Indo-European morphosyntax

INDO-EUROPEAN MORPHOSYNTAX Frederik Kortlandt 1980 CONTENTS 1st sg. middle *-H2 ........................................................................................................ 3 Proto-Indo-European verbal syntax ......................................................................... 13 References .................................................................................................................... 26 1ST SG. MIDDLE *-H2 1. The athematic secondary indicative 1st sg. middle ending is -i in IndoIranian, e.g. Vedic náṃśi, Gathic aojī, Old Persian adaršiy. I think that this ending continues PIE *-H2 (cf. K033: 67). The 1st sg. middle forms akri (RV 10.159.4 = 10.174.4) < *e-kwrḤ2 and ajani (RV 8.6.10) < *e-g̑ṇH1Ḥ2 have nothing to do with the 3rd sg. passive aorists akāri < *e-kwori and ajani < *e-g̑onH1i. The latter are probably uninflected neuter i-stems which were incorporated into the verbal system. 2. In spite of the fact that the corresponding thematic ending is *-ai in IndoIranian, Meillet suggested already that the 1st sg. middle ending -i may be an alternant of the long vowel in the Greek secondary ending -μᾱν (1964: 234). If this is correct, the Indo-Iranian thematic ending must be due to analogical reshaping. 3. Conversely, Petersen assumed that the athematic secondary ending -i was due to analogy on the basis of the 1st pl. forms: impf. si : pres. se = impf. smahi : pres. smahe (1936: 162). This is an unnatural type of analogic change. The 1st sg. form is generally reshaped on the basis of other sg. forms, not on the basis of the 1st pl. form. Besides, it remains unclear why the proposed analogy affected neither the optative ending -a nor the thematic endings, where both the model and the motivation for analogic change should be the same. Moreover, the 1st pl. ending -mahe is of analogical origin itself. A subsequent analogic development would be expected to replace the secondary endings -i and -mahi with **-a and **-maha on the basis of 3rd sg. -(t)a, primary -(t)e, cf. also the subjunctive 1st pl. ending -mahai on the basis of 1st sg. -ai. 4. Following Meillet, Ruipérez assumes that the 1st sg. ending -i continues PIE *-ə and concludes that the Indo-Iranian thematic ending *-ai is analogical (1952: 23). In his opinion, this *ə yielded *a before and after nonsyllabic *i in the primary ending *-ai and the optative ending *-īya. The latter development can no longer be maintained, especially since Hoffmann’s discussion of the athematic optative (1968: 5). A vocalized laryngeal never yielded anything different from i in Indo-Iranian. We must therefore assume that both the primary ending *-ai and the optative ending -a are of analogical origin. 5. Kuryłowicz shares Petersen’s view that the ending -i is analogical (1964: 59). He states that it replaced earlier *-a < *-H2o without specifying the motivation for the replacement or giving evidence for the reconstruction of the earlier ending. Conversely, earlier -i could easily have been replaced by **-a in Indo- Iranian on the basis of 3rd sg. -(t)a. Ruipérez pointed out already that the Hittite 1st sg. ending -ha may have taken its vowel from the other persons (1952: 24). 6. Cowgill has given a detailed account of his views on the 1st sg. middle ending in Indo-Iranian (1968). Like Kuryłowicz, he starts from a PIE ending *-H2o. He explicitly rejects Ruipérez’s suggestion that Hittite -ha represents PIE *-H2 plus analogical -a from the other persons because in that case *H2 “would be the only Indo-European person marker that functioned equally in both voices, without the need of a specific voice marker in the mediopassive” (1968: 26). I conclude that we have to separate the laryngeal of the perfect and the middle from the one in the thematic present ending *-oH and that it cannot be regarded as a person marker. Elsewhere I have identified the laryngeal in the 1st sg. endings of the perfect and the middle with the one in 2nd sg. *-tH2e/o and 1st pl. *-medhH2 and the laryngeal of the thematic 1st sg. ending *-oH with the one in 2nd sg. *-eH1i (acute tone in Lithuanian) and 2nd pl. *-etH1e (aspiration in Indo-Iranian); if there ever was a laryngeal in the other 1st and 2nd person endings of these paradigms *-m(H2)e, *-(H2)e, *-dh(H2)ue, *-om(H1)om, it was lost phonetically in the available material (K033: 68). 7. The reconstruction *-H2o brings Cowgill into major difficulties because *H2 appears not to have affected the timbre of a neighbouring *o, so that the Greek and Tocharian 1st sg. middle endings -μαι, -μᾱν, A -mār, B -mar, -mai cannot be derived from *-H2o-. The postulate of an ablauting voice marker *e is unmotivated and offers no explanation, as Cowgill points out. His suggestion that *-o- was analogically replaced with *-a- lacks a motivation if *o was characteristic of the middle: the converse development would be expected. In fact, there is no evidence at all for o-vocalism in the 1st sg. middle ending of the proto-language. 8. Cowgill sees the motivation for the introduction of -i in the athematic paradigm in the confusion of 1st sg. *-H2o and 3rd sg. *-o after the loss of postconsonantal laryngeals. It is unclear why the same confusion continued to be tolerated in the primary ending and in the perfect, where 1st sg. *-H2e and 3rd sg. *-e merged at the same stage. In the perfect, the homonymy was even extended to the middle endings and, in classical Sanskrit, to those cases where the 1st and 3rd sg. forms had not merged phonetically as a result of Brugmann’s law. 9. The reconstruction *-H2o forces Cowgill to assume a substantial amount of remodelling in cases where I see phonetically regular forms (1968: 30f.): “akri (X 159,4 = 174,4), probably not to be read akuri, must be analogic, while āvṛṇi (X 33,4) can be explained as regular only by reading āvṛṇī < *āvṛniyi ← *āvṛniya < *ēwḷnḤAo”, where I reconstruct *e-kwrḤ2 and *e-u̯ḷnH1Ḥ2. Also, “huvé, hinvé, vṛṇe, tasthe, etc. ought to be *hūve, *hinuve, *vṛṇiye, *tasthiye if they were faithful continuations of *g̑huHAoy, *g̑hinuAoy, *wḷnḤAoy, *stestẠAoy”, whereas in my opinion these forms reflect dissyllabic *g̑huH1Ḥ2, *g̑hinuH2, *u̯ḷnH1Ḥ2, *stestH2Ḥ2 with primary -e for secondary -i < *-Ḥ2. “Similarly Gatha Avestan has dadē (Y. 28,4) and vərənē (Y. 46,3)”, where I read /dadai/ and /vṛnai/ with primary *-ai for secondary *-i in dissyllabic *dhedhH1Ḥ2 and *u̯ḷnH1Ḥ2. Thus, I disagree with Cowgill’s view that “it is not likely that the difference between 1st sg. tatane RV. VII 29,3 and 3rd sg. tatne RV. X 130,2 is due to the laryngeal originally present in the ending of the former”: these forms reflect PIE *tetonH2e and *tetone with substitution of the Indo-Iranian primary middle ending *-ai for *-a and introduction of zero grade into the root. 10. In his article on the origin of the Sanskrit passive aorist, Insler adopts Petersen’s view that the 1st sg. middle ending -i was created on the analogy of the 1st pl. ending (1968: 323). He regards this 1st sg. middle ending as the only possible origin of the 3rd sg. passive ending -i and reconstructs a complicated chain of analogic developments to account for the different root vocalism and accentuation. Here I shall not enter upon a discussion of his theoretical constructs, which are not strictly relevant to the subject of the present study, but I want to draw attention to the distribution of the 3rd person middle endings which Insler establishes and which can be summarized in Table I (cf. 1968: 327). Table I: Vedic endings 3rd sg. 3rd pl. deponent roots: present imperfect aorist -e, -te -a(t), -ta -a(t), -ta, -i -re, -ate -ra(n), -ata -ra(n), -ata transitive roots: transitive present transitive imperfect/aorist passive present passive aorist -te -ta -e -i -ate -ata -re -ra(n) It must be noted that the 3rd pl. passive ending -ran is limited to three roots: adṛśran ‘have been seen’, ayujran ‘have been yoked’, asṛgran ‘have been discharged’. The endings -a and -ra were apparently confined to deponent roots at an earlier stage. In Avestan, the form in -i is limited to the passive of transitive roots: vācī ‘was spoken’, srāvī ‘was heard/tried’, jaini ‘was slain’, ərənāvī ‘was allotted’ (Insler 1968: 320). This was probably the earlier distribution. In the root aorist of the Sanskrit deponents we find 3rd sg. -ta after a root ending in a short vocalic element versus -i, replacing earlier -a, after a root ending in a consonant (including laryngeal), e.g. amṛta, apādi, ajani. The older ending was preserved in the form -at in ādat ‘took’, akhyat ‘looked’, and ahuvat ‘called’. Unlike Insler, I think that this formal distribution is secondary and that we must assume a semantic opposition for the proto-language: PIE 3rd sg. *-o and 3rd pl. *-ro in deponents versus 3rd sg. *-to and 3rd pl. *-ntro in transitive middles. 11. Watkins’ view is the exact opposite of Insler’s: he assumes that the 3rd sg. passive aorist ending -i replaced earlier *-Ho in the 1st sg. middle aorist and imperfect, the older ending being preserved in the optative (1969: 138f.). Here again, both the model and the motivation for the analogic change lack sufficient justification. The 1st sg. middle and 3rd sg. passive forms did not belong to the same paradigm and differed in ablaut and accentuation. It remains unclear how and why the 1st sg. ending -i appeared in the imperfect and the transitive middle aorist, where the 3rd sg. ending was -a or -ta. In order to account for the ablaut difference Watkins changes avri /avuri/ into **avari (RV 4.55.5) and assumes that the zero grade in RV ayuji (5.46.1), akri (2×), avṛṇi is analogical. Thus, the only example in the Rgveda which can have served as a model is ajani (8.6.10), which is ambiguous for the determination of the original ablaut grade. 12. In his excellent article on the Vedic passive aorist in -i Migron shows that this form is impersonal in the sense that it serves any person and number without generally specifying the agent, “not because the agent is unknown, but because it is either unimportant or too well-known to require mention” (1975: 299). He demonstrates that it really is a passive perfect, “i.e. that its aspectual rôle is to focus the hearer’s attention on the moment at (or since) which the ‘Einwirkung’ has been accomplished, has become a fact of some consequence to him”, e. g. víśvaṃ jīváṃ támaso nír amoci ‘Every living thing has been released from darkness’ (RV 10.107.1). It follows from his observations that the connection between the “passive aorist” and the causative and the ya-passive is even closer than was hitherto assumed. I think that the latter were simply derivatives from a deverbative noun of the type *kwori, which could itself be used predicatively in the sense of a passive perfect, e.g. ‘This is a construction’ = ‘This has been constructed’, cf. English revolutionize as a factitive of revolution. There are remnants of this type in other languages, e.g. Slavic bolь ‘sick’, navь ‘dead’, factitive naviti (cf. Vaillant 1974: 23), and Gothic muns ‘thought’ (with zero grade taken from the verb munan). I think that it is also the origin of the Germanic weak preterit, e.g. Gothic 2nd sg. nasides ‘(you) saved’ < *nosi dhēs, cf. also Old Irish -suidigedar < *sodi sagītro. This type of nouns must not be confused with those i-stems which have lengthened grade in the root and continue suffixless deverbative nouns in Slavic, e.g. rěčь ‘speech’ (Vedic vk), tvarь ‘creation’ (cf. Vaillant 1974: 28). 13. Elsewhere I have presented my reconstruction of the PIE verbal endings, a part of which is reproduced in Table II (cf. K033: 67). Table II: Proto-Indo-European endings 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg. 3rd pl. secondary active -m -s -t -nt transitive middle -mH2 -stHo -to -ntro intransitive middle -H2 -tHo -o -ro The 1st sg. transitive middle ending *-mH2 yielded *-ā after a consonant and *-mi after a vowel in Indo-Iranian. Thus, it was eliminated because it merged with the 1st sg. active ending of the thematic and athematic present, respectively. The corresponding intransitive middle ending survived as -i after a consonant. This ending was extended to the thematic flexion (subjunctive), where the 1st sg. active and intransitive middle endings had merged phonetically into *-ā. The 2nd sg. middle endings *-stHo and *-tHo merged after an obstruent. They also merged with the 3rd sg. transitive middle ending *-to if that obstruent was an aspirate. This was the motivation for remodelling these endings on the basis of the corresponding active forms. The 3rd pl. transitive middle ending *-ntro lost its *r on the analogy of the active endings. 14. In the optative, which had intransitive middle endings, the 1st sg. ending yielded Indo-Iranian *-aiyi < *-aiHi < *-oi̯H1Ḥ2 in the thematic flexion and *-ī < *-īH < *-iH1H2 in the athematic flexion, cf. Vedic nom.acc.du. devī́ < *daivīH < *deiu̯iH2H1, which cannot be analogical. The 3rd sg. ending yielded *-aiya and *-iya, respectively. The latter form was regularized to *-īya and substituted for the seemingly endingless 1st sg. form. Finally, the thematic 1st sg. ending was replaced with *-aiya. 15. When the 3rd person endings *-a and *-ra received additional clarity by the addition of the secondary active endings -t and -n, this created a problem in the optative, where the 3rd pl. active ending was *-iHat < *-iH1nt. The resulting ambiguity led to the substitution of 3rd sg. middle -ta for *-a and the creation of a 3rd pl. active ending *-iHṛ on the basis of the corresponding middle form. The ending *-ṛ for earlier *-at < *-nt also spread to the athematic aorist and the reduplicated imperfect. 16. The primary middle endings were created in Indo-Iranian on the basis of the secondary endings: *-ai : -a = *-tai : -ta = -ti : -t. The 2nd sg. ending *-sai was apparently modelled after the primary 3rd sg. ending *-tai, not after the secondary 2nd sg. ending *-(s)tha. The thematic secondary 1st sg. ending *-ai came to be used as a primary ending both in the thematic and in the athematic flexion. It was replaced with *-āi in the subjunctive in order to differentiate this mood from the indicative. I think that the Vedic 3rd sg. and pl. subjunctive endings -ate and -anta replace earlier *-a and *-ara, respectively. On the coexistence of primary and secondary endings in the Indo-Iranian subjunctive paradigm see Beekes 1981. 17. In Greek, the 1st sg. transitive middle ending *-mH2 yielded *-mā after a consonant and *-ma after a vowel. The first variant was generalized and received an additional *-m for the sake of clarity. The corresponding intransitive ending *-H2 yielded *-a after a consonant and lengthening after the thematic vowel. It was eliminated because it merged phonetically with the perfect and thematic present endings, respectively. The 2nd sg. intransitive middle ending *-tHo merged with the 3rd sg. transitive middle ending *-to, and after dental obstruents also with the 2nd sg. transitive middle ending *-stHo. This was the motivation for the replacement of the 2nd sg. endings with *-so, which was created on the analogy of the active endings. The 3rd person intransitive middle endings were lost, and the *r in the 3rd pl. transitive middle ending *-ntro was eliminated on the basis of the active endings. 18. As in Indo-Iranian, the primary middle endings were created on the basis of the secondary endings in Greek: -μαι : *-μα = -σοι : -σο = -τοι : -το = -τι : *-τ, etc. This development cannot have been a shared innovation of Greek and Indo-Iranian because it depends crucially on the different vocalization of the syllabic resonants. Thus, the difference between the presence of a nasal in Greek -μαι and its absence in the corresponding Sanskrit ending -e reflects ultimately the different vocalization of the syllabic nasal before *H in these languages, just as the difference between Greek -α- and Sanskrit -i reflects the different vocalization of the syllabic laryngeal. Similarly, the difference between the Sanskrit 2nd sg. ending -thās on the one hand and Iranian *-sa and Greek -σο on the other reflects the different development of PIE *tt, which yielded -tt- in Sanskrit and -st- in Iranian and Greek. The s in Sanskrit -se betrays the more recent origin of this ending. The dialectal Greek rise of -σαι and -ται on the basis of 1st sg. -μαι can be compared with the generalization of -ai in the Vedic subjunctive. 19. In Italic and Celtic, the 3rd pl. transitive middle ending *-ntro lost its *r on the analogy of the active endings. The 2nd sg. transitive middle ending was remodelled in the same way: *-so : -s = *-to : -t. On the other hand, *nt was introduced as a 3rd pl. marker into the intransitive middle ending, which became *-ntro. At this stage, the final *-ro of this ending was reinterpreted as a voice marker and spread to the other intransitive middle endings: 1st sg. *-ōro (thematic ending), 2nd sg. *-toro, 3rd sg. *-oro. Analogy created another 3rd sg. form: *-tro : *-to = *-ntro : *-nto. The addition of *-ro to the 3rd sg. and pl. transitive middle endings yielded passive forms of transitive verbs in *-toro and *-ntoro. Thus, we arrive at the verbal system which is presented in Table III. Table III: Italo-Celtic endings 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg. 3rd pl. secondary active -m -s -t -nt transitive middle -ma -so -to -nto passive -toro -ntoro intransitive middle -a, -ōro -to, -toro -o, -oro, -tro -ntro The 2nd sg. transitive middle ending has been preserved in Latin, the 3rd sg. ending in Venetic doto, donasto ‘gave’ and in the Old Irish imperfect and imperative endings, and the 3rd pl. ending also in the latter paradigms (cf. K239: 45-49). The passive and intransitive middle (deponent) endings have all been preserved in Old Irish with the exception of 1st sg. *-a and 3rd sg. *-o, which was replaced with *-to in the deponent imperative. The final *-o of 1st sg. *-ōro and 2nd sg. *-toro explains the absence of palatalization in the absolute forms (cf. K035: 49). The palatalization in -ther originated from the syncope of a preceding front vowel. The passive endings are also found in Latin. From the intransitive middle paradigm, the 1st sg. ending *-ōro is preserved in Latin -ōr and the 3rd person endings are attested in Umbrian ferar ‘feratur’, Oscan sakarater ‘sacratur’, Marrucinian ferenter ‘feruntur’ (cf. K239: 156f.). It is beyond doubt that the r spread from the 3rd pl. ending because it is absent from the Latin 2nd sg. and pl. forms and from the entire deponent imperative paradigm in Old Irish with the exception of the 3rd pl. form (cf. already Pedersen 1938: 105). 20. The only attested 1st sg. middle form in Germanic is Old Norse heite ‘am called’, which belongs to the same paradigm as Old English 3rd sg. hātte and Gothic 2nd sg. haitaza, 3rd sg. haitada, 3rd pl. haitanda. These forms point to a Proto-Germanic middle present set of endings 1st sg. *-ai, 2nd sg. *-asai, 3rd sg. *-adai, 3rd pl. *-andai, which was apparently created on the basis of a paradigm *-a, *-asa, *-ada, *-anda by the addition of *-i from the athematic primary active endings. The vocalism of the 3rd sg. ending betrays the PIE intransitive middle ending *-o, which was apparently extended with *-to. The new ending *-oto served as a model for the creation of 2nd sg. *-oso and 3rd pl. *-onto, and for the optative endings *-oiso, *-oito, *-ointo, Gothic -aizau, -aidau, -aindau, and the imperative 3rd person endings *-otōu and *-ontōu, Gothic -adau, -andau, which can be compared with Vedic -tām, -ntām, Greek -τω, -ντω, all from the PIE transitive middle endings with lengthening of the final vowel before the added particle *u. Latin -tō is apparently a merger of 2nd sg. active *-tōd (Vedic -tāt) and 3rd sg. transitive middle *-tō. Greek created a new set of 3rd person middle imperatives on the basis of the 2nd pl. ending (cf. Chantraine 1967: 271f.). The fact that the Germanic 1st sg. form was not remodelled in the same way suggests that it did not end in *-o at that stage. Thus, it offers additional support for the reconstruction *-H2. If the latter yielded *-a, it follows that *a and *o had not yet merged at the stage under consideration. 21. The Tocharian primary endings 1st sg. A -mār, B -mar, 2nd sg. A -tār, B -tar, 3rd sg. AB -tär, 3rd pl. AB -ntär suggest a Proto-Tocharian paradigm *-mar, *-tar, *-tṛ, *-ntṛ. The secondary endings 1st sg. A -e, B -mai, 2nd sg. A -te, B -tai, 3rd sg. A -t, B -te, 3rd pl. A -nt, B -nte point to Proto-Tocharian *-ai, *-tai, *-to, *-nto. The terms “primary” and “secondary” have given rise to misunderstanding among Indo-Europeanists. The Tocharian primary active endings (which are found in the present, subjunctive, optative, and B imperfect) represent the PIE primary and secondary active endings: 1st sg. AB -m < *-mi, B -u < *-ō, 2nd sg. AB -t < *tu (cf. Pedersen 1944: 5), which was added to the zero ending from PIE *-(e)s, 3rd sg. A -ṣ and B -ṃ are pronominal clitics which were added to the zero ending (which has been preserved in the B imperfect and optative) from PIE primary *-e and secondary *-(e)t, 3rd pl. A -ñc < *-nti, B -ṃ < *-nt. The Tocharian secondary active endings (which are found in the preterit and usually in the A imperfect) correspond to the PIE perfect endings: 1st sg. A -ā, -wā, B -wa replace *-a < *-H2e, 2nd sg. A -ṣt, B -sta replace *-ta < *-tH2e, 3rd sg. AB zero from PIE *-e, 3rd pl. AB -r = PIE *-(ē)r, B -re reflects *-ro. Thus, the endings were originally differentiated according to the voice (active or perfect) of the verb form. In the same way, the primary and secondary middle endings continue the PIE transitive and intransitive middle endings, respectively. 22. Unlike Italic and Celtic, Tocharian extended final *-ro to the 3rd sg. ending *-to of the transitive middle paradigm: *-tro : *-t = *-ntro : *-nt. The 3rd person intransitive middle endings *-o and *-ro were subsequently replaced with *-to and *-nto after the model of the active and transitive middle endings. The 2nd sg. ending *-(s)to, which lost its *s after an obstruent (cf. in this connection Melchert 1977), adopted the vowel of the 1st sg. endings *-ma < *-mH2 and *-a < *-H2. Tocharian appears to have developed real primary and secondary endings in the intransitive middle (mediopassive) paradigm: *-toi : *-to = *-ti : *-t, etc. Thus, we arrive at the system of verbal endings which is presented in Table IV. Table IV: Proto-Tocharian endings 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg. 3rd pl. secondary active -m -s -t -nt transitive middle -ma -ta -tro -ntro secondary mediopassive -a -ta -to -nto primary mediopassive -ai -tai -toi -ntoi At this stage, the perfect and mediopassive endings spread to the active and transitive middle aorist, respectively. The merger of the perfect with the aorist yielded a preterit paradigm with perfect endings, as in Latin. The middle preterit received the secondary 3rd person mediopassive endings *-to and *-nto, but the primary 1st and 2nd sg. mediopassive endings *-ai and *-tai in order to avoid homonymy with the active preterit (perfect) endings *-a < *-H2e and *-ta < *-tH2e. This distribution is also reminiscent of Latin. I assume that the 1st sg. perfect ending *-ai in Latin served for differentiation from the deponent ending *-a, which was subsequently replaced with -ōr. Similarly, the Slavic ending -ě < *-ai in vědě ‘I know’ indicates the previous existence of a middle ending *-o < *-H2o (with added *-o from the other persons). The introduction of the final *-o from *-ro into the 3rd pl. perfect ending *-ēr in Latin and Tocharian was of course anterior to the introduction of *nt into the 3rd pl. intransitive middle ending. It did not affect the corresponding zero grade ending *-ṛ, which is preserved in the Tocharian s-preterit, because the perfect and intransitive middle endings would otherwise have become homonymous. The 3rd person transitive middle endings *-tro and *-ntro lost their *-o, which became a marker of the preterit, and their *r was introduced into the 1st and 2nd sg. endings of the paradigm. Finally, the mediopassive adopted the transitive middle flexion. The new tense markers *-o and *-r were extended to the 1st pl. ending *-meta < PIE *-medhH2, which was replaced with *-meto (A -mät, B -mte) in the preterit and with *-metr (AB -mtär) in the present system. I think that the 2nd pl. ending of the middle preterit, which is A -c and B -t, is the phonetic reflex of PIE *-dhue, cf. Α sparcwatär, B sporttotär ‘turns’ from the Proto-Tocharian active stem *spartwe- with the thematic 3rd sg. middle ending *-otṛ. The final -r of the corresponding present ending A -cär, B -tär was apparently added in the separate Tocharian dialects, cf. also the active ending B -cer next to A -c < *-te. The expected *-tt < *-twe in the B middle ending seems to have been extended to the 1st pl. endings -mtte, -mttär (but cf. Peyrot 2008: 155-157). The 1st pl. active ending A -mäs, B -m reflects PIE *-me(s) with a pronominal clitic in the former dialect (cf. Pedersen 1941: 143). The 2nd pl. ending AB -s of the active preterit represents a clitic which was taken from the imperative and added to the zero ending that corresponds to the Sanskrit perfect ending -a. 23. In Anatolian, the spread of *nt in 3rd pl. middle forms led to the coexistence of the endings *-nto, *-ntro, and *-ntoro. The introduction of final *-ro into the 3rd sg. forms in *-o and *-to gave rise to the endings *-oro and *-toro. The 1st sg. middle ending *-H2 received a final *-o from the other members of the paradigm. Eventually *-ro became an optional clitic in all persons and was remodelled to -ri in the present and -ru in the imperative on the basis of the corresponding active forms. The vocalization of the 1st sg. middle ending *-H2 after a consonant yielded *-a, to which the regular ending *-ho could be added. Restoration of the laryngeal yielded an ending *-ha, which could be extended to *-haho. Thus, the assumption that the PIE 1st sg. middle ending was *-H2 rather than *-Η2ο explains the origin of the surprising Hittite ending -hahari. 24. I conclude that the Indo-Iranian 1st sg. middle ending -i is the phonetic reflex of PIE *-H2 and that the correctness of this reconstruction is supported by evidence from Greek, Germanic, Tocharian and Hittite. The primary middle endings originated as a result of parallel developments in the separate languages, as is clear from the formal and functional incongruities. The motivation for these parallel developments lies in the absence of a distinction between primary and secondary endings in deponent paradigms, the presence of a clear present tense marker in the athematic active flexion, and the asymmetrical status of *r in the PIE 3rd pl. endings. Since the early substitution of *-nto for the transitive middle ending *-ntro is common to Indo-Iranian, Greek, Italic, Celtic and Germanic, it may be a dialectal Indo-European development which was not shared by Tocharian and Anatolian. On the other hand, the spread of *r in the transitive middle paradigm and its elimination from the intransitive middle paradigm in Proto-Tocharian is also found in Armenian. Thus, I think that Armenian, like Irish, preserves the transitive middle flexion in the imperfect and the middle imperative and the mediopassive flexion in the middle aorist: 2nd sg. -r < *-ro, 3rd sg. -(w)r < *-tro, 2nd pl. -ruk‘ < *-ro-, aorist 3rd sg. -w < *-to, 3rd pl. -n (without loss of the preceding vowel) < *-nto, 2nd pl. -ǰik‘ < *-dhue- (cf. K194: 34-38). The active and mediopassive endings merged in the present tense as a result of the apocope. The prohibitive imperative in -r < *ra belongs to the present system and cannot be connected with the middle aorist imperative ending -r. Phrygian seems to have shared the Armenian development: αδδακετορ = αδδακετ ‘afficit’. PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN VERBAL SYNTAX I In 1901 C.C. Uhlenbeck concluded from the identity of the nominative and the accusative of the neuter in the Indo-European languages that the differentiation of these cases is secondary. For an early period of the proto-language he assumes the existence of an agentive case in *-s, which expressed the subject of transitive verbs, and a general case in *-m (after o-stems) or zero (in other flexion classes), which expressed the object of transitive verbs and the subject of passive and intransitive verbs. The sigmatic nominative developed from the original agentive case, while the accusative in *-m and the asigmatic nominative continue the general case. Uhlenbeck follows Bopp in the identification of the ending *-s with the PIE demonstrative pronoun so. A few years later Holger Pedersen presented a much more elaborate view of PIE verbal syntax (1907: 148-157). His exposition seems to have fallen into total oblivion. In the handbook on ergativity (1979), K.H. Schmidt does not even mention Pedersen’s article, which is for several reasons one of the most remarkable publications in the history of linguistics. As Pedersen’s view has not lost any of its significance since it was written a hundred years ago, the following rather extensive quotation (1907: 152f.) seems to be justified: “In einer vorhistorischen periode haben, wie ich vermuthe, die folgenden regeln gegolten: bei intransitiven verben stand das subjekt in der (u. a. auch als objekt fungirenden) grundform (bei o-stämmen die form auf -om, bei den -ā-, -n-, -r-stämmen die historische nominativform); bei transitiven verben stand das objekt in der grundform, das subjekt aber im genitiv, wenn wirklich von einer thätigkeit desselben die rede sein konnte, also wenn es der name eines lebenden wesens war; dagegen stand es im instrumentalis, wenn es ein unpersönlicher begriff war. Die beiden sätze: “der bruder tödtet das thier” und “der baum tödtet das thier” wurden also als “des bruders thiertödten” und “durch den baum thiertödten” ausgedrückt. Dabei ist der subjektsgenitiv natürlich als possessiver genitiv aufzufassen [...]. Allmählich differenzirt sich jedoch der subjektsgenitiv (der casus activus) von dem genitiv in seinen sonstigen Verwendungen [...]. Nachdem sich in dieser weise ein selbständiger casus activus entwickelt hatte, konnte dieser casus seine gebrauchssphäre erweitern, sodass er auch bei intransitiven verben als subjekt fungirte; eine zeitlang wird er in dieser funktion mit der grundform regellos abgewechselt haben, bis schliesslich bei den o-stämmen die grundform auf die nichtsubjektivische Verwendung beschränkt und dadurch zum accusativ gestempelt wurde. Die endung -m wurde dann als accusativendung auf die übrigen stammklassen übertragen; so trat beispielsweise eine form *ek̑uā-m ‘die stute’ (acc.) an stelle des älteren *ek̑uā, das nur noch als nominativ bewahrt blieb, in dieser verwendung aber den casus activus ganz verdrängte”. Concerning the original function of the ending *-m Pedersen remarks (1907: 156): “Ich dachte damals auch an die arabische nunation, die beim determinirten substantiv fehlt (farasun ‘ein pferd’, al farasu ‘das pferd’), und ich will jetzt diese vermuthung nicht verheimlichen. Falls das idg. -s des genitivs (und des casus activus) ursprünglich ein artikel war (was nicht ausgeschlossen ist, da eine verwendung des artikels beim genitiv, während es beim regens fehlte, mit mehreren lebendigen sprachen parallel sein würde), so wäre die indogermanische regel für das vorkommen des beweglichen -m mit dem Arabischen parallel”. The next major step in the reconstruction of PIE verbal syntax was taken by Holger Pedersen in another article which modern investigators have ignored (1933: 311-315). The title is not mentioned in Collinder’s survey (1974), for example. Pedersen bases himself on the assumption that there were three series of personal endings in the Indo-European proto-language: 1. the “normal” endings, which are best preserved in the athematic flexion, 2. the perfect endings, which are also found in the thematic present, and 3. the middle endings. He puts forward the hypothesis that the perfect endings belonged originally to the flexion of intransitive verbs, and the “normal” endings to the flexion of transitive verbs. The distinction between these two sets of personal endings thus corresponds to the difference of verbal government between intransitive verbs, where the subject was in the nominative, and transitive verbs, where it was in an oblique case. Pedersen points to the identity of the “intransitive” 1st sg. ending *-ō with the ending of the nominative pronoun ἐγώ, and to the identity of the “transitive” endings 1st sg. *-m and 3rd sg. *-t with the oblique pronominal stems *me- and *to-. He also points to the possibility of identifying 3rd pl. “intransitive” *-r and “transitive” *-nt with the formative suffix of nom. ὕδωρ, obl. ὕδατ- < *-nt-. In an article which has received more attention than Pedersen’s studies, André Vaillant presented three arguments in favour of the hypothesis that the nom.sg. ending *-s is an ancient ergative ending, which he identifies with an original ablative ending (1936). First, there is a morphological opposition between animate and inanimate in Indo-European, which is reflected in nom. πολύς, acc. πολύν, neuter πολύ. Following Meillet (1931a), Vaillant assumes that the rise of the feminine gender is a recent development, which did not reach the Anatolian languages. Second, there is a suppletive nominative in pronominal paradigms, which is reminiscent of the suppletive ergative in Chechen. Third, there are two types of verbal flexion, which correspond to the Hittite conjugations in -hi and -mi. Vaillant assumes that the Hittite flexion in -hi corresponds to the Indo-European perfect, which is originally intransitive, while the flexion in -mi originated from the addition of pronominal elements to a verbal noun in -t-: 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg. 1st pl. 2nd pl. 3rd pl. *gwhenmi < *gwhent-m-i *gwhensi < *gwhent-t-i *gwhent-i *gwhenmes < *gwhent-m-es *gwhentes < *gwhent-w-es *gwhnont-i (participle) The final -i may be the vestige of a copula. In his monograph on Hittite (1938), Holger Pedersen repeated some of the considerations from his 1933 article. This account is again disregarded by K.H. Schmidt (1979). The cardinal point of Pedersen’s theory is the existence of a relation between the two types of verbal flexion in Hittite (-hi and -mi) and the two types of nominative ending (with and without -s). The sigmatic nominative expressed the subject of transitive verbs, which correspond to the Hittite flexion in -mi, whereas the asigmatic nominative expressed the object of transitive verbs and the subject of intransitive verbs. The Indo-European perfect, which corresponds to the Hittite flexion in -hi, was originally intransitive. The original distribution of -hi and -mi has been obscured and cannot be recovered. I think that the principal flaw in the conception of Pedersen and Vaillant is the insufficient distinction between flexion types. The identification of the intransitive perfect with the thematic flexion, which is predominantly transitive at the earliest reconstructible stage, cannot be substantiated. The same unwarranted assumption, among others, is made by Watkins (1969: 107-112). Similarly, we have to make a strict distinction between transitive and intransitive middle paradigms. II The status of the thematic flexion in the PIE verbal system has been the subject of much controversy. According to Meillet, the thematic type was originally limited to suffixed stems, e.g. in -ske- and -ne-, and to the subjunctive of athematic stems (1931b: 202). Vaillant assumed a twofold origin of the thematic present: on the one hand the sixth class of Sanskrit (tudáti) corresponds to the thematic flexion in -mi of Hittite (waššezzi, lukezzi, -škezzi), and on the other the paradigm of φέρω, -εις, -ει can be identified with the Hittite flexion in -hi of denominative stems in a laryngeal, e.g. newahhi (1937). These theories must now be reconsidered in the light of the Hittite evidence, which has gained much wider accessibility thanks to the publication of Norbert Oettinger’s monograph (1979). It follows from Oettinger’s analysis that the flexion in -mi is found with athematic stems, simple thematic stems, and derived stems in -ske- and -ie-, whereas the flexion in -hi is characteristic of old perfects, causatives and iteratives, denominative stems in -ahh-, and derived stems in -ie- after a rootfinal laryngeal. In the course of the historical development, the flexion in -hi is gradually eliminated. Stems in -ahh- generally belong to the flexion in -mi after the Old Hittite period. In my opinion, the principal step toward a solution of the problem of the thematic flexion was made in 1953 by Johannes Knobloch, who identified the thematic vowel with an object marker. His article does not seem to have evoked any response in the literature, probably because he limited himself to a typological comparison with Circassian and did not adduce any historical evidence in support of his view. Against Pedersen’s identification of the flexion in -mi with the transitive conjugation Knobloch objects that the distribution of Hittite -mi and -hi does not correspond to a distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs, e.g. ešmi ‘I am’, pāimi ‘I go’ versus dāhhi ‘I take’, pihhi ‘I give’. Athematic root verbs in -mi are particularly often intransitive in the IndoEuropean languages. Referring to an article by Jakolev, Knobloch cites the following Kabardian examples as an illustration of the three types of syntactic construction which are found with Circassian verbs: ś’ále-r mà-ǯe ‘le garçon crie’ ś’ále-r txə̀λə-m yó-ǯe ‘le garçon lit (dans) le livre’ ś’ále-m txə̀λə-r ye-ǯ ‘le garçon lit le livre (en entier)’ In the first example, the subject is in the absolute case. Knobloch compares this intransitive construction with the Indo-European type with a verb in *-mi. In the second example, the subject is in the absolute and the (indirect) object in the relative case. The verb has a zero subject prefix and an indirect object marker yó-. This is the construction which Knobloch compares with the IndoEuropean thematic flexion, the thematic vowel corresponding to the object prefix. In the third example, the subject is in the relative and the (direct) object in the absolute case, while the verb has a zero object marker and an actor prefix ye-. Knobloch compares this transitive construction with the Indo-European perfect, where the thematic vowel is absent. Thus, he arrives at the following reconstruction of the Indo-European verb phrase: – construction of the ergative type: – objective flexion: -o-H- (thematic present) – athematic flexion: -H- (perfect) – construction of the nominative type: – objective flexion: -o-m (thematic aorist and imperfect) – athematic flexion: -m(i) (present and aorist) Knobloch adds that the thematic vowel of nominal o-stems can also be regarded as a petrified object marker. For a more detailed and accurate description of the Circassian case system I refer to Kuipers 1962. The main objection which can be raised against Knobloch’s reconstruction is that the Indo-European perfect was undoubtedly intransitive at the earliest reconstructible stage, so that the hypothesis that it was construed with an ergative is highly unnatural. Moreover, the conjecture that the thematic present was construed with an ergative while the thematic aorist was construed with a nominative or absolutive case runs counter to the expected state of affairs. It seems preferable to return to Pedersen’s suggestion that the flexion in *-H- corresponds to an intransitive type of construction whereas the ergative case correlated with the endings 1st sg. *-m, 2nd sg. *-s, 3rd sg. *-t. III As I have indicated elsewhere (K033: 67f.), I think that we have to assume six Proto-Indo-European classes of verbal stems, which were characterized by the following sets of endings: imperfective perfective dynamic subjective 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg. 3rd pl. -mi -si -ti -nti -m -s -t -nt dynamic objective 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg. 3rd pl. -oH -eH1i -e -o -om -es -et -ont 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg. 3rd pl. -H2 -tHo -o -ro -H2e -tH2e -e -r static These sets of endings correspond to the historically attested athematic present and aorist, thematic present and aorist, stative (intransitive middle) and perfect. The opposition between the laryngeals was neutralized in the neighbourhood of PIE *o (cf. K034: 128). The six types of paradigm were interconnected by a network of derivative, not flexional relations. For the origins of the middle paradigms I refer to the exposition which I have given elsewhere (K044, K203). The stative and the perfect were inherently intransitive, while the objective flexion was transitive and the subjective flexion could be either. The distinction between subjective and objective flexion is characteristic of the Uralic languages. In Hungarian, for example, the verb várni ‘to wait’ has the following paradigms: subjective objective present 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg. várok vársz vár várom várod várja preterit 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg. vártam vártál várt vártam vártad várta The objective flexion is used with a definite direct object, e.g. várom a fiamat ‘I am waiting for my son’. The subjective flexion is used if there is no definite direct object, e.g. várok valakit ‘I am waiting for somebody’. The objective personal endings are identical with the possessive suffixes, cf. karom ‘my arm’, karod ‘thine arm’, karja ‘his arm’. It is usually assumed that the opposition between subjective and objective conjugation cannot be traced back to Proto-Uralic (e.g. Collinder 1960: 244, Hajdú 1975: 101). There are two weighty arguments against this view. Firstly, the objective conjugation is common to Hungarian, Ob-Ugric, Samoyed, and Mordvin, and traces have been claimed for Saami and, less convincingly, for Cheremis and the Permian languages (see Tauli 1966: 171f. for references). It is improbable that the rise of the objective flexion is an independent development in all branches of Uralic. Secondly, there is to a certain extent formal agreement between the languages. In Yurak, which is in several respects the most archaic of the Uralic languages, the endings of 1st sg. subj. madāu ‘I cut’ and obj. madādm ‘id.’, where -d- is an infixed object pronoun and -m is the subject marker, correspond formally to those of Hung. váro-k and várom, respectively, and the 2nd sg. obj. endings of Yurak madān ‘you cut’, Yenisei motadd-o ‘id.’, Selkup ńoand ‘you hunted’, and Hung. várod all point to Proto-Uralic *-nt (cf. Pedersen 1933: 323f.), cf. also 2nd sg. subj. Selkup ńoal, Hung. vártál. The main argument against the hypothesis that the verbal system of the Uralic languages is very ancient is the widespread identity of the flexional endings with the personal or possessive pronouns. This argument is inconclusive because the identity may be the result of analogic remodelling. Thus, the identity of the Polish 1st pl. ending -my with the personal pronoun my is comparatively recent but cannot be used as evidence for a recent origin of the flexional system. The ending -my replaces Old Polish -m, which had merged with the athematic 1st sg. ending as a result of the loss of final jers. There is evidence that the Uralic endings were subject to a similar type of restructuring at various stages in the development of the separate languages. In Hungarian, the objective personal endings are identical with the possessive suffixes, as opposed to the subjective personal endings. In Yurak, which is representative for the Samoyed languages, the subjective endings are identical with the possessive suffixes after singular nouns, while the objective endings for dual and plural objects are identical with the possessive suffixes after dual and plural nouns, in contradistinction to the different objective endings for singular objects. This distribution is undoubtedly secondary. The infixed object pronoun which is present in 1st sg. obj. Yurak madādm, Yenisei motaro’, is also present in 3rd sg. subj. madāda, motara, Selkup ńoed, but absent from 3rd sg. obj. madā, mota, ńoe-k. This reversal of the 3rd sg. subj. and obj. endings must be attributed to the influence of the possessive suffixes. In Selkup, the 1st sg. subj. and obj. suffixes have also interchanged places, e.g. subj. ńoap < *-m, obj. ńoa-k ‘I hunted’, cf. Yurak subj. madāu, obj. madādm, Hung. subj. váro-k, obj. várom. The hypothesis that there was a distinction between subjective and objective flexion in Proto-Indo-European cannot be proven in any strict sense of the word, but it offers an explanation for at least three sets of data in the oldest material of the historically attested languages: the distribution of the Hittite thematic flexion, the origin of the sixth class of Sanskrit (tudáti), and the rise of the subjunctive. It may also offer an explanation for the distribution of the thematic aorist in Greek, which will not be discussed here. In the course of the historical development, the Hittite flexion in -hi is gradually replaced with the flexion in -mi. It is probable that this development had started before the earliest texts already, so that we can assume that some of the verbs which belong to the flexion in -mi in the oldest material had been transferred to that class at an earlier stage. The thematic 3rd sg. ending *-e was identical with the perfect 3rd sg. ending *-e at the very outset, while the 1st sg. endings *-oH and *-H2e were sufficiently alike to induce analogic levelling. As a result of the loss of *H1, the 2nd sg. ending *-eH1i merged with the 3rd sg. ending when the latter took the characteristic *-i from the athematic flexion: it was therefore predisposed to replacement with a more distinctive ending. In view of all this, it is remarkable that the thematic present did not entirely merge with the perfect. I think that the reason must be sought in the addition of *-i from the athematic present to the perfect endings at a stage when the thematic present was still a distinct inflexional type. The transfer of causatives and iteratives to the flexion of the perfect can be understood if we assume that the final vowel of 3rd sg. *-eie was dropped before the loss of intervocalic *i, so that the ending merged with the corresponding perfect ending at a stage which was posterior to the addition of *-i to the perfect endings but anterior to the loss of the thematic present flexion. This explanation is far more probable than the complicated mechanism which Oettinger suggests (1979: 452ff.). The remaining thematic presents were subsequently transferred to the flexion in -mi, perhaps under the influence of the secondary endings. The transfer was late in the case of the denominatives in -ahh- < *-eH2e-, which in Old Hittite belong to the flexion in -hi. Thus, the expected reflex of the PIE thematic flexion in Hittite can be found in the simple flexion in -ami, the derived flexions in -škami and -(j)ami, the causatives and iteratives in -ahhi, and the denominatives in -ahhahhi (e.g. happinahhahhi, Oettinger 1979: 41). All of the simple verbs are transitive with the exception of papre- ‘unrein sein’ (Oettinger 1979: 282ff.). The inherited verbs in -ske- are transitive, and so are the causatives and iteratives and the verbs in -ahh-. The numerous verbs in -je- constitute a heterogeneous class, the non-denominatives among them being almost exclusively transitive. Oettinger’s view that šišzi < *sisd-ti represents PIE *sisde- ‘sit’ with analogical athematic flexion (1979: 216) must be rejected because no such verb existed in the protolanguage. The intransitive meaning of Skt. sī́dati ‘sits’ and tíṣṭhati ‘stands’ is the result of a secondary development, as Thieme has demonstrated (1929: 55), cf. ἵζω, ἵστημι. The sixth class of Sanskrit (tudáti) has punctual meaning in Vedic, except in the case of originally athematic verbs which were transferred to the thematic flexion (cf. Renou 1925: 310). The verbs of this class are characteristically accompanied by an implicit or explicit definite object. In addition to the examples which Renou adduces (l.c.), the following instances can serve for illustration (the translation is from Geldner 1951). 1.67.7-8 yá īṃ cikéta gúhā bhávantam  yáḥ sasda dhrām ṛtásya, ví yé cṛtánty ṛt sápanta d íd vásūni prá vavācāsmai “Wer ihn entdeckt hat, da er sich versteckt hielt, wer zum Strom der Wahrheit gelangt ist – jedem der (den Strom der Wahrheit) entbindet, die Wahrheit pflegend, – dem hat (Agni) darnach Gutes verheissen.” 3.29.14 prá saptáhotā sanakd arocata mātúr upásthe yád áśocad ū́dhani, ná ní miṣati suráṇo divédive yád ásurasya jaṭhárād ájāyata “Von sieben Opferpriestern umgeben erstrahlte er seit alters, wenn er im Schosse der Mutter, an ihrem Euter erglühte. Nicht schliesst der Erfreuliche Tag für Tag die Augen, nachdem er aus dem Leibe des Asura geboren wurde.” (cf. Latin micāre ‘to twinkle’) 5.30.13 supeśásaṃ mva sṛjanty ástaṃ gávāṃ sahásrai ruśámāso agne “Reich geschmückt entlassen mich die Ruśama’s mit Tausenden von Kühen nach Hause, o Agni.” 5.53.6  yáṃ náraḥ sudnavo dadāśúṣe diváḥ kóśam ácucyavuḥ, ví parjányaṃ sṛjanti ródasī “Wenn die gabenschönen Herren für den Opferspender des Himmels Eimer heraufgezogen haben, so lassen sie den Parjanya (Regen) über beide Welten sich ergiessen.” 6.36.3 táṃ sadhrī́cīr ūtáyo vṛ́ṣṇyāni páuṃsyāni niyútaḥ saścur índram, samudráṃ ná síndhava uktháśuṣmā uruvyácasaṃ gíra  viśanti “Den Indra begleiten vereint die Hilfen, die Bullenkräfte, die Manneskräfte, die Gaben. Wie die Ströme in das Meer, so gehen die Lobreden, durch Loblieder verstärkt in den Geräumigen ein.” In all of these instances, it is the object rather than the subject which experiences a change of state as a result of the action. Renou regards the verbs of the sixth class as originally modal forms and compares them with the subjunctive, which he considers to be the starting-point for the formation of numerous thematic indicatives (1925: 315). The Vedic subjunctive is a thematically inflected stem: “le seul trait qui caractérise le subjonctif est la voyelle thématique” (Renou 1932: 14). As Renou points out, the original meaning of this form is best preserved in those cases where the athematic stem does not constitute an indicative paradigm: “pour rendre compte des notions liées au système thématique, il faut tabler sur les formations autonomes, non sur celles qui ont adhéré à un système particulier de présent et d’aoriste” (1932: 15). And here we find that “une forme telle que karati, que rien ne rattache à un thème spécial, possède une valeur trouble, miréelle mi-modale, et telle qu’il serait vain de restituer un karati indicatif à côté d’un karati subjonctif” (ibidem). The best example is precisely the stem kara-, which is attested 75 times in the Ṛgveda: “en majorité subjonctif, mais subjonctif indéterminé, éventuel, plutôt que modal,” without regard to the presence of either primary or secondary endings. Compare the following examples: 2.35.1 apṃ nápād āśuhémā kuvít sá supéśasas karati jóṣiṣad dhí “Gewiss wird Apām Napāt, der Rossetreiber, (meine Lobrede) zieren, denn er soll seine Freude daran haben,” “peut-être Apām Napāt, animateur de coursiers, rendra-t-il (mes chants) richement ornés?” 7.88.1 prá śundhyúvaṃ váruṇāya préṣṭhāṃ matíṃ vasiṣṭha mīḷhúṣe bharasva, yá īm arvñcaṃ kárate yájatraṃ sahásrāmaghaṃ vṛ́ṣaṇaṃ bṛhántam “Vasiṣṭha! Bring ein sauberes, recht angenehmes Gedicht dem belohnenden Varuṇa dar, der den verehrungswürdigen, tausend Gaben bringenden grossen Bullen herwärts lenken soll,” “présente à Varuṇa la prière la mieux aimée, qui amène (qui amènera) le taureau.” 6.18.14 ánu tvhighne ádha deva dev mádan víśve kavítamaṃ kavīnm káro yátra várivo bādhitya divé jánāya tanvè gṛṇānáḥ “Da jubelten alle Götter dir, o Gott, dem Weisesten der Weisen im Drachenkampf zu, in dem du gepriesen dem bedrängten Himmel, dem Volke, dir selbst einen Ausweg schufest,” “alors, ô dieu, les dieux se réjouirent à ton sujet, ô tueur du Dragon, quand à l’opprimé tu procuras le libre espace.” 5.31.11 śū́raś cid ráthaṃ páritakmyāyāṃ pū́rvaṃ karad úparaṃ jūjuvṃsam, bhárac cakrám étaśaḥ sáṃ riṇāti puró dádhat saniṣyati krátuṃ naḥ “Auch den Wagen der Sonne, der vorausgeeilt war, brachte er im entscheidenden Augenblick ins Hintertreffen. Etaśa trug das Rad davon; er stellt es her. Wenn er (ihn) an die Spitze bringt, wird er unsere Absicht erreichen.” In connection with the last two examples Hoffmann remarks: “Auch an der zweiten Stelle VI 18.14, wo káraḥ allgemein präterital übersetzt wird, braucht durchaus kein präteritaler Tatbestand vorzuliegen: ‘Da jubeln (mádan, Inj. Präs.) dir alle Götter beim Drachenkampfe zu, in dem (yátra) du Weite dem bedrängten Himmel, dem Volke, dir selbst schaffen wirst (káraḥ)’. Wenn man aber an einer präteritalen Situation festhalten will, so lässt sich auch rechtfertigen: ‘Da haben dir die Götter beim Drachenkampfe zugejubelt, in dem du ... schaffen solltest (d.h. damit du dabei schaffest)’ . [...] Geldner übersetzt karat auch V 31.11 präterital, doch schon die auf karat folgenden Verbformen (bhárat, sáṃ riṇāti, saniṣyati) machen das unwahrscheinlich” (1967: 5537). Renou concludes from the Vedic facts that the subjunctive was originally an independent formation, characterized by the mere presence of the thematic vowel, with a semi-modal value which could develop either into the historical subjunctive or into the inexpressive and aspectually indeterminate indicative of the first present class: “Le subjonctif prévaudra dans la mesure où le verbe conserve un présent ou un aoriste athématique qui soutient ce mode; l’indicatif, dans la mesure où le thème en -a- est senti comme isolé et indépendant” (1932: 29). He remarks that “dans bhárati, en regard de bíbharti, l’évolution est à son terme, l’incorporation du thème bhara- au système indicatif est totale et rien ne décèle immédiatement l’origine modale. Mais on observera que bíbharti fournit le présent expressif ‘tenir en mains, soutenir, maintenir’, et aussi ‘porter dans son sein’; bhárati ‘apporter ou emporter, procurer, offrir’ et au moyen ‘recevoir’, implique une participation de la volonté du sujet [...]. Au point de vue des désinences, dans le Rv., on observera que, si bíbharti possède uniquement la série primaire et la voix active, bhárati reçoit aussi la série secondaire et le moyen, avec une répartition des finales qui rappelle celle du subjonctif. Quant à bhárti, la forme fait corps avec bíbharti pour le sens; exceptionnellement rare, elle ne saurait appuyer l’origine thématique normale de bhárati” (1932: 23f.). On the endings of the subjunctive see now Beekes 1981. The facts which have been adduced here can be understood if we start from the assumption that the thematic vowel was originally an object marker. Consider the following Bulgarian examples: spj-a ‘I sleep’ spi mi se ‘I am sleepy’ In the first example the stem is followed by the 1st sg. ending -a. In the second it is followed by the zero 3rd sg. ending, the enclitic 1st sg. dative pronoun, and the reflexive particle. The structure of these forms is immediately comparable with that of Skt. ádmi ‘I eat’, where -mi is the 1st sg. subject marker, and Gr. ἔδομαι ‘I will eat’, where the root is followed by the thematic vowel -o-, the 1st sg. marker -m-, and the middle voice marker -ai. While the Bulgarian case shows how the subjunctive can have originated from a type of objective flexion, the non-volitional variant which underlies Skt. bhárati is found in Polish. In this language, where the translation of the above examples is śpię and chce mi się spać (same syntactic construction with 3rd sg. chce ‘wants’ and inf. spać ‘to sleep’), the “objective” construction is found in such instances as spało mi się bardzo smacznie, which is practically equivalent to spałem bardzo smacznie ‘I slept very soundly’. The position of Russian appears to be intermediate in this respect, e.g. mne ne spitsja ‘I cannot sleep’ (Polish nie mogę zasnąć), but mne xočetsja spat’ ‘I am sleepy’ (Bulg. spi mi se). As the Slavic parallel demonstrates, the fact that the stem is intransitive is no obstacle to the derivation of a modal category from an objective construction. The Slavic examples adduced here contain a reflexive particle. As Thieme observed (1929: 53), there is a correlation between thematic flexion and middle voice, as opposed to an athematic active paradigm, in the oldest Indo-European material. “II est certain qu’il y a plus généralement une tendance vers la voix moyenne dans la plupart des systèmes thématiques; à cet égard le contraste hánti jíghnate, sácate síṣakti est saisissant [...]. Le moyen est aussi rare dans les présents et aoristes radicaux, dans le présent redoublé athématique, qu’il abonde dans les présents thématiques” (Renou 1932: 211). IV Now we return to the syntax of the PIE finite verb. It has long been recognized that there is a striking resemblance between the verbal systems of Georgian and classical Greek. It may therefore be profitable to have a look at the syntax of the Georgian verb. The following examples are characteristic of literary Georgian (cf. Boeder 1979: 437): txa modi-s ‘the goat comes’ (present) txa movid-a ‘the goat came’ (aorist) txa mosul-a ‘the goat has apparently come’ (perfect) txa č’am-s venax-s ‘the goat eats the vine’ (present) txa-m šeč’am-a venax-i ‘the goat ate the vine’ (aorist) txa-s šeuč’ami-a venax-i ‘the goat has apparently eaten the vine’ (perfect) The subject of a regular intransitive verb is always in the nominative, which ends in zero after a vowel and -i after a consonant. With transitive verbs, the case forms depend on the tense system. In the present tense, the subject is in the nominative and the object is in the dative, which ends in -s. In the aorist, the subject is in the ergative, which ends in -m after a vowel and -ma after a consonant, and the object in the nominative. In the perfect, the subject is in the dative and the object in the nominative. There is a class of intransitive verbs which have an ergative subject in the aorist, e.g. c’q’al-i duγ-s ‘the water boils’ (present) c’q’al-ma iduγ-a ‘the water boiled’ (aorist) is t’iri-s ‘he weeps’ (present) man it’ir-a ‘he wept’ (aorist) There are transitive verbs which have a dative object in the aorist. There is a class of verbs which have a dative subject and a nominative object in the present (indirect or inverted verbs), e.g. deda-s uq’var-s švil-i ‘the mother loves the child’. The verbal syntax of Georgian is more archaic than that of the related Megrelian and Laz languages. In Megrelian, the use of the ergative case was generalized in the aorist, irrespective of transitivity or intransitivity of the verb. In Laz, the use of the ergative case with transitive verbs was generalized, irrespective of tense. A particularly instructive survey of the historical development of verbal syntax in Georgian, including the dialects, can be found in Boeder’s contribution to the handbook on ergativity (1979). For Proto-Indo-European we can assume that the subject was in the absolutive (asigmatic nominative) case in the stative and the perfect because these categories were intransitive. The original derivative relationship between a transitive present and an intransitive perfect has been preserved in πείθω ‘I persuade’, πέποιθα ‘I trust’, ῥήγνῡμι ‘I break (tr.)’, ἔρρωγα ‘I am broken’. If the agent was mentioned with the perfect, it was probably in the dative if it was animate and in the instrumental if it was inanimate. If this is correct, the original syntactic construction is preserved in τοῦτό μοι πέπρακται, where the verb has received an analogical middle ending, while the syntax of πέπρᾱχα τοῦτο was taken from the present tense. The original perfect πέπρᾱγα has preserved the intransitive meaning. In the thematic flexion, which always had two arguments, the thematic vowel referred to an object in the absolutive case. I stick to Pedersen’s view that the secondary endings *-m, *-s, *-t etc. referred to a subject in the ergative (sigmatic nominative) case. For the thematic present I assume that the subject was originally in the dative if it was animate and in the instrumental if it was inanimate. Thus, the syntactic construction of the thematic present was the same as that of Bulg. spi mi se or rather Eng. me dreamed a strange dream. The substitution of I for me in modern English had its analogue in late Proto-IndoEuropean, cf. also German mir träumt and ich träume. The fact that Bulgarians are discouraged from saying az mi se spi, where az is the nominative of the 1st sg. pronoun, testifies to the same development happening right now in that language. The hypothesis that the subject of a thematic present was originally in the dative accounts for the correlation between middle presents and active aorists in a number of instances, e.g. δέρκομαι ‘I see’, ἔρχομαι ‘I go, come’ (often with ὁδόν ‘road, journey’: the original meaning was perhaps ‘to cover a distance’, cf. Skt. ṛccháti ‘reaches’), aor. ἔδρακον, ἤλυθον. The PIE transitive middle expressed the identity of the subject with the indirect object: it can be compared with the subjective version in Georgian, e.g. me vimzadeb sadils ‘I prepare myself a dinner’ (cf. neutral version me vamzadeb sadils ‘I prepare a dinner’, intransitive middle vemzadebi ‘I prepare myself). Like its Georgian counterpart, the PIE transitive middle had probably the same syntactic construction as the corresponding active forms. The presence of a dative subject in the thematic present prompted the spread of the transitive middle endings, which correlated with the identity between the subject and the indirect object. In its turn, the spread of the transitive middle endings facilitated the substitution of the ergative (sigmatic nominative) case for the dative with thematic presents in late Proto-Indo-European. With athematic presents and aorists, the subject was probably in the ergative if the verb was transitive and in the absolutive if the verb was intransitive. The apparent contradiction between Pedersen’s view that the endings *-m, *-s, *-t etc. referred to the ergative subject of a transitive verb and Knobloch’s observation that intransitive verbs belong as a rule to the flexion in -mi has a remarkable counterpart in Samoyed, where intransitive verbs characteristically receive the endings of the objective flexion (cf. Castrén 1854: 207), e.g. Yurak adm ‘I am’. Indeed, I think that this is a major argument in favour of the Indo-Uralic hypothesis. As is commonly assumed, the accusative developed from a directive case (e.g. Haudry 1977: 155). The same development is attested at a later stage in Romance, e.g. Spanish la madre quiere a su niño, Rumanian mama iubeşte pe pruncul său ‘the mother loves her child’, cf. Latin ad ‘to’, prae ‘for’. The substitution of the accusative for the absolutive was probably early in the case of effective verbs, individualized objects, and emphasis (cf. Pottier 1968). The generalization of -m in the neuter nom.acc.sg. ending of the o-stems can perhaps be attributed to the semantics of this category, which supplied an expression for individual members to a collective in -ā. It is recalled that the neuter does not function as a subject of transitive verbs in Hittite. REFERENCES Beekes, Robert S.P. 1981 The subjunctive endings of Indo-Iranian. Indo-Iranian Journal 23, 21-27. Boeder, Winfred 1979 Ergative syntax and morphology in language change: the South Caucasian languages. Ergativity (London: Academic Press), 435-480. Castrén, M. Alexander 1854 Grammatik der samojedischen Sprachen (herausgegeben von Anton Schiefner, St. Petersburg: Akademie der Wissenschaften; reprint 1966, Bloomington: Indiana University). Chantraine, Pierre 1967 Morphologie historique du grec (2-ème édition, Paris: Klincksieck). Collinder, Björn 1960 Comparative grammar of the Uralic languages (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell). 1974 Indo-Uralisch – oder gar Nostratisch? (Vierzig Jahre auf rauhen Pfaden) Antiquitates Indogermanicae (Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft), 363-375. Cowgill, Warren 1968 The first person singular medio-passive of Indo-Iranian. Pratidānam (The Hague: Mouton), 24-31. Geldner, Karl F. 1951 Der Rig-Veda, aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche übersetzt und mit einem laufenden Kommentar versehen (Cambridge, Mass.). Hajdú, Péter 1975 Finno-Ugrian languages and peoples (London: André Deutsch). Haudry, Jean 1977 L’emploi des cas en védique: Introduction à l’étude des cas en indo-européen (Lyon: L’Hermès). Hoffmann, Karl 1967 Der Injunktiv im Veda: Eine synchronische Funktionsuntersuchung (Heidelberg: Carl Winter). 1968 Zum Optativ des indogermanischen Wurzelaorists. Pratidānam (The Hague: Mouton), 3-8. Insler, Stanley 1968 The origin of the Sanskrit passive aorist. Indogermanische Forschungen 73, 312-346. Knobloch, Johannes 1953 La voyelle thématique -e/o- serait-elle un indice d’objet indo-européen? Lingua 3, 407-420. Kortlandt, Frederik [numbering of www.kortlandt.nl] K033 1979 Toward a reconstruction of the Balto-Slavic verbal system. Lingua 49, 51-70. K034 1980 H2o and oH2. Lingua Posnaniensis 23 [Fs. Kudzinowski], 127-128. [= K272, 51-52] K035 1979 The Old Irish absolute and conjunct endings and questions of relative chronology. Ériu 30, 35-53. K044 1981 1st sg. middle *-H2. Indogermanische Forschungen 86, 123-136. [= K272, 81-90] K049 1983 Proto-Indo-European verbal syntax. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11, 307-324. [= K272, 91-103] K194 2003 Armeniaca: Comparative notes (Ann Arbor: Caravan Books). K203 2002 The Indo-Uralic verb. Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and literary contacts (Maastricht: Shaker), 217-227. [= K272, 391-403] K239 2007 Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language (Amsterdam: Rodopi). K272 2010 Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic (Amsterdam: Rodopi). Kuipers, Aert H. 1962 The Circassian nominal paradigm: A contribution to case-theory. Lingua 11, 231-248. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy 1964 The inflectional categories of Indo-European (Heidelberg: Carl Winter). Meillet, Antoine 1931a Essai de chronologie des langues indo-européennes: La théorie du féminin. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 32, 1-28. 1931b Caractère secondaire du type thématique indo-européen. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 32, 194-203. 1964 Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes (Alabama UP). Melchert, H. Craig 1977 Tocharian verb stems in -tk-. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 91, 93-130. Migron, S. 1975 The Rgvedic passive aorist in -i: A functional study. Folia Linguistica 8, 271-310. Oettinger, Norbert 1979 Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums (Nürnberg: Hans Carl). Pedersen, Holger 1907 Neues und nachträgliches. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 40, 129-217. 1933 Zur Frage nach der Urverwandtschaft des Indoeuropäischen mit dem Ugrofinnischen. Liber Semisaecularis Societatis Fenno-Ugricae (Helsinki: Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura) = Mémoires de la Société Finno-Ougrienne 67, 308-325. 1938 Hittitisch und die anderen indoeuropäischen Sprachen [Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser 25/2] (København: Levin & Munksgaard). 1941 Tocharisch vom Gesichtspunkt der indoeuropäischen Sprachvergleichung [Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser 28/1] (København: Munksgaard). 1944 Zur tocharischen Sprachgeschichte [Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser 30/2] (København). Petersen, Walter 1936 The personal endings of the middle voice. Language 12, 157-174. Peyrot, Michaël 2008 Variation and change in Tocharian B (Amsterdam: Rodopi). Pottier, Bernard 1968 L’emploi de la préposition a devant l’objet en espagnol. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 63, 83-95. Renou, Louis 1925 Le type védique tudáti. Mélanges linguistiques offerts à M. J. Vendryes par ses amis et ses élèves (Paris: Champion), 309-316. 1932 À propos du subjonctif védique. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 33, 5-30. Ruipérez, Martín S. 1952 Desinencias medias primarias indoeuropeas sg. 1a *-(m)ai, 2a *-soi, 3a *-(t)oi, pl. 3a *-ntoi. Emerita 20, 8-31. Schmidt, Karl H. 1979 Reconstructing active and ergative stages of Pre-Indo-European. Ergativity (London: Academic Press), 333-345. Tauli, Valter 1966 Structural tendencies in Uralic languages (The Hague: Mouton). Thieme, Paul 1929 Das Plusquamperfektum im Veda (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht). Uhlenbeck, Christiaan Cornelis 1901 Agens und Patiens im Kasussystem der indogermanischen Sprachen. Indogermanische Forschungen 12, 170-171. Vaillant, André 1936 L’ergatif indo-européen. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 37, 93-108. 1937 L’origine des présents thématiques en -e/o-. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 38, 89-101. 1974 Grammaire comparée des langues slaves IV: La formation des noms (Paris: Klincksieck). Watkins, Calvert 1969 Indogermanische Grammatik III: Formenlehre I: Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion (Heidelberg: Carl Winter).