE languages is not reasonable.
329
c. Early Vedic had corresponding 2sg and 3sg aor. opt. mid. endings -sthās, -sta. The R̥ gveda displays
330
special sigmatic 2sg 3sg aor. opt. endings, cf. also SV bhakṣ-ī-ta ~ AB bhakṣ-ī-ṣṭa (cf. Narten 1964:
331
43ff.). See the following list of forms (Figure 9):
332
Figure 9. List of Vedic forms
333
1sg
diṣīya (3dā ‘distribute’) bhakṣīyá masīya (1man ‘think’) mukṣīya rāsīya
334
2sg
maṃsīṣṭhās
335
3sg
darṣīṣṭa maṃsīṣṭa mr̥ kṣīṣṭa yāsīṣṭa (2yā), redupl. aor. rīriṣīṣṭa (RV 6.51.7d) ririṣīṣṭa (RV 8.18.13c),
336
root aor. padīṣṭá (5x RV),
337
bhakṣīṣṭa (AB)
338
1pl
bhakṣīmáhi maṃsīmáhi vaṃsīmáhi ~ vasīmahi sakṣīmáhi
339
3pl
maṃsīrata
340
2du
trā́ sīthām
341
R̥ gvedic iṣ-aorist “precative” middles are 3sg janiṣīṣṭa vaniṣīṣṭa, 1pl tāriṣīmahi, vandiṣīmahi sāhiṣīmahi
342
(cf. Narten 1964: 67), cf. 2sg yāsisīṣṭhās (RV 4.1.4b), AV maṃsīṣṭhā ́ s sāsahīṣṭhā ́ s modiṣīṣṭhās. The-
343
matic aor. videṣṭa (AV 2.36.6), śoceṣṭa (+śuceṣṭa) ĀpMB 1.9.3 (cf. Hoffmann 1967b: 31 = 1976: 472
344
Fn. 9) show -eṣṭa. The sigmatic endings were interpreted as secondary by Renou 1952: 292 (“donc
345
janiṣīṣṭa de JAN- remplacant *janiṣīta, d’apres l’indicatif ájaniṣṭa”). But -ī-ṣṭa for -ī-ta in parallel with
346
ár-ta : arī-ta = jáni[ṣ]-ṣṭa : X → X = janiṣī-ṣṭa is ad hoc, cf. Kümmel (2015+, 2018: “Sekundäre Ent-
347
stehung von [...] -ṣṭa nicht leicht verständlich”). The stem of 1sg aor. mid. opt. maṃsī-máhi, etc. is
348
maṃsī- (†maṃsīṣ-). Therefore, the sibilant CANNOT be segmented as part of the opt. suffix, but belongs
349
to the endings (2sg -ṣṭhās, 3sg -ṣṭa). This leads to the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-Iranian 2sg 3sg aor.
350
middle secondary endings *-stHās, *-sta, and 2sg 3sg mid. optatives in *-ī-ʃtHās, *-ī-ʃta. There was also
351
a 2sg in *-īʃa, cf. YAv. °raēxš-īša (raēxš-, raēk- ~ iric ‘let’, pres. irinaxti). These sigmatic opt. endings
352
further confirm that the sibilant was not due to the alveolar + alveolar rule */TT/ > *-TsT- (pace Jasanoff
353
2003) because there is no preceding alveolar here: rīriṣ-īṣṭa ririṣ-īṣṭa (redupl. aor.) and padīṣṭá (root
354
aor.) confirm that -ṣṭa is not restricted to the sigmatic aorist stem and was more independent from it.
355
These forms are relics and clearly contradict the idea of a secondary “precativization”.
13
356
d. The type RV -jániṣṭa was (unconvincingly) derived from a 1sg (RV ajani →) JB ajaniṣi
357
(ajaniṣṭhās ajaniṣṭa) by Narten (1964: 60). But whereas RV (á)jániṣṭa is attested early, JB ajaniṣi is
358
attested too late to serve as a model (thus Kümmel 2015+, 2018). Insler (1995) suggests that 2sg -ṣṭhās
359
< *-s-th2a, but as seen by Kümmel (2015+, 2018), there is no Vedic parallel for -s-t° in the 2sg middle.
360
It is more likely that the Vedic iṣ -aorist stem -jániṣ- ajaniṣṭhās ajaniṣṭa and du. act. janiṣṭām janiṣṭam
361
go back to a Proto-Indo-Iranian root aor. mid. 2sg */ʥánH-stHās/, 3sg */ʥánH-sta/ < *ǵénh1-sto with
362
3sg ending *-sto, thus likewise PII*/ʥánH-stām/ < *ǵénh1-stah2(m).
363
A proto-middle origin is evident for the 2du 3du forms RV janiṣṭām, AV janiṣṭam, since -jániṣ-
364
is otherwise middle all over (medium tantum). Another otherwise fully middle paradigm (-vr̥ ṇī-) also
365
includes 2du 3du “active” RV 1.180.4b avr̥ ṇītam, AVP 1.92.1 vr̥ ṇītām. Moreover, it is evident that the
366
Vedic 3rd dual ending -tām < *-tah2(m) is still used as a middle (not active) ending in RV 10.4.6, where
367
3du adhītām (-tām) even has a passive meaning and belongs to the aorist middle (adhithās, adhita,
368
adhīmahi, etc.), cf. RV 10.4.6 tanūtyájeva táskarā vanargū́ raśanā́ bhir daśábhir abhi àdhītām “So wie
369
zwei den Leib hingebende, im Wald umhergehende Räuber, mit den zehn Zügeln (raśanā́ bhir daśábhir,
370
sc. mit den 10 Fingern) wurden die beiden (sc. Reibhölzer) [...] festgemacht” (Pooth 2011).
371
e. There are the following IE comparanda. Hittite shows sigmatic ~ asigmatic 3sg pret. act. endings,
372
e.g. ākiš (a-ak-ki-iš) (OS) → ak-ta (NS, OH/NS NH) (cf. Melchert & Hoffner Jr. 2008: 189, 215;
373
Kloekhorst 2008: 167), cf. also OH a-ša-aš-ta from the ḫi-pres. ašaši (Oettinger 2002: 51, 430,
374
Kloekhorst 2008, s.v.).
375
Hittite further exhibits suffix PLEONASM: pa-iš (OS), pa-iš-ta (OH/NS), pe-e-eš-ta (NH)
376
(Kloekhorst 2008: 614); tar-na-aš (OS), tar-ni-eš-ta (KUB 13.34 iv 14 (NS)), tar-ni-iš-ta (KUB 1.1+
377
iv 49 (NH)) (Kloekhorst 2008: 846); ši-pa-an-ta-aš (KBo 15.10 iii 59, 66 (OH/MS)), ši-pa-an-da-aš
378
(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),
379
KBo 8.68 iv 5), ši-pa-an-da-za (KUB 19.37 ii 24 (NH)) (Kloekhorst 2008: 405, Oettinger 2002: 41,
380
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)
381
(ḫāt-i, see Oettinger 2002: 408, Kloekhorst 2008: 328).
382
The Proto-Anatolian sigmatic ending *-s(t) perfectly equates with Proto-Indo-Iranian *-s(t) (and
383
its middle counterpart *-sta). Tocharian AB show sigmatic 2sg 2pl 3sg act. pret. endings, cf. Figures
384
10ab (Malzahn 2010: 38ff. and chapters 7-9).
14
385
386
387
388
389
390
Figures 10a (Malzahn 2010: 38ff. and chapters 7-9)
ā̆-inflection
non-ā̆-inflection
reconstruction
TB
TA
TB
TA
PT
2sg
-ā̆sta
-āṣt
-asta
-äṣt
*-stā
3sg
-a
-Ø/-āṃ
-sa
-äs/-sām
*-sā
2pl
-ā̆s(o)
-ās
-as/-so
*-sä ~ *-så (NB. Malzahn 2010: 514 reconstructs PT 2pl *-sās)
391
Figures 10b (Malzahn 2010: 38ff. and chapters 7-9)
392
393
394
395
396
PT
reflecting
internally comparable with
2sg *-stā
*-sth2e
*-th2e
3sg *-sā
*-sh2e (?)
*-th2e
2pl
*-sä
*-se or *-so
*-te, *-ste, 2sg *-sto
2pl
*-så
*-seh2
*-teh2- (> PII 2/3du *-tām)
397
When taken together, the comparative evidence points to a 2sg proto-middle segmental string *-sth2e(i),
398
cf. Proto-Tocharian 2sg pret. *-stā, Hittite (NH) 2sg pret. ind. -(i)šta (e.g. pa-it-ta (OH/MS), pé(-e)eš-
399
ta (NH), cf. Kloekhorst 2008: 614), Lat. 2sg perf. ind. act. -istī < -istei, e.g. CIL 10 gesistei, Greek -σθα,
400
e.g. Homeric Greek τίθησθα, etc. It is conclusive that the traditional segmentation into sigmatic stem
401
plus ending †-s-th2e(i) must be a mistake.
402
It has been suggested that Hittite -(i)šta is an inner-Anatolian creation (cf. differently Jasanoff
403
2003: 119, Kloekhorst 2008: 802). But this hypothesis is rather weakened by the IE equations. After
404
subtraction of the “union” vowel -i-, Latin 2pl perf. ind. act. -istis includes a string *-stes corresponding
405
to Hittite 2pl ind. act. pret. -šten :: pres. -šteni (Kloekhorst 2007). This clearly points to PIE sigmatic
406
2pl act. endings *-ste(-), *-ste(n)(i). Therefore, Latin °sti° (-istis) = Hittite -šte° (-šten(i)) is a compara-
407
tive equation that is unlikely secondary at least with regard to the sigmatic morph. An interesting and
408
relevant paradigm regarding the sigmatic morph in Early Vedic is the one of 1sg cyávam, 3pl cyavante
409
(:: Old Avestan š́ auuaitē) alongside a sigmatic 2sg cyoṣṭhās. These two forms point to a PIE “Narten”
410
(= durative) proto-middle 1sg *kwiéuh2e(i) (TPkwi̯ éu̯ (h2)om), 3sg *kwiéuo(i), 3pl *kwi̯ éu̯ n̥ to(i) ~
411
*kwi̯ éu̯ onto(i) and a sigmatic 2sg *kwiéusth2e (later +
412
Vedic 2sg cyoṣṭhās has the sibilant exactly in the paradigmatic position where we would expect it from
413
the given comparative perspective – and thus points to an ending *-sth2e(-).
414
415
TP
-es) (2/3collective *kwi̯ éusteh2). Remarkably,
It is conclusive that PIE had a set of 2sg 3sg (2pl 3pl) sigmatic endings (Kümmel 2015+, 2016,
2018) with a hitherto UNKNOWN different function.
416
Figure 11. Post-PIE pleonasms
417
PIE
post-PIE, dialectal/not in all dialects (partially)
418
*-s
~ *-st → *-s-t
419
*-so
~ *-sto → *-s-to
420
*-(e)rs
→ *-sn̥ t, *-sn̥ to, *-sonto → *-s-n̥ t, *-s-n̥ to, ...
15
421
These endings merged with the non-sigmatic ones yielding PLEONASMS, e.g. PIE *klép-t → root aorist
422
(vs. *klḗp-t → “Narten type”), PIE *klép-s → *klép-st → post-PIE sigmatic aor. *klép-s-t, cf. Latin
423
clepsit ~ clēpit (Pike 2009), and likewise *klḗp-s → *klḗp-st → sigmatic aor. *klḗp-s-t. The sigmatic
424
segment was transferred to other persons – as typologically confirmed by the development of sigmatic
425
root aorist optative forms to “precative” stems in Early Vedic. We can conclude that the sigmatic aorist
426
suffix, both its form (as a stem) and its function (as aorist), should NOT be reconstructed for the common
427
protolanguage of Hittite, Tocharian, Vedic, Greek. To be clear, the reconstruction of a sigmatic aorist
428
stem for the common proto-language of these languages must be a severe anachronistic mistake.
429
Based on the comparative method it seems true that the addition of *-t- to *-s- yielding *-st-
430
was a secondary suffix pleonasm, similar to the one that affected the old so-called “dental-less ending”
431
of the 3sg middle, cf. Hittite -at = Vedic 3sg aor. injunctive middle -at (aduhat) < *-ot with additional
432
morph *-t vs. earlier *-o without *-t. A primary status of *-s- (and *-st-) as ending is thus evident from
433
Hittite and Vedic. The same status seems to hold for Proto-Tocharian and Toch. A and B, see Figures
434
10ab (Malzahn 2010: 38-44, 192). The assumption that the *-s- was lost in the first person and third
435
person plural forms in Proto-Tocharian and Proto-Anatolian is highly unlikely.
436
437
To conclude, the pre-Vedic “secondary ending” of the 3sg *-s or *-st clearly corresponds to,
and equates with, Hittite -š, -št(a).17
438
Figure 12. A Hittite-Vedic equation
439
Hittite
440
-š, -št(a)
=
Vedic
PIE
-s
< *-s
441
This comparative equation is a riddle for comparative philology, presumably because “another” third-
442
person singular ending *-s alongside *-t does not make much functional sense when interpreted within
443
the canon of categories expressed by the “secondary” endings. Clearly, however, the two variants are
444
much more important than hitherto assumed. As initially outlined by Watkins (1962), this suffix was
445
the same sibilant morph *-s- that developed into a sigmatic stem suffix from post-PIE to Proto-Indo-
446
Iranian/Iranic and Proto-Greek and some other IE languages – either when some of them perhaps formed
447
a common proto-sub-branch or independently from each other in close areal contact. It is conclusive
448
that several IE languages other than Proto-Anatolian and Proto-Germanic reflect a post-PIE morpholog-
449
ical reanalysis of the first part of *-st- as a new sigmatic stem suffix (→ EF-s-t).
450
Based on the given comparative evidence, it is further possible to reconstruct a proto-middle
451
counterpart *-so- ~ *-sto- via internal reconstruction, e.g. *stéuso ~ *stéusto > Vedic (á)stóṣṭa, etc.
17
This correspondence can be taken for an external comparative proof that *-s (or *-st) occurred in PIE 3sg forms.
16
452
Thus, it is likely that the ending *-so- (> Proto-Indo-Iranian/Iranic 2sg pres. ind. mid. *-sai, Proto-Greek
453
*-soi, etc.) was not a PIE second person form, but a PIE third person form. If true, it was reinterpreted
454
as a post-PIE 2sg middle ending due to the following analogy proportion:
455
2sg *-si :: 3sg *-ti = X (→ *-so(i)) :: 3sg *-to(i)
456
The corresponding sigmatic 3pl forms were marked by *-rs (*-r̥ s), cf. Old Avestan 3pl cikōit-ǝrǝš, etc.
457
The third person plural optative form, e.g. Vedic syúr, goes back to *h1s-ih1-r̥ ́ s (or *h1s-ih1-r̥ ́ ). This form
458
*h1s-ih1-r̥ ́ s reflects a blend of the endings -r̥ s and -érs, and was preceded by PIE *h1sih1érs. This form,
459
in turn, was structured like the one with the alveolar morph *h1sih1ént > Old Latin sient. The same
460
ending *-rs is found with e-grade (*-eːr) reflected as Hittite 3pl pret. active ending -er (~ -īr ~ -eir ~ -ēr)
461
< *-eːr. This is an outcome of PIE word-final */érs/ via Szemerényi’s law (Jasanoff 2003). It is still
462
continued as the first part of Old Latin -ēre and -ērunt (< *-eːr extended by *-i and *-ont, respectively
463
(Weiss 2009: 393). To conclude, *-rs is finally separable into two agglutinated morphs *-r- (PLURAL)
464
+ *-s (category S).
465
Figure 13. Some PIE forms and a transponatum exhibiting *-s-
466
467
468
ACT
DTR
3SG(/2SG)
3PL
*kléps
*klpérs
h
*b ud só
cf. Vedic 1sg ábhutsi
469
ACT
*klḗps
470
DTR
*stéusoBC
471
DTR
472
Additional notes to Figure 13:
473
A
474
B
475
476
cf. Latin 3sg clepsit
h
TP
*kléprs
B
cf. Latin 3sg clēpitA
sóikws(i)D
Cf. Pike 2009: Latin shows reflexes of both *klḗp-t and *klép-s.
Cf. Vedic (á)stóṣṭa – and also *klépto → post-PIE *klḗptor(i) with analogical lengthened grade > Toch.
A klyepträ ‘touches’.
C
In my view, the Vedic 2sg imperative middle ending -sva goes back to a corresponding sigmatic 2sg
477
form with a suffix *-u (e.g. *séikwsh2u) that was extended by *-a → *-su̯ a before Proto-Indo-Iranian/Iranic.
478
But the question of the prehistory of -sva is irrelevant here.
479
D
Cf. Toch. A -ṣ (<
TP
-si) and Vedic (ŚB) °seci (< *sóikwi) and Toch. A 3sg subj. V sekaṣ (TPsóikwHsi).
480
Recall that *-a- < *-H- was generalized as a stem suffix in Proto-Tocharian (Jasanoff 2003, chapter 6-7,
481
§93ff.; Malzahn 2010: 274-316, both of them with further references).
482
2.3.
483
A third 3rd person finite verb form was the so-called “dental-less stative” form. However, the term “sta-
484
tive” is semantically inappropriate and should not be used anymore (Pooth 2000). It was marked by a
485
zero morph to left to the *o in the middle voice: *-Øo :: *-so :: *-to, cf. Young Avestan +ni-γne ‘is
The zero morph
17
486
knocked down’ = kuna° of Hittite kunati, Vedic stáve ‘is praised’, etc. The plural forms, e.g. *ǵusró
487
(from *ǵeus- ‘to taste, choose; please someone; like, find pleasure in sth.’) were marked by *-ro(-)
488
without any sibilant or alveolar morph (cf. RV 1.71.1b ajuṣran). The corresponding active plural forms
489
were marked by the *-r (= *-r̥ ) with no further extension, cf. Old Avestan -ǝrǝ̄. The form *-er with e-
490
grade is still found as the first part of Old Latin 3pl perfect ind. -erunt < *-er extended by *-ont/*-n̥ t.18
491
The third person singular forms of the *uóide(i) type and a zero-marked 3rd person singular form
492
*ǵónh1(i) of a “pre-passive-aorist inflectional type” also belonged to this category Z because there is no
493
stop -t- or sibilant -s- before the vowel in *uóid-e(i).
494
Figure 14. PIE forms exhibiting zero
495
3SG
3PL
*gwhnér
496
ACT
497
DTR
498
ACT
499
DTR
*ḱéio(i)
500
DTR
*uóide(i)
*dhughó(i)
*dhughró(i)
cf. Vedic 3sg duhé, pl. duhré
*mélh2rA
cf. Old Avestan -ǝrǝ̄
cf. Vedic 3sg śáye
IR
melh2órB
C
501
DTR
502
ACT
503
...
504
DTR
505
Additional notes to this figure:
506
A
*ǵónh1(i)
cf. Vedic 3sg véda etc.
cf. Vedic 3sg jani, ájani
*di-dh3ér
cf. Old Latin dederunt
*dé-dh3oD
This 3pl form belonged to the *stḗuti type. The proto-active forms of the this so-called “Narten type”
507
merged with the PIE *uóide(i) type yielding a post-PIE new imperfective (including habitual) mixed para-
508
digm *u̯ óid-ei, *u̯ óid-e ~ *u̯ ḗid-s(t) (Jasanoff 2003; Pooth 2016, 2017).
B
509
I think that, e.g., IRmelh2ór ‘they (always) grind’ was the original 3pl form of the *mólh2e(i) type. This
510
form must have been modified to post-PIE *melh2r̥ ́ (s) ~ *molh2r̥ ́ (s) with and without paradigmatically lev-
511
elled o-grade. Some plural form, e.g. *u̯ id-r̥ ́ (s), had zero-grade in analogy to the other non-reduplicated 3pl
512
forms *gwhnéːr, *gwhnént, etc. The analogical spread of the zero-grade in such 3pl forms is supported, e.g.,
513
by Vedic stuvánti ← *stéu̯ n̥ ti. Kloekhorst (2012) thinks that Hittite would confirm that the zero-grade was
514
original in this type, but Jasanoff (2003: §27) is correct by claiming that there is independent evidence for an
515
e-grade in the corresponding reduplicated type, cf. Vedic ádīdhayur, avivyacur, where the guṇa ablaut-grade
516
of the root must be archaic. Therefore, there is Vedic evidence for a 3sg perfect *u̯ eu̯ i̯ ókwe :: 3pl with e-grade
18
It is not necessary to reconstruct *-is-ont in this particular case (pace Weiss 2009: 393). Jasanoff 2003: 33, fn. 11 claims that
-erunt should go back to *-iront (cf. -imus, etc.), but this is likewise unnecessary: -erunt from *-er is straightforward.
18
517
*u̯ eu̯ i̯ ekwr̥ ́ (s) besides *u̯ eu̯ idr̥ ́ (s). As just mentioned, I follow the idea that the *u̯ óide(i) type merged with the
518
“Narten type” *stḗus(t) (and *stḗut) in Late PIE (Jasanoff 2003). Within a “mixed paradigm” we can expect
519
the given IE ablaut variants. Recall that Hittite -ar can go back to both *-r̥ and *-or.
C
520
The PIE *ǵónh1(i) type merged with the aorist-like part of the *ǵusó or *dhughó(i) type in post-PIE. This
521
yielded another mixed paradigm which is reflected as Vedic middle root aorist. Vedic abudhran abudhram
522
both go back to *bhudhró. I assume that forms of this shape originally belonged to the *dhughó(i) type and
523
were structured in parallel with *dhughntó(i) (with *-r- instead of *-nt-). I think that the old 3pl form belong-
524
ing to *ǵónh1(i) was *ǵnh1ór. Its structure matches the one of *h1sónt(i) (again with *-r- instead of *-nt-).
525
The issues with this merger are a bit more intricate; 3pl forms of this type seem to be allomorphs of the type
526
that once corresponded to the amphikinetic active forms, cf. 3pl active *h1sént(i) :: 3pl proto-middle
527
*h1sónt(i). I will have to return to this difficult matter elsewhere. It is not relevant here.
D
528
This zero-marked form was later pleonastically extended by the productive 3sg ending *-to(i) in post-
529
PIE first yielding *dédh3oto(i) → later analogical *dédh3eto(i) > Vedic dáda-te (Pooth 2014).
530
3.
How to analyze these three morphs?
531
3.1.
Three morphs for just two IE functional distinctions?
532
As a given result of the application of the comparative method to the IE material, the IE
533
formulas and TPtransponates very clearly continue three different morphs *-t-, *-s-, and zero. There-
534
fore, the comparative evidence, taken together, rather speaks against the existence of a binary opposition
535
of “primary” vs. “secondary” endings in the common ancestor language. The most straightforward ex-
536
planation is definitively not to leave the two ending sets the way they are in Greek and Vedic Sanskrit.
537
Not touching any IE functional distinctions would enforce us to functionally reduce the three morphs to
538
just two morphological categories because Greek and Vedic both basically distinguish two opponent
539
sets of “primary” vs. “secondary” suffixes, not three (when we leave away the special proto-middle
540
endings of the perfect stem). Given that the comparison actually leads to one more set, such a reduction
541
would need many troublesome ad hoc explanations. In short, we would have to get rid of one of the
542
three sets. However, the less costly and easiest explanation is to infer that these three morphs once
543
indicated three different verbal categories, not two, simply because their number is three, not two. These
544
verbal categories were presumably given up from PIE to post-PIE. They are provisionally termed cate-
545
gories D, S, and Z here.
546
3.2.
547
A proper identification of the morphosyntactic functions of these three lost verbal categories of PIE
548
cannot be done on the basis of IE correspondences and the comparative method, because these three
549
categories D, S, and Z have vanished without a functional trace. I admit that a reconstruction of verbal
550
categories that are not in the canon of the IE verbal categories is not provable and cannot be falsified by
551
comparative means. However, the lack of comparative proof is due to the use of the wrong method for
EF
equation
Assigning three functions to D, S, and Z
19
552
this particular purpose. It should be recognized that the lack of comparative falsification is a corollary
553
of the problem that category equations (e.g. Greek dual = Vedic dual, etc.) cannot be used for the recon-
554
struction of categories and their exponents because they do not offer reliable results with regard to gram-
555
matical categories that have vanished or were modified in between PIE and its daughter languages.
556
Comparative philologists should recognize that this is an unfortunate blind spot of the comparative
557
method. When it is only this method that is applied to grammatical categories, the results of comparison
558
are unreliable and there is no chance whatsoever to uncover morphosyntactic categories and syntactic
559
constructions that were lost or modified from PIE to a post-PIE dialect continuum. However, it is unde-
560
niable that the application of the comparative method actually results in a formal distinction of three
561
different morphs, not two. Assigning a functional value to these three morphs, therefore, cannot be done
562
by application of the comparative method to morphosyntactic categories any longer. It must be done via
563
inductive reasoning against a background of general linguistic diachronic typological knowledge and
564
findings.
565
Figure 15. The origin of the IE endings from progressive and non-progressive forms
566
initial shift
567
PIE
568
PROGRESSIVE
569
*-m-i
*-mi
570
*-s-i
*-si
571
*-t-i
*-ti
572
*-n-t-i
*-n̥ ti
573
*-é-n-t-i
*-énti
574
etc.
post-PIE
→ IMPERFECTIVE PRESENT
575
second shift
576
PIE
post-PIE
577
NON-PROG
“secondary”
578
*-m
*-m̥
that is, secondary (viz. innovative) functions
579
*-s
*-s ~ *-st
(but not including the optative19)
580
*-t
*-t
581
*-r-s
*-r̥ s ~ *-r̥
582
etc.
19
post-PIE
→
perfective/preterit, etc.,
The optative-irrealis mood is not secondary. Optative-irrealis forms were already optative-irrealis forms in PIE. But they
lacked the progressive suffix *-i.
20
583
As illustrated, it is evident that these three morphs functionally merged and were integrated into the
584
bundle of post-PIE so-called “secondary endings” in IE languages. Consequently, I must claim that the
585
development of specific “secondary” endings only followed the emergence of the “primary” imperfec-
586
tive present forms and endings from PIE PROGRESSIVE aspect forms, see Figure 15 (Pooth 2009a). The
587
IE secondary functions of the “secondary” endings (e.g., the coding of perfective (“aorist”) aspect and
588
past tense) must not be functionally back-projected onto the protolanguage. To conclude, I claim that
589
the distinction of “primary” imperfective present endings from secondary endings is only a post-PIE to
590
post-PIE innovation. This may explain relics like Vedic kr̥ thás (aorist injunctive) with irregular “pri-
591
mary” ending (Pooth 2011: 478, fn. 12).
592
As mentioned above, the traditional comparative reconstruction of morphosyntactic functions
593
and grammatical categories – and their formal exponents – is methodologically unreliable and linguis-
594
tically insufficient (Pooth 2017). Conclusions which are solely based on the application of the compar-
595
ative method to morphosyntactic categories and their markers can only be very tentative and provisional,
596
not only because morphosyntactic functions and grammatical categories that have vanished completely
597
or were modified in parallel within a post-PIE variant cluster cannot be compared. The plain fact that
598
the original morphosyntactic categories and their exponents do not exist in their original forms and
599
functions in IE languages does not mean that they did not exist. The issue is a severe pitfall of compar-
600
ative philology (Pooth 2017). However, even if comparative equations alone and per se cannot 100%
601
prove or disprove a given hypothesis regarding the linguistic reconstruction of morphotactic structures
602
and morphological, syntactic, and lexical categories, this does not entail that a proper linguistic recon-
603
struction of morphosyntax is impossible – nor does it imply that the comparative method cannot be used
604
as a start. We can use a less monolithic methodology and further means of reasoning for this purpose.
605
In my view, it is necessary to first use comparative means, but finally think out of the “comparative
606
box”. As for morphosyntactic functions and grammatical categories, a plausible and potentially real and
607
realistic descriptive analysis and reconstruction can be established by inductive and deductive reasoning
608
and by combining the results of comparison with morphosyntactic diachronic linguistic typology. Such
609
a way of doing linguistic reconstruction implies using ALL the multiple linguistic methods which have
610
been supplied so far by general and historical linguistics and comparative philology. The linguistic re-
611
construction presented in this paper is “post-mono-comparative” and “poly-methodological” in this
612
sense (see Pooth 2015, 2016, 2017). Its reasoning is based on more than one kind of observations:
613
1. FIRST OBSERVATION, BASED ON EXTERNAL COMPARATIVE AND INTERNAL PIE EVIDENCE: There
614
is a relevant formal similarity strengthening the conclusion that these three lost categories D, S, Z were
615
verbal DEICTIC-DIRECTIONAL categories. The two morphs *-t- and *-s- are comparable to the deictic
616
morphs *t- vs. *s- which are found in the PIE demonstrative pronoun system, cf. PIE *só > Vedic sá,
617
PIE *tó- > Vedic tá-, etc.
618
2. SECOND OBSERVATION, BASED ON DIACHRONIC TYPOLOGY: There is a relevant grammaticaliza-
619
tion/grammaticization path which is of major relevance here. It has become an established insight that
21
620
“erstwhile deictic-directional markers” constitute a “natural diachronic pathway for the grammaticali-
621
zation of semantic inverse systems” (Givón 2001 I: 166). A useful typology of such direct-inverse sys-
622
tems has been provided by Jacques & Antonov (2014). DIRECT marking typically indicates that proxi-
623
mative/proximate20 participant/argument higher on the person hierarchy is acting on the lower obvia-
624
tive/obviate participant/argument, while INVERSE marking encodes the opposite direction.
625
3.3.
626
I am in the position to draw the following conclusion via deductive reasoning:
A possible deduction
627
1. THE GIVEN INTERNAL EVIDENCE (VIZ. THE COMPARATIVE FACTS): It is internally evident that the
628
two morphs *-t- and *-s- look exactly like deictic-directional markers that occur as morphs in the
629
demonstrative stems *só-, *tó-. To be fair, it is not absolutely assured that they were – but at least it is
630
absolutely clear that they exactly look like deictic-directional markers. This formal identity is taken as
631
comparative fact and sufficient internal evidence here.
632
2. THE “RULE”/DIACHRONIC PATTERN: A GRAMMATICALIZATION PATH: It is a diachronic “rule” or
633
regularity that “erstwhile deictic-directional markers” constitute a “natural diachronic pathway for the
634
grammaticalization of semantic inverse systems” (Givón 2001 I: 166; as already mentioned).
635
3. THE CONCLUSION: It is plausible to identify these three lost categories with verbal deictic-direc-
636
tional grammatical categories belonging to the domain of transitivity direction. Typologically speaking,
637
this assumption is plausible and possible, if not even most probable, as outlined below.
638
I must admit that this way of reasoning is only similar to a classical deduction. There is general
639
law, rule, or regularity, i.e. the mentioned grammaticalization/grammaticization path; there are given
640
facts, i.e. the given internal evidence, formal identities and functional similarities. Of course, this de-
641
duction does not exclude other possibilities because the rule cannot be exceptionless, and the functional
642
identity of formally identical morphs cannot be 100% proven. However, the formal identity of *-s- and
643
*-t- with deictic-directional *s- and *t- and their functional similarity (referent tracking, referent index-
644
ing), when taken together with the well-known diachronic path, make other prehistorical possibilities
645
LESS EXPECTED AND A BIT LESS LIKELY in
a probabilistic sense.
646
Thus, let us have a look at the possible alternatives. First of all, suggesting that these three lost
647
categories D, S, Z once were aspect categories is actually not very plausible because there is little that
648
speaks in favor of it. *-t- is found in endings of both the IE imperfective and perfective aspect. I admit
649
that *-s- is reflected as marker of perfective aspect in IE languages, although this does not hold true for
650
Anatolian languages and Hittite. It is unlikely that an original sigmatic stem suffix was transformed into
20
I use the terms PROXIMATIVE and OBVIATIVE for the two hierarchically indexed participants or arguments here, although these
notions are also often termed proximate and obviate.
22
651
a second-person and third-person past tense suffix in this branch. It is more likely that the opposite
652
happened outside Anatolian. And what about the second person singular *-s-? Should we functionally
653
separate the two morphs, or shouldn’t we? Questions like these are relevant for a proper analysis of the
654
equation formulas and a subsequent reconstruction of morphosyntactic categories. The traditional ap-
655
proach cannot answer such questions without making ad hoc assumptions. Even worse, such questions
656
are not usually touched at all because it is often taken for granted that PIE grammar was (almost) iden-
657
tical to Ancient Greek and Vedic Sanskrit grammar, except for its phonology. At least in my view, this
658
preconception is unlikely from the outset. It is rather not plausible to suggest that these markers were
659
inflectional portmanteau endings and functionally identical with the IE “primary” vs. “secondary” end-
660
ings (pace Lundquist & Yates 2018). If we made this assumption, we would not be able to give a dia-
661
chronic justification for the given variation. We would have to ignore the morphological problems. We
662
would have to neglect a proper linguistic analysis of PIE word forms, as provided here. We would have
663
to make rather unlikely claims. We would have to ignore the formal and functional identity of recon-
664
structed morphs, as presented above. The internal evidence would remain completely unexplained, and
665
no additional knowledge would be gained. In the end, PIE morphosyntax would remain a decalcomania
666
of Greek and Vedic grammar.
667
We could set up categories like a “stative” to describe forms like *gwhnó(-) ‘someone is/was
668
slewn’ and *stéuo(-). But this is problematic, if not just wrong, because this functional assignment is
669
descriptively wrong. The existence of a “stative” is contradicted by the IE comparative evidence: the
670
relevant middle forms do not indicate a state, nor are they intransitive (but are even transitive in several
671
cases). There is nothing that speaks in favor of the assumption that PIE had a state-indicating “stative”
672
verbal voice category (Pooth 2000).
673
Also, any assumption of original marking of tense distinctions is unlikely and almost excluded.
674
The Vedic “injunctive” is an archaic tense-neutral/nontensed category. Its existence strongly points to a
675
preceding tense-neutral/nontensed type of language. Accordingly, a PIE 3rd person singular form
676
*gwhént(i) could be used both with present and past tense reference (Pooth 2009a, Kloekhorst 2017).
677
Assuming that the three categories were specific tense categories makes no sense when seen from this
678
systematic perspective. Although PIE maybe had a non-obligatory morph, namely the so-called “aug-
679
ment” *(h1)é(-), for particularly specifying something functionally similar to past tense, its potential
680
existence cannot disprove the argument that PIE was nontensed because its PIE function might have
681
been different from past tense.
682
Moreover, these endings were definitively not just person markers. Such an assumption cannot
683
explain the fact that the very same markers *-s- and *-t- coded both second and third person forms.
684
Finally, these markers were definitively not specified for singular or plural or whatever number. If one
685
suggested this, one would not be capable of explaining the fact that the same segments *-t-, *-s-, and
686
zero occur both in singular and plural forms.
23
687
To sum up, our answer of the question regarding a possible original function of these categories
688
D, S, Z must be that original marking of person, number, voice, tense, aspect, and mood distinctions is
689
almost ruled out – or at least rather unlikely.
690
It is conclusive that these markers were markers of a different domain, such that is non-existing
691
in IE languages. This functional domain can now be identified as a verbal deictic-directional domain.
692
We can conclude that the domain of TRANSITIVITY DIRECTION is a perfectly suitable candidate and
693
remains the most likely option. I am happy to give some credit to the Leiden School at this point in our
694
discussion because Kortlandt was on the right track when he suggested that *-to- goes back to a “tran-
695
sitive middle” marker (Beekes 1995, 2011). However, even if other scholars may deserve the merit to
696
be the first to “somehow envision” that the original functional distinction belonged to the domain of
697
transitivity and transitivity direction (‘who is acting on whom’), it is clear that nobody has ever recon-
698
structed a hierarchical direct-inverse system for PIE before.
699
Let me conclude as follows. On the primary basis of the comparative method, secondarily ex-
700
tended by cross-linguistic linguistic diachronic typological patterns, we are able to plausibly reconstruct
701
three different PIE verb forms of the second person and third person singular, plural, and collective
702
number, respectively. The PIE second and third person forms are given in Figure 16. The PIE verb is
703
*gwhen- ‘to slay, kill, beat, chase, hunt’.
704
Figure 16a. Directed/transitive and undirected PIE verb forms
705
suffix
706
DETRANSITIVE (PROTO-MIDDLE)
3SG
2SG
707
D =
DIRECT (DIR)
*-t-
*g ntó
*gwhnth2é A
708
S =
INVERSE (INV)
*-s-
*gwhnsó
*gwhnsh2éA
709
Z =
UNDIRECTED (UDR)
*-Ø-
*gwhnó
*gwhnh2éB
2COL
2/3COL
710
wh
wh
711
D =
DIRECT (DIR)
*-t-
*g ntóm
*gwhntéh2(m)
712
S =
INVERSE (INV)
*-s-
*gwhnsóm
*gwhnséh2(m)
713
Z =
UNDIRECTED (UDR)
*-Ø-
*gwhnóm
*gwhnéh2(m)
714
ACTIVE-AGENTIVE
715
3SG/2SG
wh
voice
2PL
716
D =
DIRECT (DIR)
*-t-
*g ént
*gwhnté(n)
717
S =
INVERSE (INV)
*-s-
*gwhéns
*gwhnsé(n)
718
Z =
UNDIRECTED (UDR)
*-Ø-
*gwhénC
*gwhné(n)B
voice
24
719
Figure 16b. Transitive and intransitive PIE verb paradigm
720
suffix
721
722
D =
DIRECT (DIR)
*-t-
723
S =
INVERSE (INV)
*-s-
724
Z =
UNDIRECTED (UDR)
*-Ø-
DETRANSITIVE
voice
3PL
2PL
*gwhnntó
*gwhnth2é(n)A
*gwhnsh2é(n)A
*gwhnró
*gwhnh2é(n)B
725
ACTIVE-AGENTIVE
726
3PL
727
D =
DIRECT (DIR)
*-t-
*gwhnént
728
S =
INVERSE (INV)
*-s-
*gwhnérs
729
Z =
UNDIRECTED (UDR)
*-Ø-
*gwhnér
730
Additional notes to Figures 16a and b.
731
A
voice
Parallel to the third-and-second person collective forms in *-téh2(-m) (→ Proto-Indo-Iranic 3-and-2-dual
732
active *-tām), the 2pl detransitive forms were reanalyzed as belonging to the neo-active voice category form
733
PIE to post-PIE. *-sh2e seems to be reflected in Proto-Tocharian (cf. Figures 10a and 10b above), whereas
734
*-th2e is reflected as the Vedic primary 2pl pres. ind. (neo-) active ending -tha (Pooth 2011).
B
735
736
In my view, the 2pl in *-h2é of the detransitive voice merged with the active-agentive in *-é. It is reflected
by the Vedic 2pl perf. ind. act. -á, e.g. Vedic vid-á.
C
737
The zero-marked 2sg form was used in imperative function.
738
4.
739
I am indebted to Guillaume Jacques (personal communication via internet) for asking me the following
740
important question:
741
Why do I reconstruct *-s- as inverse marker?
“Why do you reconstruct *-s- as inverse marker but not *-t-?”
742
The following internal evidence provides some reasons for doing so. The reconstruction can be based
743
on the following three arguments. Two of them are outlined here in more detail.
744
1. First of all, the suffix *-s- was also used as a SOURCE marker in ablative-genitive case forms (e.g.
745
genitive *dém-s ‘family’s, of the family’, *négwt-s ‘dusk’s, of dusk’, *diéus ‘daylight’s, sky-god’s, of
746
daylight, sky-god’, ablative-genitive *diués, etc.). The *-t- had a deictic meaning, e.g. *tód *dóm
747
‘DEMONSTRATIVE house, to DEMONSTRATIVE house’. I can draw the inference that *-s- coded a direc-
748
tion towards the primary (i.e. topical, proximative/proximate) participant originating from the second
749
participant as the SOURCE of the causation, whereas the *-t- coded causation towards a GOAL, that is,
750
direction from the primary (i.e. topical, proximative/proximate) participant to the second participant.
751
The following examples can serve to illustrate what is implied here:
25
752
(1)
a.
*gwhén-t
753
slay:NONDURATIVE/NEUTRAL.ASPECT:ACT(AGENTIVE):SG-DIRECT\3
754
literally, ‘agentive slaying of topical participant to second participant’
755
b.
*gwhén-s
756
slay:NONDURATIVE/NEUTRAL.ASPECT:ACT(AGENTIVE):SG-INVERSE\3
757
literally, ‘agentive slaying of topical participant (hither) from second participant (as the
758
starting point of the action)’
759
Inferences like this one must of course be based on possible diachronic sources of direct and inverse
760
markers. It has been proposed that word forms indicating a CISLOCATIVE direction (‘hither’) towards
761
the speaker (or towards the topical participant) are a possible source of inverse markers (see Jacques &
762
Antonov 2014: 325ff.). To illustrate this diachronic path, let me quote Jacques & Antonov (2014: 325ff.)
763
(the numbers of their examples are mine):
764
“The term ‘cislocative’ is used to refer to markers expressing a motion towards the speaker, both
765
directional (‘verb hither’) and associated motion (‘come to verb’) ones. The inverse marker in Nez
766
Percé (Sahaptian) used in local scenarios with second person acting on first person has grammatical-
767
ized from an earlier cislocative marker, reconstructed for Proto-Sahaptian as *-im (Rude 1997, 122).
768
[2]
héexn-e
769
see-PST
770
I saw you.
771
[3]
héxn-ím-e
772
see-CIS-PST
773
You saw me. [PST = PAST, CIS = cislocative]
774
Interestingly, this marker has also grammaticalized into the ergative case suffix which appears on the
775
non-SAP agent in mixed scenarios in cases where one would expect inverse marking on the verb (Rude
776
1997, 121-2).
777
[4]
hi-héxn-e
háama-nm
778
3S/A→SAP-see-PST
man-ERG
779
The man saw me/you. (NEZ PERCÉ)
780
[...] In still other languages, we observe a formal similarity between some inverse or direct markers
781
and various types of third person markers including agent, patient, or possessive affixes. The clearest
782
case is the inverse prefix found in Sino-Tibetan (Rgyalrongic and Kiranti) languages. As first noticed
783
by DeLancey (1981b), the Situ Rgyalrong third person possessive prefix wə- is formally identical to
784
the inverse marker. This is also true of other Rgyalrong languages and of some Kiranti languages that
26
785
have an inverse marker, such as Bantawa [...]. The similarity between the two sets of prefixes is strik-
786
ing and suggests a grammaticalization from a third person marker into an inverse marker. While the
787
exact pathway remains unclear and thus requires further investigation, it is possible that non-finite
788
verb forms carrying a third person possessive prefix were reanalyzed as finite ones. In the case of
789
Sino-Tibetan languages, this scenario probably occurred in the ancestor of both Rgyalrongic and
790
Kiranti languages [...].” (End of quote.)
791
This bidirectional “poly-grammaticalization” in Nez Percé from CISLOCATIVE both to inverse direction
792
and ergative case marking looks very similar to what is found in PIE morphology. In PIE, the sigmatic
793
agentive (viz. pre-nomimative) case suffix *-s (e.g. PIE *póti-s ‘lord’, *h2nér-s ‘man’ > post-PIE
794
*h2néː(r)) and the ablative-genitive SOURCE suffix *-s (e.g. PIE *négwts, see above) are formally identical
795
with the verbal deictic-directional suffix *-s-. This typological parallel strengthens the conclusion that
796
*-s- was a cislocative-like inverse marker and *-t- the corresponding direct marker.
797
2. A second argument may run as follows. It is perhaps more likely claiming that the PROGRESSIVE
forms (e.g. *gwhénti), not the inverse forms, were later generalized as a post-PIE third person
798
DIRECT
799
singular imperfective present forms. However, although this idea may perhaps serve as an argument, it
800
needs an additional investigation on its own.
801
3. Probably the best indication is the following one. The internal evidence is provided by the neuter
802
(= proto-neuter or inanimate) demonstrative form *tód. It is highly likely that the proximative/proximate
803
demonstrative stem *s- (*só-, etc.) could not be used to refer to neuter (= proto-neuter or inanimate)
804
nouns because these referents could only be obviative/obviate. This conforms to a cross-linguistic typo-
805
logical pattern that is found in hierarchical marking systems. It speaks in favor of the inference drawn
806
here. Thus, the fact that the demonstrative stem *s- (*só-, etc.) could not be used to refer to proto-
807
neuter/inanimate nouns can very much strengthen that the stem *tó- was an obviative/obviate demon-
808
strative stem. I can integrate the obviative/obviate function of *-t- into my general hypothesis as follows.
809
The suffixes *-s- and *-t- seem to go back to original P-indexing (not A-indexing) suffixes, and might
810
thus ultimately go back to pre-PIE P-indexing (en)clitics. The abbreviations S, A, P indicate the respec-
811
tive referents that can be compared with the notions of intransitive subject (~ S), transitive subject (~
812
most agent-like argument A), and transitive object (~ most patient-like argument P). For my model of
813
the PIE case-marking and alignment system see Pooth & Orqueda forthc.
814
(5)
*h2nér-s
*gwhén-t
815
man-AGT
slay:NDUR:ACT:SG-OBVIATIVEP\3
816
‘man (proximative A) slew obviative P’
a.
*h2nér
*gwhén-s
818
man.ABS
slay:NDUR:ACT:SG-PROXIMATIVEP\3
819
‘obviative A slew proximative man (P)’
817
b.
27
*h2nér
*gwhén-m
821
man.ABS
slay:NDUR:ACT:SG-1A\SG
822
‘I (A) slew man (P)’
820
(6)
a.
*h2nér
*bhuéh2-m ~ *bhúh2-m
824
man.ABS
grow:NDUR:ACT:SG-1S\SG
825
‘I (S) grew to be a man, became a man’
b.
823
*h2nér
*gwhén-t
827
man.ABS
slay:NDUR:ACT:SG-DIRECT\SG
828
‘proximative A slew man’
826
c.
*h2nér
*bhuéh2-s ~ *bhúh2-s
830
man.ABS
grow:NDUR:ACT:SG-INVERSE\SG
831
‘proximative S grew to be a man (causally affected by an “obviative” natural force)’
829
d.
832
As illustrated by the reconstructed sentences (6ab), PIE person-indexing is usually reconstructed with
833
an active subject-indexing first-person suffix -m- for A = S. The idea that the other two suffixes were
834
object-indexing suffixes implies that there was a kind of “split-indexing” system in PIE grammar. The
835
first-person indexing (-m) was subject-marking (with A = S), as in (6ab), whereas the second and third
836
person indexing was object-marking, as in (5ab), presumably extending its function to the domain of
837
intransitive subject-marking. This would imply that the PIE direct-inverse system was a mixed subject-
838
marking and object-marking hierarchical system. The PIE direct-inverse markers presumably occurred
839
in intransitive clauses as well – either generally or for encoding switched referents, as in (7ab) further
840
below. If true, there might have been a “nominative/accusative” first-person A = S indexing vs. “erga-
841
tive/absolutive” O = S indexing split-system (in a more abstract sense of these typological notions).
842
Since the evidence points to unmarked plural forms, such a split was restricted to singular forms. To
843
round off the typological picture, I can briefly add that it is quite likely that there were two general verb
844
classes: A. agentive including so-called “unergative” verbs, *gwhen- ‘to slay, kill’ vs. B. “ambient force
845
verbs” or so-called “unaccusative” verbs, e.g. *bhueh2-/bhuh2- ‘to grow’. The hypothesis that PIE had
846
these two verb classes is typologically plausible. However, its discussion must be postponed.
847
5.
848
It is cross-linguistic and typological common knowledge that direct forms are in principle and by defi-
849
nition used to indicate that the participant causing a change of state in another participant is either higher
850
on a grammaticalized animacy or topicality hierarchy – or is in TOPIC function. On the other hand,
851
inverse forms are used to indicate that the causing participant is lower on that hierarchy or non-topical
Typological implications for the reconstruction of PIE syntax
28
852
(Givón 2001 I: 166, Jacques 2010, Jacques & Antonov 2014). To be fair, languages with direct vs.
853
inverse systems considerably vary in the use of these forms (Thompson 1989, Zúñiga 2006, Jacques
854
2010). Nonetheless, it is a typological implication of the hypothesis outlined in this paper that PIE had
855
a person or animacy and topicality hierarchy – and hierarchically triggered direct-inverse indexing. It is
856
further evident that PIE displayed grammatical core case marking. This fact makes it a bit more different
857
from other systems with hierarchical alignment, since additional case markers were used to distinguish
858
the core syntactic functions and/or semantic roles (S, A, P; agent, patient, etc.). This implies that the PIE
859
topicality hierarchy and direct-inverse marking was not necessarily solely used to distinguish semantic
860
participant roles of third person referents. With third person referents, the direct marking indicated that
861
the causing participant was topical and PROXIMATIVE and that the transitivity direction was from this
862
first referent to a second non-topical or OBVIATIVE one. The inverse transitive marking served to code
863
the opposite direction. The following two reconstructed PIE sentences can illustrate this difference.
864
(7)
*gwén
a. *h2nér-s
865
man-AGENTIVE woman.ZERO
866
‘man (PROX) kissed woman (OBV)’
867
b. *h2nér
*Kuás-t
kiss:NDUR:AGT:SG-DIR\3
*gwén-s
*Kuás-s
woman-AGENTIVE
kiss:NDUR:AGT:SG-INV\3
868
man.ZERO
869
‘as for man (PROX), woman (OBV) kissed him’,
870
‘the man was kissed by the woman’
871
A typolological comparandum of a language combining ergative vs. absolutive case marking with direct
872
vs. inverse marking is provided by Japhug Rgyalrong (Jacques 2010: 135, his example):
873
(8)
a. ʁdɤrʑi
kɯ
ɬamu
pɯ-a-mto
ERG
Lhamo.ABS
AOR-3SG>3-see (DIR)
874
Rdorje
875
‘as for Rdorje, he saw Lhamo’
b. ɬamu
876
ʁdɤrʑi kɯ
877
Lhamo.ABS
878
‘as for Lhamo, Rdorje saw him’
pɯ́-wɣ-mto
Rdorje ERG AOR-INV-see:3>3SG
879
A similar, but not identical system with direct-inverse distinction is found in Koyukon (Athabascan,
880
Alaska, USA; these are examples (3, 4, 56, 48) of Thompson 1989: 2, 3, 10, 11):
881
(9)
a. John
yi-nee-ł-’aanh
yi-THM-CL(ł)-see21
882
21
Thompson 1989 uses THM for “thematic prefix”, CL for “classifyer” (one of these “classifyers” is identified with middle
voice marking).
29
883
884
‘John is looking at him/her’
b. John
bi-nee-ł-’aanh
885
bi-THM-CL(ł)-see
886
887
‘as for him/her, John is looking at him/her’
c.
ts’i-nee-ł-’aanh
888
INDEF/1PL-CL(ł)-see
889
‘s.o./we/he/she is looking at him/her/it’
890
d.
nee-l-’aanh
891
THM-CL(li)-see
892
‘s.o. is watching him/her; she/he is being watched’
893
Cross-linguistically, such direct-inverse systems are often used to encode switch-reference (Thompson
894
1989: 13). It is thus inferable that PIE also made use of it to code switched referents:
895
(10) *h2nér-s
896
*médhu
man-AGENTIVE honey.ABS
*dh3-t-ó
give/take:NDUR-DIR-NDUR:DTR
897
*páh3-t
*=kwe
898
swallow:NDUR:AGT:SG-DIR\SG
and/with/alike
899
900
901
‘mani took honey and hei swallowed it’
*médhu
(11) *h2nér-s
man-AGENTIVE honey.ABS
*dáh3-t
give/take:NDUR:ACT-DIR
902
*páh3-s
*=kwe
903
swallow:NDUR:AGT:SG-INV\SG
and/with/alike
904
‘mani gave honey to someonej and that personj swallowed it’
905
There were probably other oppositions encoded by -s- vs. -t-. I can briefly add that third person inverse
906
optative-irrealis forms might have been used if the speaker was emotionally involved in the event.
907
(12) a. *h2nér
*bhuh2-iéh1-s
908
man.ABS
grow-OPT:SG-INV\3
909
‘I WISH he would grow to be a man, if only he grew to be a man’
*h2nér
*bhuh2-iéh1(-t)
911
man.ABS
grow-OPT:SG(-DIR/ITR.SUBJ)\3
912
‘he would grow to be a man (if this or that happened)’
910
b.
30
913
6. Appendix: A paradigm
914
The following Paradigm Grids 1–3 provide an overview of verb forms of the most basic PIE verbal
915
inflectional type (or “aspectual binyan”, see Pooth 2016, 2017). The PIE verb in question is *gwhen- ‘to
916
slay, kill, beat, chase hunt’ again (> Vedic han-, etc.). I gloss the obviative/obviate third-person as 3’. >
917
means ‘acting on/directed to’ here. For the time being, I use the label “nondurative” for this aorist-like
918
aspectual category (one may use the label “aorist” as well, but not in its Greek definition).
919
Grid 1. The PIE nondurative active-agentive transitive forms
>1
>2
>3
>3’
gwhénm
1SG>
1PL.EXCL>
gwhnmé(s)A
1PL.INCL>
gwhnué(s)A
2SG>
gwhéns
gwhént
2PL>
gwhnsé(n)
gwhnté(n)
3SG>
gwhéns
gwhént
3PL>
gwhnérs
gwhnént
3’SG>
gwhéns
3’PL>
gwhnérs
Grid 2. The PIE nondurative undirected formsC
920
ACTIVE-AGENTIVE
DETRANSITIVE
1SG
gwhénm
gwhnh2é
1PL.EXCL
gwhnmé(s)
gwhnmó(s)
1PL.INCL
gwhnué(s)
gwhnuó(s)
2SG
gwhénB
gwhnh2é
2PL
gwhné(n)
gwhnh2é(n)
2COL
—
gwhnéh2(m)
3/3’SG
gwhénB
gwhnó
3/3’PL
gwhnér
gwhnró
3/3’COL
—
gwhnéh2(m)
921
Additional notes to these Grids:
922
A
This suffix *-s was a partially obligatory first-person plural marker and should not be confused with the
923
inverse suffix here. The partially obligatory second-person plural suffix was *-n. The one used in third-person
924
forms was *-r- before zero and *-s-, and *-n- before *-t-. This 3pl suffix looks like the nominal so-called
925
“heteroclitic” suffix *-r- ~ *-n-.
31
926
927
928
B
Perhaps the direct/inverse forms were used for more consistent subject reference-tracking – as already
mentioned above. If true, the unmarked singular forms were mainly used in the imperative mood.
C
Question: Should I use an intransitive verb like *gʷem- here? I think that it is not to be excluded that
929
“intransitive” (unmarked/undirected) forms of transitive verbs had a meaning like ‘subject slew (some-
930
one/something)’, whereas the transitive forms had a meaning ‘subject slew referent’. I am grateful to Onno
931
Hovers for pointing me to this matter (personal communication via academia.edu):
932
“That’s how the subjective conjugation works in the Uralic languages that have this (Ugric, Samoyedic,
933
Mordvinic). But the Uralic subjective can also take an object which is then indefinite. So, subjective ‘I
934
slew’ ~ ‘I slew something’ ~ ‘I slew some reindeer’ versus objective ‘I slew it/him/her’ ~ ‘I slew the rein-
935
deer’.” (O. Hovers)
936
Grid 3. The corrssponding PIE nondurative detransitive forms
>1
>2
>3
>3’
wh
1SG>
g nh2é
wh
1PL.EXCL>
g nmó(s)A
1PL.INCL>
gwhnuó(s)A
1COL.EXCL>
gwhnmó(h2)
1COL.INCL>
gwhnuó(h2)
2SG>
gwhnsh2é
gwhnth2é
2PL>
gwhnsh2é(n)
2COL>
gwhnséh2
gwhnth2é(n)
gwhntéh2
3SG>
gwhnsó
gwhntó
3PL>
?
gwhnntó
gwhnséh2
gwhntéh2
3COL>
3’SG>
gwhnsó
3’PL>
?
3’COL>
gwhnséh2
937
Appendix II: I am grateful to Douglas G. Kilday for the following comment (via academia.edu, shortened):
938
“I think the view that PIE deictic-demonstrative *-s- was proximative (not specifically 2nd pers. sg.), and *-t- was
939
obviative (not specif. 3sg.), helps explain the evidence for 3sg. verbal *-s in Germanic as well as Messapic, Phryg-
940
ian, and scattered Vedic injunctives. Old Norse has generally 3sg. pres. -r < *-esi identical to 2sg., with scattered
941
remnants of 3sg. *-ð. The Northumbrian dialect of Old English also has 3sg. pres. -s, against -þ in West Saxon,
942
with 2sg. -st throughout West Gmc. generally explained by epenthesis in collocations with postposed *þū (n.b.
943
however “singes þu” in the Cuckoo Song, ca. 1240). The notion that the simple 2sg. form could have displaced
32
944
the 3sg. in ON and Nthb. OE isn’t plausible. What is plausible, within the framework of PIE prox. *-s- and obv.
945
*-t-, is that Proto-Germanic inherited both as verbal endings, and used them both as 3sg. pres. suffixes, generally
946
*-s- when the verb preceded the subject and *-t- (later *-þ, *-ð) when it followed.” (D. G. Kilday)
947
Acknowledgements go to Christopher Miller for correcting my Genglish/Denglish.
948
References
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
Bauer, B. L. M. 2009: Residues as an aid in Internal Reconstruction, Internal Reconstruction in Indo-European. Methods,
Results, and Problems. Ed. by J. E. Rasmussen & T. Olander. Copenhagen, 17-31.
Beekes, R. S. P. 1995, second edition 2011: Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia. Second
edition. Revised and corrected by Michiel de Vaan. Amsterdam & Philadelphia.
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.
DeLancey, S. 1981: The category of direction in Tibeto-Burman, Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 6 (1), 83-101.
Dixon, R. M. W. 2010–2012: Basic Linguistc Theory. Volume I–II 2010, Volume III 2012. Oxford.
Eichner 1985: Das Problem des Ansatzes eines urindogermanischen Numerus ‘Kollektiv’ (‘Komprehensiv’), in: Grammatische
Kategorien, Funktion und Geschichte. Akten der VII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin 20.-25. Februar
1983. Ed. by B. Schlerath & V. Rittner. Wiesbaden, 134-169.
García Ramón, J. L. 1998: Indogermanisch *gu̯ hen- ‘(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.
Givón, T. 2001: Syntax. Volume I & II. Amsterdam.
Gotō, T. 1987: Die „I. Präsensklasse“ im Vedischen. Wien.
― 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.
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.
33
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
Insler, S. 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.
Jacques, G. 2010: The inverse in Japhug Rgyalrong, Language and Linguistics 11 (1), 127-57.
Jacques, G. & A. Antonov 2014: “Direct/inverse systems”, Language and Linguistics Compass 8/7, 301-318.
Jamison, S. W. 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. 1991: The ablaut of the root aorist optative in Proto-Indo-European, Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft
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 IndoEuropean Studies. Bremen, 47-68.
Klaiman, M. H. 1992: Inverse Languages, Lingua 88, 227-61.
Kloekhorst, A. 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.
― 2008: Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden & Boston.
― 2017: The Old Hittite and the Proto-Indo-European tense-aspect system. Indogermanische Forschungen 122 (1), 295-308,
doi: 10.1515/if-2017-0015
Kölligan, D. 2007: Suppletion und Defektivität im griechischen Verbum. Bremen.
Kümmel, M. J. 1996: Stativ und Passiaorist im Indoiranischen. Göttingen.
― 1998: Wurzelpräsens neben Wurzelaorist im Indogermanischen, Historische Sprachforschung 111, 191-208.
― 2012: Typology and reconstruction. The consonants and vowels of Proto-Indo-European, 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.
― 2012b: Monosyllabic lengthening in Vedic aorists? International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 9, 51-63.
― 2015+, 2018 (handout, see Kümmel 2018): Anatolisches und indoiranisches Verbum. Erbe und Neuerung: 100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen. Paper given at Morphosyntaktische Kategorien in Sprachgeschichte und Forschung. Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft in Marburg 21.-23. September 2015, downloadable from https://uni-jena.academia.edu/MartinKümmel
― 2018: Anatolisches und indoiranisches Verbum. Erbe und Neuerung. In: 100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen. Morphosyntaktische Kategorien in Sprachgeschichte und Forschung. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft
vom 21. bis 23 September 2015 in Marburg. Herausgegeben von Elisabeth Rieken. Unter Mitwirkung von Ulrich Geupel und
Theresa Maria Roth. Wiesbaden, 239ff.
― 2016: Is Ancient Old and Modern New? Fallacies of Attestation and Reconstruction (with Special Focus on Indo-Iranian).
In: D.M. Goldstein, S.W. Jamison, & B Vine (eds.). 2016. Proceedings of the 27th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference.
Bremen, 79-96, downloadable from https://uni-jena.academia.edu/MartinKümmel
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: Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. 2. erw. und verbesserte Auflage. Wiesbaden.
Lubotsky, A.M. 1997: A R̥ gvedic Word Concordance. 2 Volumes. New Haven, Connecticut.
34
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
― 2013: The Vedic paradigm for ‘water’, in: Multi Nominis Grammaticus Studies in Classical and Indo-European linguistics
in honor of Alan J. Nussbaum on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, ed. by A.I. Cooper, J. Rau & M. Weiss. Ann Arbor:
Beech Stave Press, 159-164.
Lundquist, J. & A. D. Yates 2018: The Morphology of Proto-Indo-European. In: Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An
International Handbook. Eds. M. Fritz, B. Joseph, J. Klein, see http://www.pies.ucla.edu/resources/ady/papers/IEmorphF.pdf
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.
Melchert, H. C. 1998: Traces of PIE Aspectual Contrast in Anatolian, Incontri Linguistici 20, 83-92.
― 2012 (ed.): The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Los Angeles
13-16 September 2010. Wiesbaden.
― 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 IndoEuropean 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: 270-282).
― 1995: Kleine Schriften. Band I. Hrsg. von Marcos Albino und Matthias Fritz. Wiesbaden.
Neri, S. & R. Schuhmann 2014 (eds.): Studies on the Collective and Feminine in Indo-European from a Diachronic and Typological Perspective. Leiden & Boston.
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, Internal Reconstruction in Indo-European. Ed.
by J. E. Rasmussen & T. Olander. Copenhagen, 205-212.
Pooth, R. A. 2000: Stativ vs. Medium im Vedischen und Avestischen, Historische Sprachforschung 113, 88-116.
— 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. Hg. von T. Krisch & T. Lindner. Wiesbaden, 473-83.
— 2012: Zum Aufkommen transitiver Verben in frühen Vedischen am Beispiel 1r̥ , The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings of
the Conference of the Society for Ind-European Studies, Los Angeles 13-16 September 2010. Ed. H. Craig Melchert. Wiesbaden, 267-84.
— 2014: Die Diathesen Aktiv vs. Medium und die Verbsemantik im Vedischen der R̥ gveda-Saṃhitā. Proefschrift, PhD dissertation. Defended 2014-10-23. Universiteit Leiden, Leiden University Repository, https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl
— 2014b (ms.): More evidence for Proto-Indo-European transfixes: Two types of “lengthened grades”, ms. version 2014-1205, https://leidenuniv.academia.edu/RolandPooth
35
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
— 2015: Proto-Indo-European Nominal Morphology. Part 1. The Noun, Language Arts 1, issue version 2015-12-23, ms. version 2015-12-23, https://leidenuniv.academia.edu/RolandPooth
— 2016: Proto-Indo-European Verb Morphology. Part 1. Inflection, Language Arts 2, issue version 2016-03-11, ms. version
2016-03-11, https://leidenuniv.academia.edu/RolandPooth
— 2016b (talk, ms.): “Is the “tēzzi principle” a plausible inference”, The precursors of Proto-Indo-European: the Indo-Hittite
and Indo-Uralic hypotheses. Workshop at the Leiden University Centre for Linguistics, 9-11 July 2015
— 2017a: Proto-Indo-European Nominal Morphology. Part 2. Adjectives, Language Arts 5, issue version 2017 Apr 22, author
manuscript version 2017 Apr 22, https://leidenuniv.academia.edu/RolandPooth
— 2017: Towards a Rigorous Linguistic Reconstruction of Morphs and Categories, Language Arts 6, issue version 2018 May
22, author manuscript version 2018 May 22, https://leidenuniv.academia.edu/RolandPooth
— 2018. Linguistic Reconstruction of Inflectional Categories: The Three Original Functions of Indo-European -i-Presents. FIU
Indo-European Lingustics Report 1 (ms. version 28 February 2018)
— 2018b (ms.): Linguistic Analysis and Comparative Philology: The Case-Marking System of Proto-Indo-European. Ms.
version 17 October 2018
— 2018c. A gender issue at ‘hand’: Hittite ki-eš-šar and its prehistory. Research Comment, ms. 27 March 2018
— 2019 (ms.). On the origin of the Vedic subjunctive, pre-published manuscript
Pooth, R., P.A. Kerkhof, J. Barddal, L. Kulikov The Origin of Non-Canonical Case Marking of Subjects in Proto-Indo-European: Accusative, Ergative, or Semantic Alignment. Indogermanische Forschungen 124, 245–263.
Pooth, R., and V. Orqueda (forthc./ms.): Alignment change and the emergence of the thematic conjugation from Proto-IndoEuropean to Indo-European: A wedding of hypotheses. Submitted to ThPS; ms. available via request.
Renou, L. 1952: Grammaire de la langue védique. Lyon/Paris.
Rude, N. 1997: On the history of nominal case in Sahaptian, International Journal of American Linguistics 63, 113-43.
Thompson,
C.
L.
1987:
An
Introduction
to
Athabascan
languages.
Yukon-Koyukuk
School
District,
https://uafanlc.alaska.edu/Online/CA975T1987b/CA975T1987b.pdf
— 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.
Tremblay, X. 2008: Iranian Historical Linguistics in the Twentieth Century – Part Two. Indo-European Studies Bulletin 13/1,
1-51.
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. [I have not read the
second edition, see http://www.beechstave.com/weiss.html
Willi, A. 2018: Origins of the Greek Verb. Cambridge U.P.
Zúñiga, F. 2006: Deixis and Alignment. Inverse Systems in Indigenous Languages of the Americas. Amsterdam & Philadelphia.
Thursday, 18 February 2021