Problems in PIE verbal morphology Miguel Carrasquer Vidal, November 2014

Narten verbs Ever since Johanna Narten’s 1968 paper, the scholarly community has largely, but not universally, accepted the notion that PIE possessed a category of verbs with *ē root vocalism in the strong forms (present singular) and *e vocalism in the weak forms (present du. and pl., middle, optative). As is customary with new discoveries, the enthusiasts have tried to use “Narten phenomena” to explain issues far outside of the original scope of the theory, the sceptics have tried to deny the very existence of “Narten presents”, and the majority have tried, with different degrees of success, to integrate the new discovery within their pre-existing frameworks. With Ryan Sandell’s 2014 paper ‘The phonological origins of Indo-European long-vowel (Narten) presents’, we now have a new take on the old problem, which forces me to totally reconsider my own views on the matter. Sandell, based on Melchert (fthc.), starts with the observation that there are two different interpretations of the Narten phenomena. One interpretation speaks of “Narten roots”, whereby some verbal roots are taken to possess “Narten nature”, and the long vocalism is an attribute of the verbal root itself. In the other interpretation, we have “Narten presents”, and the long vocalism is a morphological feature of a distinct verbal category (presents with “Narten aspect” or “Narten Aktionsart”), not a feature of the verbal root itself. Given the fact that most Narten presents occur side by side with other forms (primarily root aorists) with unlengthened vocalism, the first interpretation must be flawed, and we should opt for the second interpretation. Despite the fact that I had earlier interpreted Narten presents precisely as derived from roots with a different underlying vocalism than standard root presents, Sandell’s logic is undoubtedly correct, and I was wrong. As to the question of which verbs have Narten presents, Sandell makes two further important observations, which necessarily restrict the number of verbs that can be shown to exhibit the Narten pattern:

1. With Melchert (fthc.), Sandell points out that the mere fact that a form with ‘unexpected’ e-grade in the middle (or the optative, etc.) exists, does not prove that the verb had a Narten present. Especially in the context of Hittite, where full-grade middles are relatively common, and do not correlate with *ē grades in the active singular, this is an important observation. Of course, full-grade middles cry out for an explanation, but it does not follow that the explanation is necessarily connected to the Narten presents.

2. The Vedic verbs with a root ending in *-eu which have long vocalism in the active singular, may have acquired their length by the application of two well-known PIE sound laws: Stang’s and Szemerényi’s laws. We had, in the imperfect singular (*steu- ‘to praise’):

1. *stéu-m > *stēm 2. *stéu-s > *stēus 3. *stéu-t = *steut

This immediately explains the Vedic imperfect paradigm á-staum, á-staus, á-staut, and from there the present stáumi, stáusi, stáuti.

Again, I fully agree with both points. The full-grade middles in Hittite do not look as if they have anything to do with Narten presents, and the use of Stang’s and Szemerényi’s laws to explain the

long vowel in staúmi is highly attractive, especially for someone like me that has long believed that the *ē-grade in the sigmatic aorist is precisely due to Szemerényi’s law. Sandell does not, however, deny the existence of Narten presents. He sees them, and I would again agree, as deriving from reduplicated formations from roots of the general shape *CeT. An important clue is the Narten present Ved. tāsti ‘fashions’, which in LIV is given under the lemma *tetk-, clearly a reduplicated formation. In all, there are at least 15 verbs in LIV with a 1b (“Narten”) present that conform to the root shape postulated by Sandell. Another 15 are unclear, but some of them may have been analogically attracted to the Narten pattern (e.g. mārsti ‘wipes’). See Appendix A. That long vowels can result from the reduction of a reduplicative shape C1V-C1C2- > C1VC2- is not a novel thought in Indo-European comparative linguistics. We have direct evidence for it in the weak forms of the perfect in Vedic, Germanic (twice) and Baltic. Sandell 2013 discusses the phenomenon in Vedic, where roots ending in -aC lose the reduplication in the weak form of the perfect, with compensatory lengthening of the vowel to e: sad- ‘sit’ *sa-sd-úr > sedúr bhaj- ‘divide’ *bha-bhj-úr > bhejúr pac- ‘cook’ *pa-pc-úr > pecúr Schumacher 2005 discusses the “bigētun-rule”, whereby Germanic strong preterits of classes IV (*-eC) and V (*-eR) acquire root vocalism *ē in the perfect plural: *geb- ‘give’ *ge-gb-um > gēbum (= Goth. gebum) *kwem- ‘come’ *kwe-kwm-um > kwēmum (= Goth. qemum) *leg- ‘lie’ *le-lg-um > lēgum (= Goth. legum) The same thing happened again in North-West-Germanic with the class VII preterits, which still reduplicate in Gothic: *hait- ‘be called’ *he-h(ai)t- > *hē2t- (G. hiess) *hlaup- ‘walk’ *hle-hl(au)p- > *hlē2p- (Du. liep) *hald- ‘hold’ *he-h(a)ld- > *hē2ld- (Du. hield) *lēt- ‘let’ *le-l(ō)t- > *lē2t- (Du. liet) It can certainly be no coincidence that it is precisely the Lithuanian ė-preterits with roots of the shape -eC and -eR(H) that have a lengthened (normally circumflex, acute in the case of -eRH) root vowel: *lek- ‘fly’ *le-lk- > lėk-ė *gerH- ‘drink’ *ge-grH- > gėr-ė *rem- ‘support’ *re-rm- > rėm-ė *gres- ‘threaten’ *gre-grs- > grės-ė *vag- ‘steal’ *va-vg- > võg-ė *karH- ‘hang’ *ka-krH- > kór-ė *put- ‘blow’ *pu-pt- > pūt-ė That leaves only one question: what kind of reduplicated formation are we dealing with in the case of “Narten” (or “Sandell”) presents? Sandell tries to find a connection with the category of i-reduplicated athematic presents (LIV 1h), but rather fails to do so. We shall see if I can do better.

Neo-imperfectives As I have stated in previous articles, I believe that the (Pre-)PIE “neo-imperfectives” were created based on perfective (aoristic, punctual) verbal roots by the simple procedure of lengthening the first syllable of the verbal root, with the objective of creating durative, iterative or simply imperfective variants of the perfective/aoristic roots. These verbs were inflected with hi-conjugation endings, and came in three variants: intransitive, transitive with singular object, and transitive with plural object, where the plurality of the absolutive (S or O) was expressed by reduplication. At the earliest stage, the paradigms must have looked as follows:

intr. tr. sg. tr. pl. 1 CāC-k CāC-k Cī-CaC-k 2 CāC-tk CāC-tk Cī-CaC-tk 3 CāC-ø CāC-ø Cī-CaC-ø 1 Cī-CaC-mtkw CāC-mtkw Cī-CaC-mtkw 2 Cī-CaC-tkw CāC-tkw Cī-CaC-tkw 3 Cī-CaC-an CāC-án Cī-CaC-an

After application of the Auslautgesezte *-k > *-h2, *-n > *-r, and *-tkw > *-dhx(w) > *-ø1, and the addition of *-a (> *-e) to the asyllabic endings (i.e. all except the 3pl.), we get:

intr. tr. sg. tr. pl. 1 CóC-h2a CóC-h2a Cē-CC-h2a 2 CóC-th2a CóC-th2a Cē-CC-th2a 3 CóC-e CóC-e Cē-CC-e 1 Cē-CC-me CóC-me Cē-CC-me 2 Cē-CC-e CóC-e Cē-CC-e 3 Cē-CC-r CéC-r Cē-CC-r

In the 1. and 2.pl., under the influence of the mi-conjugation stressed endings *-wén(i) ~ *-més(i) and *-tén(i) ~ *-té(s), the stress was shifted analogically to the endings, with shortening of the now pretonic vowel:

1 Ce-CC-mé(s) CoC-mé(s) Ce-CC-mé(s) 2 Ce-CC-té(s) CoC-té(s) Ce-CC-té(s)

Finally, the reduplication in the intransitive forms was analogically extended to the singular, and we get the following three paradigms:

intr. tr. sg. tr. pl. 1 Ce-CóC-h2a CóC-h2a Cē-CC-h2a 2 Ce-CóC-th2a CóC-th2a Cē-CC-th2a 3 Ce-CóC-e CóC-e Cē-CC-e 1 Ce-CC-mé(s) CoC-mé(s) Ce-CC-mé(s) 2 Ce-CC-té(s) CoC-té(s) Ce-CC-té(s) 3 Cē-CC-r CéC-r Cē-CC-r

1 In the 1pl., the laryngeal was probably first delabialized by dissimilation with *-m-, yielding *-mdhh2. In the middle, the ending was preserved before a vowel, but in the active, it was lost in the absolute Auslaut.

It is plain to see that the intransitive paradigm corresponds to the PIE perfect (which is indeed predominantly intransitive). The middle column corresponds to the Hittite hi-conjugation and to the extra-Anatolian molō-verbs (a.k.a LIV category 1g).

hi-verbs molō-verbs 1 CóC-h2a-i CóC-mi 2 CóC-th2a-i CóC-si 3 CóC-e-i CóC-ti 1 CC-wén-i CóC-mes

2 CC-tén-i CóC-tes

3 CC-énti CéC-nti We can now see that the third column, transitive “neo-imperfectives” with plural objects, in so far as they had the root shape *CeT-, corresponds with the “Sandell-verbs” discussed above. The only difference is that in my reconstruction, the length was already there in 4 out of 6 forms, which should have no adverse effects on the constraints leading to the elimination of the second C1 in the forms under discussion. To arrive at the attested Narten presents and imperfects, we also need to take the trivial step of replacing the hi-conjugation endings with mi-conjugation ones, as in the case of the molō-verbs:

Narten-verbs 1 CēC-mi 2 CēC-si 3 CēC-ti 1 CeC-més 2 CeC-tés 3 CēC-nti, CéC-nti

If we derive the Narten presents from transitive verbs with plural objects, that would fit in well with the “broadly iterative durative Aktionsart of Narten presents” (Melchert). It is indeed a small step from “actions performed on multiple objects” to “actions performed multiple times”.

Old perfectives The three paradigms I gave above for the “neo-imperfectives” would imply that the “old” perfectives

must have conjugated according to basically the same pattern (except for the root lengthening). We

would have had:

intr. tr. sg. tr. pl. 1 CáC-k CáC-k Cí-CaC-k 2 CáC-tk CáC-tk Cí-CaC-tk 3 CáC-ø CáC-ø Cí-CaC-ø 1 Cí-CaC-mtkw CáC-mtkw Cí-CaC-mtkw 2 Cí-CaC-tkw CáC-tkw Cí-CaC-tkw 3 Cí-CaC-an CaC-án Cí-CaC-an

With the same developments as above, and the additional suffixation of third person *-s to (transitive?) preterite forms, we get:

intr. tr. sg. tr. pl. 1 CéC-h2a CéC-h2a Cí-CC-h2a 2 CéC-th2a CéC-th2a Cí-CC-th2a 3 CéC-e CéC-s, -e Cí-CC-s, -e 1 Cí-CC-me CéC-me Cí-CC-me 2 Cí-CC-(t)e CéC-(t)e Cí-CC-(t)e 3 Cí-CC-r CC-ér(s) Cí-CC-r(s)

At this point, apart from the stress shifts in the 1. and 2. pl. that we saw above, the influence of the mi-conjugation became so strong as to cause the replacement of the endings by the endings of the mi-conjugation (except in part in the third persons):

intr. tr. sg. tr. pl. 1 CéC-m CéC-m Cí-CC-m 2 CéC-s CéC-s Cí-CC-s 3 CéC-t CéC-t Cí-CC-e 1 Ci-CC-mé CéC-me Ci-CC-mé 2 Ci-CC-té CéC-te Ci-CC-té 3 Cí-CC-r, -nt CC-ēr Cí-CC-nt

That the root aorist (the middle column in the above table) indeed formerly used to have hi-conjugation endings is proven by the following facts:

The Greek root aorists ἔδωκα ‘gave’, ἧκα ‘sent’ and ἔθηκα ‘put’. If the endings of the root aorist were originally those of the hi-conjugation, the -κ- in Greek can be explained in the same way as the -κ- in the first perfect, as the hardening of *-HH- in the 1st person sg. (*-h2e) of verbs ending in a laryngeal. Parallel forms can be seen in Latin (facio ~ fēcī ‘do’, iaciō ~ iēcī ‘throw’), the other Italic languages (Umbr. face; Osc. afakeit, fefacid, Venet. whagsto ‘do’), as well as Phrygian (addaket, addaketor ‘affect’). It is possible that the -āu of the Vedic 1-3 sg. perfect (*dhedhoh1h2a, *dhedhoh1e > dadhāu ‘put’) is ultimately connected (if *-HH- developed into something that gave /k/ in Italic and Greek, voiceless /h/ in Indic2).

The 3pl. ending -úr (< *-ēr < *-ér-s) in Vedic.

The Ablaut of the root aorist, with full *e-grade in the 1. and 2. pl. (Malzahn’s 5:1 Ablaut), as a direct result of the fact that the hi-conjugation endings were originally, before the suffixation of *-e, syllabic only in the 3pl. (*-ár).

The transfer of the root aorist to the mi-conjugation happened before the split-off of the Anatolian languages, where we have e.g. the mi-verb (< root aorist) tēmi (*dhéh1-mi) ‘I state, I say’, vs. the hi-verb (“neo-imperfective”) tehhi ‘I put’3.

root aorist 1 CéC-m 2 CéC-s 3 CéC-t 1 CéC-me

2 CéC-te

3 CC-ēr

2 In view of the sandhi -ah a- > -au (-o), perhaps -āha > -āu (-au). 3 *dhoih1-h2a-i, or *dhh1-oi-h2a-i, with an unexplained i-infix(?).

Now that we have identified the paradigm in the middle column with the root aorist, what do the paradigms to the left and the right correspond to in PIE? In the case of the first paradigm, we should be looking for an i-reduplicated intransitive formation. The best fit are undoubtedly the i-reduplicated athematic presents (LIV 1h):

red. present 1 Ci-CéC-mi 2 Ci-CéC-si 3 Ci-CéC-ti 1 Ci-CC-més 2 Ci-CC-tés 3 Cí-CC-nti

We have analogical spread of the reduplication to the singular, as in the perfect, and the Ablaut pattern is precisely as expected. There is indeed evidence for basic intransitivity of the reduplicated presents. The root *bher- ‘to bring’, when reduplicated, has the durative meaning ‘to carry’ (LIV s.v. bibhárti: ‘anders als bhára- [‘trägt, bringt’] nur durativ in der Bedeutung ‘tragen’’). We can assume that the formation was created after the transfer to the mi-conjugation, when present tense mi-endings could be added to the intransitive aorist, thus creating a new kind of “neo-imperfective” for assigning (intransitive) imperfective meaning to aoristic roots. In the case of the third paradigm, we should be looking for an i-reduplicated transitive and iterative formation. The best fit is probably the reduplicated ‘causative’ thematic aorist:

red. aorist 1 Cí-CC-o-m 2 Cí-CC-e-s 3 Cí-CC-e-t 1 Cí-CC-o-me 2 Cí-CC-e-te 3 Cí-CC-o-nt

Formally, the reduplicated thematic present (e.g. *sí-sd-ō ‘I sit, I take a seat’) fits even better (the reduplicating aorist is reconstructed with e-reduplication in LIV, based on the Greek data, and in Vedic, where the reduplication vowel indeed most often is -i- or lengthened -ī-, the root not rarely shows guna-grade4), but *sísdō has neither transitive nor iterative semantics, features that are obviously better represented by the causative-iterative reduplicated aorist. In either case, we can ascribe the thematic conjugation of both forms to the hi-conjugation 3sg. in *-e (besides *-s).

4 In roots ending in *-eT or *-eR.

The PIE middle As we saw above, the Ved. forms staumi, stausi, stauti ‘praise’ can be explained as normal athematic forms, with lengthening by Stang’s and Szemerényi’s laws. That does not mean that we should ignore the fact that this verb, as Narten noticed, makes a stative stáve (*stéu-oj), with accented *é of the root. We still need to explain the existence of such acrostatic middle/stative forms. I believe the original distribution must have been something like the following:

perfective neo-imperfective imperfective DAT 1 CaC-x + DAT CāC-x + DAT CaC-x + DAT -ám 2 CaC-tx + DAT CāC-tx + DAT CaC-tx + DAT -án 3 CaC + a-DAT CāC + a-DAT CaC-t + a-DAT -á 1 CaC-m(a)dhx + DAT CāC-m(a)dhx + DAT CaC-m(a)dhx + DAT -ám 2 CaC-dhxw + DAT CāC-dhxw + DAT CaC-dhxw + DAT -ádh(?) 3 CaC-an + a-DAT CāC-an + a-DAT CaC-an-t + a-DAT -áj

The middle was in origin, as I have hypothesized before, a formation with hi-conjugation endings, expressing dative agreement by adding suffixed dative person markers (stressed vowel plus *-m, *-r, *-ø, *-dh(?), *-j). The number of the absolutive was probably also expressed by reduplication (not shown). The dual forms are also not shown. This leads to the following PIE middle paradigms:

perfective neo-imperfective imperfective 1 CC-h2á (-r, -dh, -j) CéC-h2a (-r, -dh, -j) CC-h2á (-r, -dh, -j) 2 CC-th2á (-m, -j) CéC-th2a (-m, -j) CC-th2á (-m, -j) 3 CC-ó (-m, -r, -dh, -j) CéC-o (-m, -r, -dh, -j) CC-tó (-m, -r, -dh, -j) 1 CC-médhh2 (-r, -dh, -j) CéC-medhh2 (-r, -dh, -j) CC-médhh2 (-r, -dh, -j) 2 CC-dhh3wó (-m, -j) CéC-dhh3wo (-m, -j) CC-dhh3wó (-m, -j) 3 CC-ró (-m, -r, -dh, -j) CéC-ro (-m, -n, -dh, -j) CC-ntó (-m, -r, -dh, -j)

We see that the full grade middles (“statives”, because they lack 3sg. *-t) should in principle correspond with the “neo-imperfectives”, i.e. the perfect, molō-verbs and Narten/Sandell-presents. This means that Narten was right in claiming a connection5 between long vowel presents and full-grade middles, except that the connection, if I am right, is somewhat more general than that. The zero grade statives should correspond with the “old perfectives” (i.e. the root aorist, and the reduplicated present and aorist). Finally, imperfective mi-verbs should correspond with zero-grade middles. The original distribution was most likely affected by various Ausgleich-phenomena, and the general expansion of middles over statives, and zero-grade forms over full-grade forms. We will discuss the thematic middles below. There is one further category connected with the middle, the passive middle aorist, with o-grade and stress on the root, and only a single 3sg. form, attested only in Indo-Iranian (e.g. Ved. a-stāv-i ‘was praised’). I have no idea what that is all about, or where the ending -i comes from (possibilities are *-i or *-H).

5 Although not in the specific case of stáumi ~ stáve, as shown by the Hitt. zero-grade stative istuwāri ‘wird bekannt’. Note that my theory also incorrectly predicts a regular middle xstutój ~ xstutór in this specific case.

Neo-perfectives (s-aorists) We saw above that the root aorists, before they were transferred to the mi-conjugation, had a third person marker *-s in the preterite, as also shown by the Hittite hi-conjugation preterit (e.g. 3sg. dās < *dóh3-s, 3pl. tēr < *dh3-ér-s ‘take’). Just like strategies were devised to make imperfective forms out of perfective verbs (“neo-imperfectives”), the need must at some point have been felt to create perfective (aoristic) forms out of imperfective verbs. One such strategy has left traces in the IE languages, namely the so-called sigmatic aorist. The *-s of the 3sg. aorist was added to imperfective roots to make “neo-perfectives” and was eventually generalized to all persons and moods, resulting in the classical s-aorist:

s-aorist 1 CēC-s-m 2 CēC-s-s 3 CēC-s-t 1 CēC-s-me, CeC-s-mé 2 CēC-s-te, CeC-s-té 3 CēC-s-rs

The length of the root vowel is caused by Szemerényi’s law, and must be analogical in -CC roots.

Thematic perfects/middles One category that is conspicuously absent from the PIE paradigms that are usually reconstructed, and which is also apparently absent from Hittite (cf. Kloekhorst 2007), is the category of hi-conjugation thematics. To be sure, we have a thematic middle, which, judging by the Hittite, Tocharian and Gothic evidence, had persistent o-grade throughout, as expected for a stressed thematic vowel *-ā-:

thematic middle 1 -ó-h2a (-r, -j) 2 -ó-th2a (-m, -j) 3 -ó-to (-m, -r, -j) 1 -ó-medhh2 (-r, -j) 2 -ó-dhh3wó (-m, -j) 3 -ó-nto (-m, -r, -j)

If the neo-imperfectives had had thematic forms followed by hi-conjugation endings, the forms might have been as follows in the 1. and 3 sg.:

1. *-a-h2a > *-ã 3. *-e-e6 > *-e

This distribution immediately brings to mind the Latin future of non-ā and non-ē conjugations III and IV (C- and ī-stems), where we have:

Lat. future 1 emam ‘I shall buy’ 2 emēs 3 emet

6 The formation must be relatively recent, like the doubly thematic subjunctive, or we would have had *-o-e > *-õ.

1 emēmus 2 emētis 3 ement

Similarly, the present subjunctive has -ē- where the indicative has -ā-, and -ā- where the indicative has -ē- (or anything else). Earlier, we mentioned the Lithuanian preterite in -ė, in connection with the long vowel of the root. We did not discuss the ending, which is derivable from *-e. Besides this form, there is also a preterite in -o (< *-ã). The distribution is roughly that we have -o- after -j-, which looks like the result of a sound law, and otherwise we have o-preterites from intransitive verbs, and ė-preterites from transitive verbs. I find it perfectly imaginable that the intransitive ~ transitive distribution is derivable from an opposition between first person (associated with intransitivity) and third person (associated with transitivity)7. That would mean that the Baltic preterites are derivable from thematic forms of the PIE perfect (or some other hi-conjugation/middle base), with zero grade of the root, and reduplication at least in the case of the ė-preterite. Verbal forms characterized by *ē- and *ā-suffixes exist in a number of other branches of Indo-European besides Italic and Balto-Slavic. We have such forms in at least Celtic, Greek and Tocharian, and perhaps a number of them can likewise be derived from hi-conjugation thematics, whether thematic perfects, middle subjunctives, or whatever the case may be. Further study is required.

Zero-grade thematics One important consequence of abandoning the concept of “Narten roots” is that the PIE verbal system must now be interpreted as if all verbal roots originally had a single basic vowel *e (Pre-PIE *a). Unlike what I believe to be the case in the noun, where different Ablaut patterns arose in part due to the different qualities of the root vocalism (Ablaut *é ~ *ø, *ó ~ *é, *ω ~ *ø, *ē ~ ø, *é ~ *é8), in the verb, all forms behave as if the root vowel were *a (possibly lengthened to *ā), and the reduplication vowel *i (possibly lengthened to *ī). There are a few cases of secondary shortening due to stress shifts, which look like cases of Ablaut *ē ~ *e, but nowhere can we see different variants of a verbal paradigm conditioned by original differences in the lexical root vocalism. Such differences must once have existed, though. For instance, the fact that we have verbal roots containing labiovelars strongly suggests that such verbs once had a vowel *u in the root. The only other case where I had previously assumed that the root vocalism of the verbal root had influenced the further developments in PIE is that of the thematic verbs, in particular the split between bhárati (“root vocalism lengthened *ā”) and tudáti verbs (“root vocalism lengthened *ī or *ū”). This notion must now be abandoned too. The tudáti-verbs, together with the ské-verbs, jé-verbs and the thematic aorists (sigmatic and asigmatic) are all characterized by persistent stress on the thematic vowel. Unlike the thematic middles, where the thematic vowel is *ó throughout, as would be the expected lautgesetzlich outcome, these verbs vary the quality (etymologically, the quantity) of the thematic vowel according to the voicedness of the following phoneme, as is regularly the case in posttonic position. The variation of the thematic vowel in bhárati verbs is a very strongly characteristic pattern, so it is not really surprising that it would have been taken over by the tudáti verbs, where it did not arise by

7 In my article Balto-Slavic accentology ‘for dummies’ I proposed that the originally barytonic verb mogǫ, mòžetь ‘I can’, after the working of Dybo’s law, is in the accent paradigm (b) required by its 1st person form, whereas bodǫ, bodétь ‘he stabs (s.o.)’ is in the accent paradigm (c) suggested by its 3rd. person form. 8 For further details, see my articles Proto-Indoeuropean nominal Ablaut patterns and Szemerényi’s law.

sound law. However, why did the same not happen (at least not everywhere) in the thematic middle? In order to explain the stress pattern of the tudáti verbs without recourse to the root vocalism, we must get rid of the vrddhi of the root. In my view, the bhárati verbs (like the o-stem nouns) are derived by the twin process of lengthening of the root vowel and addition of the stressed suffix *-ā-. If the root vowel is *ā, the stress is retracted to the root, but only after shortening of the vowel. The result is a barytonic form with root vocalism *é. This is Rasmussen’s law, as it was first suggested (in different vocalic terms) in Rasmussen 1978. In the noun, the process of thematization is clearly related to the formation of adjectives from base nouns. In the verb, the process seems to originate in the formation of subjunctives to base verbs, where the indicative stands to the subjunctive as the base noun stands to the adjective. The tudáti verbs act as if they were produced by a different procedure, namely the suffixation of *-ā- (or *-á-?) to an unvrddhied root alone. The same must also apply to the thematic middles, where the stress is likewise not retracted. Thematic aorists behave in the same way. As to the verbs with stressed thematic suffixes *-ské- and *-jé-, I have previously suggested that the first suffix originates in the incorporation of the tudáti verb *h2iské- ‘to seek, ask, demand’ to the base verb. I have no idea where the second suffix (*-jé-) comes from, but it might be a suffix originally unrelated to the ‘thematic vowel’ (although in the end it did copy the e/o-pattern from it). As a final loose thought, it seems possible that the thematic vowel of the tudáti verbs is related, as a stressed variant, to the *-e that was added to the asyllabic endings of the hi-conjugation, and which gives the 3sg. perfect ending *-e. This ending itself provided a good starting point for thematizations, as was suggested above in the case of the reduplicated thematic present (*sisdō ‘sit’) and/or the reduplicated thematic aorist (*wíwkwom ‘said’).

PIE verbal endings9 The singular imperfective athematic endings and the corresponding 3pl. are uncontroversial:

past present 1 -m -mi 2 -s -si 3 -t -ti 3 -ént -énti

The 1-2 pl. and the dual forms are more difficult. Hittite probably shows an ancient pattern:

past present 1 du-pl -wén -wéni 2 du-pl *-tér -téni 3 du-pl *-ént *-énti > -ánzi

In the preterit, 2 pl. -ten was analogically restored after present -teni10. In the 3 pl. preterit, the perfect/aorist ending -ēr took the place of *-ént. These endings can be derived rather unproblematically from suffixed personal pronouns, plus a demonstrative pronoun in the 3rd person (see my paper The pre-PIE personal pronouns):

Pre-PIE PIE 1 *-mu *-m(w) 2 *-tu *-s(w) 3 *-ø + -ta *-t 1 *-mu-án *-mwén > *-wén 2 *-tu-án *-twén > *-tér 3 *-án + -ta *-ént 1 *-mu-íŋ *-mwén > *-wén 2 *-tu-íŋ *-twén > *-tér 3 *-íŋ + -ta *-(j)ént

However, in the 1-2 pl. and du., perhaps originally to mark a transitive subject, an alternative set of endings was also available, with explicit nominative/ergative marking of the suffixed pronoun:

Pre-PIE (labializations) (delabializations) PIE 1 *-mu-átu *-mwétw *-mésw *-més(w) ~ *-mós 2 *-tu-átu *-twétw *-twé *-té 1 *-mu-íku *-mwéxw *-mwéx *-wáh2

2 *-tu-íku *-twéxw *-twéx *-táh2

Note the irregular delabializations which affected these forms. One might wonder if such a contrast in transitivity may have existed in the 1/2 sg. as well. Kloekhorst (2007) is undoubtedly correct in stating that the Anatolian 2sg. pronoun *tī (as opposed to extra-Anatolian *tū) must be an archaism. If so, then the lost 1sg. pronoun *mū may also have had a

9 The material from this point forward is a recapitulation of my articles on the PIE verb previously published on academia.edu, updated with some revisions and additions. 10 Tocharian may preserve *-tér in the Toch. B past ending -cer < *-tēr, reshaped after 3pl. -ēr (itself lost as such in Tocharian, where only unaccented *-r seems to have survived in the preterite 3pl. ending).

variant *mī, and the transitive-intransitive opposition may have existed in the singular endings as well:

Pre-PIE tr. Pre-PIE intr. PIE tr. PIE intr. 1 *-mu *-mi *-m(w) *-m 2 *-tu *-ti11 *-s(w) *-t

This might perhaps account for Tocharian 2sg. -t. In any case, unlike what we saw in the perfective, the number of the absolutive (S or O) was apparently not expressed in the imperfective paradigms. When -i was added in the other forms to mark the present tense, *-mesi was no problem (we have it in Indo-Iranian), but the 2 pl. and 1/2 du. forms were apparently not capable of taking it12. This means that when the non-Anatolian languages dropped the variants *-wén(i)13 and *-tén(i)14, the resulting system may have looked temporarily like this:

past present 1 *-m *-mi 2 *-s *-si 3 *-t *-ti 1 *-més *-més(i) 2 *-té *-té 3 *-ént *-énti 1 *-wáh2 *-wáh2 2 *-táh2 *-táh2 3 *-ént *-énti

There may have been pressure to distinguish primary and secondary endings in the 2 pl. and in the dual, and to distinguish the dual from the plural in the 3rd person, but no obvious solution was available, until the perfect/aorist ending *-me was transferred to the 1 pl. imperfect (and, conversely, *-té was transferred to the perfect/aorist). Now, a pattern could be abstracted from the new opposition between past *-mé and present *-més15. In Italic, Celtic, Balto-Slavic and Armenian (possibly Germanic as well, but we cannot tell), a new 2pl. *-tés was created, and the new dual presents *-wh2ás, *-th2ás,*-tés16 even spread to Indo-Iranian. This gives a late PIE dialectal system (excluding Anatolian, Tocharian, Greek and in part Indo-Iranian):

past present 1 *-m *-mi 2 *-s *-si 3 *-t *-ti 1 *-mé *-més 2 *-té *-tés 3 *-ént *-énti

11 Not palatalized to *-j after a consonant. 12 In the cases of *-wah2i and *-tah2i it is actually more likely that the *-i was regularly lost in the Auslaut of the resulting “long diphthong” (see Rasmussen 1989). 13 Only Greek preserves an ending -μεν, which looks like a conflation of *-mes (Gk. -μες) and *-wen. 14 For Indo-Iranian 2pl. -tana, -thana, see Sandell 2012. 15 This rendered present *-mesi no longer useful. 16 Built on the 3sg. ending *-t?

1 *-wáh2 *-wh2ás 2 *-táh2 *-th2ás 3 *-té *-tés

The former existence in Balto-Slavic of a contrast between secondary -wā, -tā and primary -was, -tas is proven by the Lithuanian 1-2 pl. endings -mē and -tē, created analogically on the model of the dual (-wā, -tā :: -was, -tas; - me, -te :: -mes, -tes), before the present endings were lost. In Greek, and in part in Indo-Iranian and Tocharian17, the gaps in the system were either allowed to stand (Greek 1-2 pl. without primary/secondary distinction), or were filled instead with endings from the middle (marked in bold):

present imperfect Greek Vedic Greek Vedic

1 -men -mas(i) -men -ma 2 -te -tha(na) -te -ta(na) 1 -- -vas -- -va 2 -ton -thas -ton -tam 3 -ton -tas -ten -tam

A completely different set of endings was employed in the “perfective”, i.e. the Hittite hi-conjugation, the PIE perfect and the middle. Again there are two sets of endings, although here the “transitive” marker (*-s in the hi-conjugation/perfect/aorist, *-t in the middle) appears in the 3rd person only.

perfect hi-aorist 1 *-h2e *-h2e 2 *-th2e *-th2e 3 *-e *-s 1 *-me *-me 2 *-e *-e 3 *-ér *-ér-s

middle 1 *-h2é- 2 *-th2é- 3 *-ó- *-tó- 1 *-médhh2- 2 *-dhh3wé- 3 *-ró- *-ntó-

The similarities between the three paradigms are obvious. The only difficulties lie, as was the case in the imperfective, in the 1-2 pl. endings. In the 1 pl., Vedic -ma is (rarely) written -mā, and more often a long vowel is required by the metre. A reconstruction *-meH has sometimes been proposed. However, -mā also occurs in the mi-conjugation, and a metric long vowel is also found in the 1 sg. -a and 2 pl. -a. I would derive the long vowel ultimately from mi-conjugation 1 du. -vā, where the variation is to be expected: -vā vs. -vas

17 Toch. B 3 du. present -tem.

and 1 pl. -ma vs. -mas leads to -va vs. -vas, or, as we also saw in Lith., to -mā vs. -mas. I see no reason, therefore, to reconstruct anything but *-me for the 1 pl. perfective. As we saw above, this ending *-me was later transferred to the 1 pl. imperfective as well (though not in Greek). In the 2 pl., Vedic -a is weird enough that it must reflect the original ending. The *-te found elsewhere must have been secondarily imported from the imperfective. This ending -a is really strange for a 2 pl., especially considering that the *-e in the perfective endings is surely a secondary addition. It does not affect the stress or the Ablaut of the root, and seems to be simply an ‘augment’ to render the perfective endings syllabic, which is of course the reason why it was not added to the already syllabic 3 pl. ending. This means that the 2 pl. perfective ending was in fact *-ø, which makes no sense at all. The middle endings, so similar to the perfective endings elsewhere, are strangely different in the 1-2 pl. The 1 pl. middle ending is usually reconstructed as *-medhh2 (*-medhə2), based on Gk. -μεθα and Ved. -mahi. Given the pattern -C(C)V- of all the other middle endings, the form *-medhh2- (and its variant *-mesdhh2-: Hitt. -wašta-, Gk. -μεσθα), must itself have been metathesized from earlier *-mdhx(w)e- under the influence of non-middle *-me and *-mes. The 2 pl. ending is *-dhxwe- (*-dhxwo-), which means that the middle endings can be derived from a common pattern 1 pl. *-mdhx-18, 2 pl. *-dhxw-, which is exactly parallel to perfect 1pl. *-m-, 2 pl. *-ø-, if the sequence *dhxw were eliminated. In other words, there is a sound law that removes *-dhx(w) in the Auslaut after C (all verbal roots are required to end in a consonant). The sequence is preserved in the Inlaut before V (i.e. in the middle). The endings of the perfect, the hi-conjugation and the middle can thus all be derived from:

Pre-PIE 1 *-x 2 *-tx 3 *-ø 1 *-m(dhx) 2 *-(dhxw) 3 *-án

In roots ending in a dental stop, we would have expected the dental to become assibilated to /ts/ by the 2sg. and 2pl. endings starting with a dental. Indeed we have Greek -σθα, -σθε, Hittite -sta, -sten(i) and Tocharian -stā, -s(o) in the perfect/middle second persons, also when the root does not end in a dental. If the imperfective (mi-conjugation) endings can be derived from suffixed personal pronouns, then what is the origin of the perfective endings? If we apply the two Auslautgesetze *-k(a) > *-x and *-tk(u) > *-dhxw to the endings reconstructed above, we arrive at the following paradigm:

Early Pre-PIE

1 *-ka 2 *-tka 3 *-a 1 *-mtku 2 *-tku 3 *-án

18 The labialization in the 1pl. tended to be lost after *m.

This is highly reminiscent of both the Semitic and Uralic stative, where we have, for instance:

Akkadian stative Ge’ez perfective Selqup stative PBF verb 1 -āku -ku -K2 [*-m] 2 -āta, f. -āti -ka, f. -ki -nti [*-t] 3 -ø, f. -at -a, f. -at -ø *(-βa)-ø 1 -ānu -na [-miT2] *-t-mek 2 -ātunu, f. -ātini -kəmmu, f. -kən [-liT2] *-t-tek 3 [-ū, f. -ā] [-u, f. -ā] -T2 *(-βa)-t

The Akkadian and Selqup statives are true statives (i.e. conjugated nouns): Akk. šarr-āku ‘I am (was, will be) king’. The stative developed into a perfective (past tense) in Akkadian itself and in the other Semitic languages. In Samoyed, the stative endings are also those of the intransitive verb. The variation in the 2nd persons of the Semitic forms (-ta, -ti, -tun, -tin ~ -ka, -ki, -kum, -kin) can be explained if the original forms were *-tka, *-tki, *-tkun, *-tkin. The symbols K2 and T2 in Selqup stand for allophonic -k ~-ŋ, -t ~ -n in the Auslaut. The 2sg. form -n or -ŋ (so in other Samoyedic languages) is perhaps from *-tk > *-ŋ. The 1-2 pl. have endings from the active. The Proto-Balto-Finnic forms show active endings in the 1-2 sg., but the 1-2 pl. forms seem to reflect the endings of an old stative. Leaving a detailed analysis of Afro-Asiatic and Uralic aside for now, and returning to the Pre-PIE forms: if we explain the 1 pl. form as metathesized *-tmku > *-mtku, the whole paradigm can be interpreted as a verbal noun (with sg. *-a and pl. *-at- ~ *-an), followed (outside of the 3rd person) by declined forms of a verb *ku(a), pl. *ku(u), presumably the copula “to be”. Note that the forms of the copula clearly reflect the prefix-conjugation (*ʔa-, *ta-, *ja-; *ma-19, *ta-, *ja-), which is otherwise only attested in Afro-Asiatic.

Nostratic Pre-PIE Early PIE 1 *-a ʔa-ku(-a) *-ka *-x- 2 *-a ta-ku-a *-tka *-tx- 3 *-a *-a *-ø- 1 *-at ma-ku(-u) *-tmku > *-mtku *-mdhxw- > *-mé(s)dhx(w)-;

Auslaut: *-m 2 *-at ta-ku-u *-(t)tku *-dhxw-;

Auslaut: *-ø 3 *-an *-an *-ér

The optative Hittite has an isolated Hitt. 1 sg. imperative (‘voluntative’) form ēs-lit ‘I want to be, let me be!’. In meaning, the voluntative Hitt. 1sg. imp. (‘I want to, let me’) is close to the PIE optative, which is otherwise unknown in Anatolian. In form, the ending of ēs-lit, ēs-let reminds one of the Hitt. ins. sg. ending -it, -et, which corresponds to non-Anatolian *-éh1. Finally, the possibility of an initial alternation *lē- ~ *jē- is suggested by words such as *jēkwrt (Grk. ἧπαρ, Skt. yakrt), *lēpwrt (Arm. leard, E. liver) ‘liver’. All of this taken together might make it possible to derive the PIE optative ending from an incorporated athematic verb *lēh1- ~ *lh1- (>*jēh1- ~ *ih1-) ‘to want’, as seen in Grk. (Dor.) λην ‘to

19 In Afro-Asiatic of course *na-.

want’, etc. Germanic ‘let’ is also derived from this same root, with -d retained (PGmc.*lēd-, Goth. lētan, lailōt). The fact that the optative suffix can itself take further verbal endings (such as the s-aorist endings in the Vedic ‘benedictive’ or ‘precative’), may be taken as additional evidence for the optative’s origin as an incorporated former independent verb.

The n-verbs LIV divides the PIE n-presents into three groups: 1k *li-né-kw- ~ li-n-kw, 1l *h3r-néu- ~ h3r-nu-, 1m *tki-néH- ~ tki-n-H-. As to the origin of the second group, it is stated:

Schon in der Grundsprache aus dem vorher genannten Typ (1k) entwickelt, indem das Nasal-Infix-Präsens zu dreiradikaligen Würzeln mit Vollstufe II und schließendem /u/ als zweiradikalige Wurzel mit Suffix -néu/nu- interpretiert wurde”.

While this seems like a reasonable hypothesis for the *-néH- verbs, I do not think that it makes much sense in the case of the *nu-verbs. Practically the only verb that fits the proposed prototype is *kleu- (*kl-né-u- ~ *kl-n-u-) ‘to hear’, and I find it implausible that the whole category of *nu-verbs arose on the model of that single verb alone, especially since the root *kleu- itself offers only limited support for the theory about the genesis of the nu-verbs20. Furthermore, when it comes to the n-infix verbs, what really cries out to be explained is the origin of the infixation itself, which must originate in the metathesis of an original suffix starting with *n-. It therefore seems much more reasonable to assume that the original type is represented by the *nu-verbs, and that the n-infix verbs arose from them by metathesis of the nasal with the final consonant of the root in heavy consonant clusters. This is supported reasonably well by the data in LIV: the n-infix verbs predominantly end in -RC and -RH clusters (188 of 248), while the nu-verbs generally belong to the simpler -C, -R or -H types (39 of 52). The metathesis must have started in the dual/plural, where the suffix originally had zero grade: likw-nú-mi likw-nú-si likw-nú-ti likw-nw-més > linkw-més likw-nw-tés > linkw-tés likw-nw-énti > linkw-énti Afterwards, the transposition of n could spread to the singular. In Vedic, we see analogical influence from the normal athematic type, which triggered the peculiar (unphonetic) transformation -Cnú- > -néC-:

20 Only Ved. srnóti unambiguously reflects *klnéu-. YAv. surunaoiti may represent a contamination of *klnéu- and unmetathesized *klu-neu-. OIr. ro-cluinethar, TochA. kälniñc, B. kalnem are, according to LIV, derived from unmetathesized *klun-.

likw-nú-mi > li-né-kw-mi ghwén-mi likw-nú-si > li-né-kw-si ghwén-si likw-nú-ti > li-né-kw-ti ghwén-ti linkw-més ghwn-més linkw-tés ghwn-tés linkw-énti ghw(n)n-énti Although this is the type that is usually reconstructed for PIE, there is little evidence for it outside of Indo-Iranian (only a number of Grk. forms of the type κυνεω ‘kiss’, thematized from *ku-né-s-mi). In Balto-Slavic, Italic and Germanic, all the endings have been thematized. In the singular, the nasal never underwent metathesis. As usual, Slavic21 has generalized the singular type (né-thematic), while Baltic has generalized the plural type, with n-infix. Germanic follows the Slavic model, with generalization of thematized -ne/o-22, while Italic (like Baltic and apparently also Celtic), has generalized the n-infix form (albeit with thematic endings). Greek has in part combined the two, with the peculiar development -n-C-n-e/o- > -n-C-an-e/o- (as in λαμβάνω ‘take’, πυνθάνομαι ‘hear, be informed’, etc.). Hittite has something similar with the -nin- infix, e.g. harni(n)k- (the metathesis of the nasal was in Hittite apparently only triggered by RC/RH clusters ending in -k(k)- and -h(h)-).

OCS ‘move’ Goth. ‘fill’ Lith. ‘fit’ Lat. ‘win’ Grk. ‘take’ Hitt. ‘destroy’

dvig-nǫ full-na ti-n-kù vi-n-cō λα-μ-β-άν-ω har-ni(n)-k-mi

dvig-ne-ši full-ni-s ti-n-kì vi-n-cis λα-μ-β-άν-εις har-ni(n)-k-ti

dvig-ne-tъ full-ni-þ ti-ñ-ka vi-n-cit λα-μ-β-άν-ει har-ni(n)-k-ti

dvig-ne-mъ full-na-m ti-ñ-kame vi-n-cimus λα-μ-β-άν-ομεν *har-nin-k-weni

dvig-ne-te full-ni-þ ti-ñ-kate vi-n-citis λα-μ-β-άν-ετε har-ni(n)-k-teni

dvig-nǫ-tъ full-na-nd *ti-n-kã 23 vi-n-cunt λα-μ-β-άν-ουσι(ν) har-nin-k-anzi

The simple nu-verbs have:

Ved. ‘make, do’ Grk. ‘show’ Hitt. ‘provide’ krnómi δείκνῡμι arnumi

krnósi δείκνῡς arnusi

krnóti δείκνῡσι arnuzzi

krnmás δείκνυμεν arnummeni

krnuthá δείκνυτε arnutteni

krnvánti δεικνύᾱσι arnu(w)anzi

The zero grade of the suffix in the weak forms eventually gave *-nu- (except in the Vedic 1 du-pl.), and secondarily a new “strong” grade was created for the singular (I-I *-nau-, Grk. -nū-). As to the ultimate origin of the suffix, since the main function of the *n(u)-verbs is to make (transitive) presents from ‘punctual’ roots24, a connection with the word *nu ‘now’ would seem to be hidden in plain sight25.

21 Except for a few isolated n-infix remnants: legǫ ‘lie’, sedǫ ‘sit’, bǫdǫ ‘will’. 22 Germanic and Slavic also coincide in the suppletive use of reflexes of the *neH-category in the preterite / infinitive: OCS dvignǫti, Gothic fullnōda. 23 The 3pl. has been lost in Lith., but the form, if not the accent, is preserved as the nom. pl. of the present participle. 24 Except in Hittite, where -nu and -nin- make causatives. 25 I find it hard to believe that nobody has ever made a similar suggestion. Although I can’t remember having ever seen it in print, I’m sure someone must have suggested it at some point somewhere.

The causative-iterative LIV categories 4a and 4b represent the PIE causative-iterative in *-éie-. This is usually reconstructed as *-éie-, *-éio-, but this is not compatible with the Balto-Slavic data. The acute infinitive, Slav. -iti, Lith. -ýti, must go back to PBS *-ih1-thaj, with the causative suffix in zero grade. In the present tense, *-eie- would have given Slavic *-ьje-, Lith. -y- (cf. trьje, trys ‘3’), instead of -ȋ- and -õ-, which is what is actually attested. But if the suffix was *-eih1e- > *-ei·e-, the Balto-Slavic forms can be explained as the result of contraction of the diphthong *ei in hiatal position with the following thematic vowel. In both Slavic and Lithuanian (independently), the diphthong *ei was narrowed to *e (> Slav ȋ, Baltic ie). In the Slavic form, this developed as follows: *-ei·e/a- > *-e ·e- ~ *-e ·a- > *-ȋ·e- ~ - ȋ·a- > -ȋ-. In Lithuanian, the contraction took place after the thematic vowel had been generalized to a, and the result was long (circumflex) ã: *-ei·a- > *-e ·a- > *-ã- > -õ-. It is true that ē rather than ī in a form such as Latin moneō does require non-hiatal *-eie- > -ē- (cf. again the numeral trēs ‘3’), but it is trivial to explain spontaneous resyllabification *-ei·e- > *-e·ie- in Latin (and possibly elsewhere), rather than spontaneous creation ex nihilo of an hiatus (*-e·ie- > *-ei·e) in Balto-Slavic. The causative-iterative suffix is therefore best reconstructed as *-éih1-e/o-. A peculiarity of the causative in Vedic is that the suffix -áya- alternates with -páya-, the latter after verbal stems ending in a synchronic vowel (dhā-páya- ‘cause to put’, jña-páya ‘cause to know’, ar-páya- ‘cause to go’, etc.). Now if -áya- and -páya- are variants of the same entity, as they are, and if the -p- is not a feature of the preceding verbal stem, as it isn’t, then p- must be a prefix. The only PIE morpheme I can think of which fits is the preverb pē-/po-, and therefore the entity *-eih1-e/o- must be a verb. Looking for a suitable verb quickly leads to the Hittite thematic verb iyāmi, iezzi ‘to do, to make’, which can be derived from a thematic root *h1éih1-e/o-, besides athematic *h1iéh1- ~ *h1ih1- (for the Schwebeablaut, cf. athematic *bhuéh2-/*bhuh2- vs. thematic *bhéuh2-e/o- ‘to be’). The semantics of the verb are obviously impeccable for a causative, and Sanskrit p- is consistent with this verb’s predilection for the preverb pē-, as attested in Hittite (piyezzi ‘schickt hin’) and TochA. (ya- ~ ypa- ‘to do, make’, possibly from *h1iéh1- and *pē-h1iéh1- with metathesis26). We can therefore conclude that the causative-iterative suffix is in origin the incorporated bhárati-verb *h1éih1-e/o- ‘to do, to make’. A vexing problem concerning the causative-iteratives is the Ablaut of the root. Normally, the root has o-grade (LIV 4a), but in some cases we have long *ō (LIV 4b), with retraction of the accent. Additionally, LIV category 1s may represent causatives with zero grade of the root, secondarily reinterpreted as ordinary presents. If we simply posit lengthening of the root (*a > *ā), the result would have been acrostatic *é-grade, which is clearly counterfactual. If we date the lengthening to after the working of Rasmussen’s law, we would indeed get *o (*ə > *ə), but instead of *ō, we would expect *ē in the “Narten” forms, and the zero grade would remain inexplicable. I see no other alternative than to accept Rasmussen’s “O-infix” theory (Rasmussen 1986, 1987, 1988), which explains all the Ablaut variants, at the cost of an extra PIE phoneme *R, which is otherwise unattested outside of the causative-iterative (and, in Rasmussen’s view, in thematic o-grade forms, alternating with zero grades).

26 Adams 1999, s.v. yām-.

The essive-fientive LIV sets up two separate categories: 7a ‘fientive’ (*eh1 ~ *h1) and 8a ‘essive’ (*-h1ié/ó-). I fully agree with Jasanoff 2004 that there is no reasonable basis for this, and that what we are actually dealing with here is a single ‘stative’ category, characterized by the suffix *-eh1(i). The crucial observation, concerning the forms in Latin, is made by Jasanoff: “[s]tripped of their verbal inflection, the stems of such verbs may combine with faciō ‘do’ to form a periphrastic factitive (cf. e.g. ārē-faciō ‘make dry’, with tmesis in 3 sg. facit ārē)”. This proves beyond a doubt that the forms in -ē are nominal in origin, to be exact instrumental singulars. Combined with forms of the verb ‘to be’, the *eh1-stative makes imperfects in Slavic and Latin. Again, Jasanoff’s observation that “[t]he use of *-ē- as a “union vowel” between the root and the auxiliary in both Latin and Slavic (Lat. duc-ē-bam [‘I led’] = OCS ved-ě-axъ [‘I saw’]) virtually assures the etymological identity [of] the two formations” is completely correct. Where we partially disagree is where it concerns the derivation of the forms that have the personal suffixes appended immediately to the *eh1-stative stem. It is clear that Balto-Slavic, Greek and Latin all reflect a thematic formation *-eh1ie/o-. The Germanic forms are less transparent, but the attested forms clearly point to a thematic formation: we have -a- (or -ja-) where the thematic vowel was -o-, and -ai- where the thematic vowel was -e-. We can postulate a regular phonetic development *-ēje- > *-æ(j)e- > -ai- in the 2-3 sg. and 2pl., as against *-ēja- > *-æ(j)a- > -ā- in the 1sg and 1-3 pl. Besides this thematic formation, we also find forms which are athematic in origin. In Greek, this is the so-called Aeolic inflection (Lesbian φιλημι ‘love’ next to Attic-Ionic φιλεω). This is generally assumed to be a secondary development, even though that goes against the general tendency in Greek and everywhere else to thematize athematic forms. The Balto-Slavic forms, however, can only be explained from an original athematic paradigm. Jens Elmegaard Rasmussen, in Studien zur Morphophonemik der indogermanischen Grundsprache, laid down the rules governing the PIE “long diphthongs” (in pre-laryngeal terminology). We have stressed: *-éh1i-V- *-éih1-C- *-éh1-CC, *-éh1-C# And unstressed: *h1i, before a vowel or voiced consonant *ə1, before /t/ (or any voiceless consonant?) The Balto-Slavic conjugation of the *eh1-verbs follows these rules exactly:

1. In the thematic forms, we have *-eh1i- before the thematic vowel (Slav. -ějǫ, Lith -ėju). 2. In the present singular, we have original *-éih1mi, *-éih1ši, *-éih1ti, yielding Proto-Slavic

*-i mi, *-i ši and *-i ti, later thematized to *-īōm > -jǫ, -īeši > -ȋšь, -īeti > -ȋtь (and -īemu > -ȋmъ, -īete > -ȋte, -īanti > -etь), merging with the iterative-causative presents.

3. In the preterit, we have *-éh1m, *-éh1s, *-éh1t > Slav. -ě, Balt. -ė, which was also transferred to the infinitive: *-eh1-th2aj > Slav. -ěti, Balt. -ėti.

4. In the present plural, we have *-h1i-més, *-h1i-tés (for *-ə1tés), *-h1i-énti, which regularly give Lith. -ime, -ite, and further analogically the singular forms (-iu, -i, -i).

As we saw above in the case of the n-presents, Slavic has generalized the singular forms, while Baltic has done the same with the plural forms. The essive-fientive suffix is in origin an instrumental singular (*-eh1), but the forms with *-eh1i- (or *-eih1-) can be explained as variant forms of the instrumental followed by a ‘deictic’ element *-i. As can be seen clearly in Anatolian, the ablative-instrumental case could (like the locative) be augmented with such a suffix, and we have *-ed, *-od, and *-edi, *-odi (=Luw. -adi, Hitt. -az). In the Auslaut, the ins. sg. *-éd gave *-éh1

27, and the extended variant analogically followed suit (*-éh1i). It can be seen therefore that the Aeolic inflection of Greek is indeed secondary: we would otherwise have expected *φιλειμι instead of φιλημι, and perhaps *φιλιμεν instead of (*)φιλεμεν. But the type might well be analogical after an original athematic preterite paradigm *φιλην, *φιλης, *φιλη, akin to the Greek “ē-aorist”. Forms of the thematic essive-fientive:

PIE OCS Lith. Grk. Goth. Lat. *-eh1iō -ějǫ -ėju -eō, -õ -a -eo *-eh1iesi -ěješь -ėji -eeis, -eis -ais -ēs *-eh1ieti -ějetь -ėja -eei, -ei -aiþ -et *-eh1iomes -ějemъ -ėjame -eomen, -omen -am -ēmus *-eh1ietes -ějete -ėjate -eete, -ete -aiþ -ētis *-eh1ionti -ějǫ -- -eousi, -osi -and -ent

Forms of the athematic essive-fientive present:

PIE Slav. Lith. (Grk.) *-éih1mi -jǫ -iù -ēmi *-éih1si -ȋšь -ì -ēsi *-éih1ti -ȋtь -i -ēti *-h1imés -ȋmъ -ime -emen *-h1ités -ȋte -ite -ete *-h1iénti -etь -- -ensi

Forms of the athematic essive-fientive preterite:

PIE Slav. Lith. Grk. *-éh1m -ěxъ -ėjau -ēn *-éh1s -ě -ėjai -ēs *-éh1t -ě -ėjo -ē *-h1imé -ěxomъ -ėjome -ēmen *-h1ité -ěste -ėjote -ēte *-h1iént -ěše -- -ēsan

27 This also means that we have a problem explaining cases of essive-fientive *-éh1- in Anatolian, as the instrumental suffix was still *-éd there. However, as in the case of *wédr > *wéh1r ‘water’ (Lubotsky 2013), it is possible that the development before another consonant was slightly earlier than in the Auslaut, and did include Anatolian (CLuw. wār(za) ‘water’). This means that maršēzzi ‘is false’ and similar verbs can be essive-fientives, but also that the formation must definitely be athematic (*marséd-ti > marséh1-ti > maršēzzi).

Imperfects based on the essive-fientive:

PIE Slav Lat. *-éh1 bhuah2m / esm -ěaxъ -ēbam *-éh1 bhuah2s / es -ěaše -ēbās *-éh1 bhuah2t / est -ěaše -ēbat *-éh1 bhuah2me / esme -ěaxomъ -ēbāmus *-éh1 bhuah2te / este -ěaste -ēbātis *-éh1 bhuh2ant / esent -ěaxǫ -ēbant

Appendix A. LIV2 Narten presents LIV2 has 49 verbs with forms assigned to category 1b:

17 verbs do not in fact show ‘Narten’ length: o *bhegw-, *deih2-, *ghreiH-, *gwelh3-, *h1ed-, h2seut-, *h2uet-, *h3reiH-, *keHs-,

*kremh2-, *kwjeu-, (2) *leiH-, *sed-, *seik-, *smei-, *welh1-, *teup-.

2 verbs have length due to Stang/Szemerényi lengthening: o *ksneu-, *steu-.

15 verbs are unclear: o *dhelbh-, *dheu-, *dheuH-, *h1lenGh-, *h2enk-, *h2merg-, *Kelh1-,(3)

*kerH-,*k(w)RemH-, (1) *kwei-, *kwem-, *leuH-, *neuH-, *thengh-, *weh2-.

15 verbs are Sandell verbs: o *dek-, *h3reg-, *kes-, *tetk-, *gebh-, *g(w)egh-, *k(w)h2ed-, *kwek-, (1) *med-, *rep-,

*sekH-, *teh2G-, *tresk-, *wek-, (3) *wes-.

No ‘Narten’ length 1. *bhegw- ‘davon laufen, fliehen’

Gr. phébomai ‘fliehen’ OLith. bėgmi, Lith. bėgu, bėgti ‘laufen, fliehen’ ORuss. (+) běgù, běčí (a.p. c) ‘laufen’ The Balto-Slavic length is due to Winter’s law. The Greek form is evidence for a full-grade middle.

2. *deih2- ‘aufleuchten’ Gr. déato ‘schien, hatte den Anschein’ Evidence for full grade middle.

3. *ghreiH- ‘den Mund verziehen, verlegen sein’ Ved. ptc. (?) a-hrayāna- ‘dreist, frech’ Evidence for full-grade middle.

4. *gwelh3- ‘wünschen, wollen’ Gr. Hom. bólomai ‘will, wünsche, ziehe vor’ Evidence for full-grade middle.

5. *h1ed- ‘beissen -> essen’ Gr. édmenai ‘essen’, fut. édomai ‘werde essen’ Lat. edō, ēsse, edim ‘essen’ OIr. ithid ‘isst’ OLith. ėmi ‘esse’ OCS (+) jámь, jasti (ap. c) ‘essen’ The Balto-Slavic length is due to Winter’s law. The Greek forms are evidence for full-grade middle.We have Lachmann’s law in Latin, and the OIr. form is derived from *pitu- ‘food’ by Sandell 2011.

6. *h2seut- ‘aufwallen‘ OLith. siausti ‘stürmt, tobt’, Lith. siáutu, siáutėti The Lith. acute is evidence for *-euH- or metatony.

7. *h2uet- ‘ziehen, führen’ Hitt. huezta ‘zieht, führt’

Evidence for full-grade middle.

8. *h3reiH- ‘wallen, wirbeln’ OCS (+) rějǫ, rějati (a.p. a) ‘fliessen’

The Slavic length is of laryngeal origin.

9. *keHs- ‘anweisen’ Ved. 2sg. sāssi. ptc. sāsat- ‘unterweisen, anweisen, zurechtweisen’ OAv. sāsti, opt. sāhit ‘unterweisen’ Alb. thom ‘sage’ The length can easily be of laryngeal origin.

10. *kremh2- ‘schlaff werden’ Gr. krémamai ‘hänge herab’

Evidence for full-grade middle.

11. *kwjeu- ‘sich in Bewegung setzen’ Ved. conj. cyavante ‘werden sich bewegen’, ptc. cyávāna- ‘in Bewegung’

OAv. 3p. šauuaitē ‘unternehmen’ Arm. aor. č`ogan ‘gingen’ Evidence for full-grade middle.

12. (2) *leiH- ‘giessen’ Lith. dial. lejù, líeti; Latv. leju, liêt ‘giessen’ OCS (+) lějǫ, lьjati (a.p. c) ‘giessen’ The Balto-Slavic acute/length is evidence for *-eiH-.

13. *sed- ‘sich setzen’ Ved. sādád-yoni ‘auf seinem Platz sitzend’ OLith. sėdmi, Lith. sėdu, sėsti ‘sich setzen’ The Balto-Slavic length is due to Winter’s law. The Vedic form may also reflect o-grade.

14. *seik- ‘erreichen’ Lith. síeku, síekti ‘wonach langen, erreichen, reichen bis’

The Lithuanian length is evidence for *-eiH- or metatony.

15. *smei- ‘lachen, lächeln’ Latv. smeju, smiêt ‘lachen, verspotten’ OCS (+) smějǫ se, smьjati se (a.p. c) ‘lachen’ The Balto-Slavic acute is evidence for *-eiH-.

16. *welh1- ‘(aus)wählen’ Lat. vult ‘will’, conj. velim

Evidence for full-grade optative.

17. *teup- ‘sich niederkauern, sich klein machen’ Lith. čiáupiu, čiáupti ‘fest zusammenpressen’ The Lith. acute is evidence for *-euH- or metatony.

Unclear Tocharian *ē-middles, thematics

1. *dhelbh- ‘graben, aushöhlen’ ToA. salpatär ‘wird erlöst’

2. *h1lenGh- ‘eidlich versichern’ ToB. k-lyenktär* ‘bestreitet’

3. *leuH- ‘abschneiden, lösen’ ToB. lyewetär ‘sendet’

4. *neuH- ‘schreien, brüllen’ ToB. 3sg. midd. ñewetär ‘brüllt’

5. *thengh- ‘ziehen’ ToB. cenkem ‘sie hemmen’ Vedic analogical length?

6. *h2merg- ‘abstreifen, (ab)wischen’ Ved. mārsti ‘wischt ab, reinigt’, 3pl. mrjánti After the verbs in -sti?

*neuH- ‘schreien, brüllen’ Ved. impf. anāvan ‘schrien’, midd. návate ‘brüllt’

After the roots stu-, ksnu- etc.? Vedic thematic length

7. *dheu- ‘laufen, eilen’ Ved. dhāvati ‘läuft, eilt’, dhávate ‘läuft (dahin)’

8. *dheuH- ‘rasch hin- und her bewegen, schütteln’ Ved. dhāvati ‘reibt, spült ab’

9. *k(w)RemH- ‘einen Schritt tun’ Ved. krāmati, kramate ‘schreitet’

10. (1) *kwei- ‘wahrnehmen, bemerken’ Ved. cāyati ‘nimmt wahr, bemerkt, beachtet’, ápa-cāyati ‘beachtet, respektiert, ehrt’, midd.

(RV) cāyamāna- ‘sich betrachtend als’ Gr. pres. *tē-e- ‘hüten’ OCS čajǫ, čajati (a.p. a/c), ‘erwarten, hoffen’

11. *kwem- ‘(hinunter)schlucken, einsaugen’ Ved. ā-cāmati ‘schlürft’

Khot. tsām- ‘schlürfen’ NIce. hvoma ‘verschlucken, verschlingen’ Hittite *h2ē:

12. *h2enk- ‘zuteilen’ Hitt. hikzi ‘teilt zu, überreicht’ (henk-)

13. *weh2- ‘sich wenden’ Hitt. wēhzi, wahhuweni ‘sich wenden’ Greek ē:

14. *Kelh1- ‘verlocken, betören, betrügen’ Gr. kêléô ‘bezaubere, betöre’

15. (3) *kerH- ‘ausstreuen, schütten’ OKhot. kārindä ‘ziehen, schleppen weg’

Already discussed above: (1) *kwei- ‘wahrnehmen, bemerken’

Gr. pres. *tē-e- ‘hüten’

Verbs in -eu 1. *ksneu- ‘schärfen’

Ved. ksnaumi ‘wetze, schärfe’ 2. *steu- ‘bekannt sein, preisen’

Ved. astaut ‘pries, lobte’, 1pl. stumási, midd. stuté OAv. stāumī ‘preise’, ptc. stauuat-; YAv. 3sg. inj. midd. staota, Yav. 1sg. act. staomi, midd. -stuiiē Gr. steutai ‘gibt kund, rühmt sich, verspricht’ Further: ksu- ‘sneeze’, nu, ru ‘low’, yu ‘bind’, sku ‘poke’, snu ‘drip’.

Sandell verbs 1. *dek- ‘(an-, auf-)nehmen, wahrnehmen’

Ved. dāsti ‘wartet auf, verehrt, huldigt, bringt dar’, conj. dāsat, ptc. dāsat-. Av. *dās- (vb. adj. YAv. dāštao ‘dargebracht’) Khot. dās- ‘annehmen, ehrenvoll aufnehmen’

2. *h3reg- ‘gerade richten, ausstrecken’ Ved. rāsti ‘herrscht’, rājati ‘herrscht; glänzt’

YAv. vi-rāzaiti ‘herrscht’; Khot. rays- ‘lenken’ Lat. rēgō, -ere ‘richten, lenken’

OIr. a-t:raig, a-ta:regat ‘sich erheben’ ToB. conj. rāsäm ‘soll ausstrecken, -breiten’

3. *kes- ‘abschneiden’ Ved. ví sāsti ‘zerlegt’

4. *tetk- ‘erzeugen, herstellen’ Ved. tāsti ‘zimmert, schafft, verfertigt’, 3pl. táksati OAv. tāšt ‘bildet(e)’; YAv. auui ... tāšti ‘zerlegt’

5. *gebh- ‘essen, kauen’ OLith. žėbmi ‘esse langsam, kaue’

6. *g(w)egh- ‘(ins Wasser) eindringen, hineinwaten’ Ved. gāhate ‘dringt ein, steigt ins Wasser’

7. *k(w)h2ed- ‘(zer)quetschen’ Ved. khādati ‘kaut’

8. *kwek- ‘sehen, erblicken’ Ved. áva-kāsate ‘wird sichtbar, erscheint’

9. (1) *med- ‘messen, für Einhaltung sorgen, sich klümmern’ Gr. mēdomai ‘erwäge, ersinne, beschliesse’, médomai ‘sorge (für), bin bedacht’

10. *rep- ‘(an sich) reissen, rupfen’ Lith. (ap-)rėpiu, -rėpti ‘umgeben, umfassen’

11. *sekH- ‘abtrennen: 1. schneiden, 2. unterscheiden’ OCS sěkǫ, sěšti (a.p. c) ‘hauen, fällen’

12. *teh2G- ‘berühren, fassen’ Goth. tekan ‘berühren’

ToB. cesäm, 3pl. ceken- ‘berühren’ 13. *tresk- ‘ausquetschen, dreschen’

Lith. trėškiu, trėškti ‘quetschen, pressen’ 14. *wek- ‘wünschen’

Hitt. wēkzi, wekkanzi ‘wünschen, erlangen’ Grk. ptc. ekōn ‘freiwillig’

15. (3) *wes- ‘grasen, weiden, verzehren, essen’ Lat. vēscor, -ī ‘sich nähren’

References Adams, Douglas Q., 1999, A dictionary of Tocharian B, Amsterdam-Atlanta. Beekes, Robert S.P. & Michiel de Vaan, 2011, Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An introduction (2nd

edition), Amsterdam-Philadelphia. Carrasquer Vidal, Miguel, 2013, Root aorists, perfects and the hi-conjugation, academia.edu. Jasanoff, Jay, 2003, Hittite and the Indo-European verb, Oxford. Jasanoff, Jay H., 2004, ‘Stative’ *-ē- revisited, Die Sprache 43, 127-170. Kloekhorst, Alwin, 2007, The Hittite inherited lexicon, Leiden. Krisch, Thomas, 1996, Zur Genese und Funktion der altindischen Perfekta mit langem Reduplikationsvokal —

mit kommentierter Materialsammlung, Innsbruck. LIV (Lexicon der indogermanischen Verben), 2001, Helmut Rix, Martin Kümmel, et al. (eds.), Wiesbaden. 2001. Lubotski, Alexander, 2013, The Vedic paradigm for ‘water’, in: Adam I. Cooper, Jeremy Rau, Michael Weiss

(eds.), Multi Nominis Grammaticus: Studies in Classical and Indo-European Linguistics in Honor of Alan J. Nussbaum on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday, 159-164, Ann Arbor/New York.

Malzahn, Melanie, 2004, 3:3, 5:1, or 4:2? On the Ablaut of the Root Aorist in Greek and Indo-European, in: Historische Sprachforschung 117/1, 50-75, Jena.

Malzahn, Melanie, 2010, The Tocharian verbal system, Leiden. Melchert, H. Craig, 1994, Anatolian Historical Phonology, Amsterdam-Atlanta. Melchert, H. Craig, (forthcoming), “Narten formations” versus “Narten roots”, IF. Narten, Johanna, 1968, Zum “proterodynamischen” Wurzelpräsens, in Heesterman, Schokker, Subramoniam

(eds.), Pratidānam, studies presented to F.B.J. Kuiper, 9-19, Den Haag. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård, 1978, Zur Morphophonemik des Urindogermanischen, in: Bojan Čop et al. (eds.),

Collectanea Indoeuropaea I, 59-143, Ljubljana. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård, 1986, A new rule of Indo-Europoean accent: Greek τὀρμος/κορμὀς, Germanic

*waiþō/*skandō, APILKU 5, 161-177. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård, 1987, The make-up of Indo-European morphology, Diachronica 4, 107-122. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård, 1988, New evidence for infixal -o- in Indo-European: Ablaut re-/or-, APILKU 7, 143-

154. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård, 1989, Studien zur Morphophonemik der indogermanischen Grundsprache,

Innsbruck. Sandell, Ryan, 2011, Evidence for Indo-European Acrostatic Presents in Old Irish?, Harvard. Sandell, Ryan, 2012, Autopsy of a morpheme: the Vedic 2pl.act. ending *-t(h)ana, Boston. Sandell, Ryan, 2013, Vedic perfect weak stems of the form C1eC2-, Los Angeles. Sandell, Ryan, 2014, The phonological origins of Indo-European long vowel (“Narten”) presents, Los Angeles. Schumacher, Stefan, 2005, ‘Langvokalische Perfekta’ in indogermanischen Einzelsprachen und ihr

grundsprachlicher Hintergrund, in: Meiser, Hackstein (eds.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel, 17-23, Wiesbaden.

Sihler, 1995, New Comparative Grammar of Latin and Greek, Oxford. Szemerényi, Oswald, 1996, Introduction to Indo-European Linguistics, Oxford.