Verb incorporation in PIE, and other verbal suffixes

Verb incorporation in PIE, and other verbal suffixes Miguel Carrasquer Vidal, September 2013 In the following I will investigate three PIE verbal suffixes which can plausibly be assumed to have originated as incorporated verbs. I will also discuss two other verbal suffixes for which another interesting (non-verbal) origin can be proposed1. A good place to start looking for verb incorporation is of course the causative… Causatives-iteratives in *-éih1eLIV categories 4a and 4b represent the PIE causative-iterative2 in *-é e-. We will not be discussing the peculiar root Ablaut *o (* ) here: for now we are merely interested in the suffix. This is usually reconstructed as *- -, *-é o-, but this is not compatible with the Balto-Slavic data. The acute infinitive, Slav. - Lith. -ýti, must go back to PBS *-ih1-thaj, with the causative suffix in zero grade. In the present tense, *- - would have given Slavic *-ьj -, Lith. - - (cf. ьj ), instead of -ȋ- and -õ-, which is what is actually attested. But if the suffix was *- 1e- > *- -, 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 * (> Slav ȋ, Baltic ). In the Slavic form, this developed as follows: *- ·e/a- > *- ·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: *- ·a- > *- ·a- > *-ã- > -õ-. It is true that rather than in a form such as Latin does require non-hiatal *- - > - - (cf. again the numeral , ut it is trivial to explain spontaneous resyllabification *- - > *- - in Latin (and possibly elsewhere), rather than spontaneous creation ex nihilo of an hiatus (*- - > *- ) 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 ( -páya- ause to put , jña-páya ause to k o , arpáya- ause 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 is t, then p- must be a prefix. The only PIE morpheme I can think of which fits is the preverb -/po-, and therefore the entity *-eih1-e/o- must be a verb. Looking for a suitable verb quickly leads to the Hittite thematic verb , iezzi to do, to ake , which can be derived from a thematic root *h1é h1-e/o-, besides athematic *h1 éh1- ~ *h1ih1(for the Schwebeablaut, cf. athematic * éh2-/*bhuh2- vs. thematic * 2-e/o- to e ). The semantics of the verb are obviously impeccable for a causative, and Sanskrit p- is consistent with this er s predile tio for the preverb p -, as attested in Hittite (piyezzi s hi kt hi and TochA. (ya- ~ ypa- to do, ake , possi l fro *h1 1- and * -h1 1- with metathesis3). We can therefore conclude that the causative-iterative suffix is in origin the incorporated bhárativerb *h1 1-e/o- to do, to ake . 1 I have nothing interesting to say, for now, about the remaining verbal suffixes (e.g. LIV -u, -je, -de, -dhe, -te; categories 1e, 1q, 1r, 1t, 1u, 1v). 2 Category 1s may represent irregular causatives with zero grade in the root, secondarily reinterpreted as ordinary presents. 3 Adams 1999, s.v. -. Iteratives-causatives in *The duratives/iteratives in*this suffix makes causatives. - - make up LIV category 1p. It is interesting to note that in Tocharian Miguel Villanueva Svensson, in his article Indo-European long vowels in Balto-Slavic, makes the following observations about the Balto-“la i for s of the er to sear h, to seek : Lith. š ó , š a (OLith. ieszku look for, sear h , Lat . i skât look for li e , “l. *jь a AP look for, sear h OC“ iskati, ǫ / š ǫ, SCr. ȉ a , ȉš , ískati, š , Ru. iskát´, ščú). The -present is clearly inherited, but the languages present a surprising variation in root vocalism: Ved. iccháti, YAv. isaiti, Um. e-iscurent (< *h2is-s é/ó-), Arm. haycʿem, OHG denom. eisc n ask (< *h2ais-s e/o-). The acute of íeškau has no possible analogical source within Baltic. The disagreement in root vocalism between Baltic and Slavic can be explained by positing a Balto-Slavic paradigm pres. * - : inf./aor. * -, cf. Villanueva Svensson 2008, 183ff. As per Jasanoff 2003[a], 192, the case of *h2eis- is best compared to that of the s e/opresent of * neh3‑ recognize, know : * 3-s e/o- (Alb. njoh), * neh3-s e/o- (OPers. xš a-, Lat. c ), * h3-s e/o- (Arm. ča ačʿ ). The curious variation in root vocalism would reflect crossing of a s e/o-present * h3-s é/ó- and a Narten-desiderative *gnḗh3-s- / *gnéh3-s- (Hitt. gan šš-mi re og ize, fi d , Ar . aor. caneay, cf. Jasanoff 2003[a], 133). A parallel is furnished by Lat. c , -ere pasture , seemingly a cross of *péh2-s- (Hitt. paḫḫš-, OCS pasti, a ǫ) and *ph2-s é/ó- (TB paskenträ). In Villanueva Svensson [2012], I have likewise explained Lat. cr sc , -ere grow as a cross of desid. * rḗh3-s-ti / * réh3-s- ti and s e/o-present * h3-s e/o- (HLuv. zarza- grow ). It is thus reasonable to assume that Lith. íeškau, Gmc. *aisk n etc. reflect a contamination of inherited *h2is-s é/ó- and *h2ḗis-s- / *h2éis-s-. Now in my opinion the derivation from *h2ḗis-s- does not solve the problem of the Baltic acute (in Balto-Slavic, the diphthong is just as circumflex as ei), but the special position of this verb as sketched by Villanueva-Svensson indeed gives food for thought: 1. The root vocalism is rather free in comparison with the strict zero grade norm of the other s -presents. 2. Within Baltic, all the other *-s -verbs have developed to -sta-verbs, and only š ó has maintained -š -. 3. It is also one of the few, if not the only, *s -verb that remains in languages where the category of *s -verbs has otherwise been lost, such as Germanic (ask) or Slavic ( a ). In most respects, then, *h2 -é/ó- does not behave like a typical *s -verb at all. It rather looks as if it is an ordinary thematic verb with a root that happened to end in - -4, and that the regular * verbs contain it as an incorporated verb. This is confirmed by the acute accentuation of the Baltic staverbs (see Derksen, Metatony in Baltic, pp. 285-294), pointing to *- -é/ó- as the original shape of the suffix. If the suffix was in fact a reduced form of the verb *h2 -é/ó-, the acute intonation is immediately explained. The acute in Lith. š a (*h2ái-h2 - or *h2ḗi-h2 -) can then be explained as the suffi ei g i serted i to itself a alog ith the regular sta-verbs. 4 A root *h2ais- is usually reconstructed, but apart from the thematic present, the only primary forms have aoristic (or desiderative) -s-, and these may simply reflect loss of * in a superheavy consonant cluster, e.g. 3rd. sg. *h2a -s-t > *h2aist. Secondary formations reflecting a root *h2ais- may have resulted subsequently from re-analysis of *h2a - as *h2ais- + -. Semantically, the development from I seek to do X to I used to doi g X (impf.: I used to do X ) (with intransitive verbs) is unproblematical. The causative meaning in Tocharian may even follow directly from use of the verb in the transitive meaning ask, demand ( I asked/commanded X to do Y > I ade X do Y ). We can conclude that the iterative-causative suffix *-(h2)ské/ó- is in origin the incorporated tudátiverb *h2 -é/ó- to seek, to demand . The optative in *-jéh1- ~ -ih1A third case of verbal incorporation in PIE was suggested to me by the isolated Hitt. 1 sg. imperative form s-lit I want to be, let me e! . In meaning, the voluntative Hitt. 1sg. i p. I a t to, let e is close to the PIE optative, which is otherwise unknown in Anatolian. In form, the ending of -let reminds one of the Hitt. ins. sg. ending -it, -et, which corresponds to non-Anatolian *-éh1. Finally, the possibility of an initial alternation * - ~ *j - is suggested by words such as *j w (Grk. ἧ α , Skt. a ), * w (Arm. leard, E. liver) li er . All of this taken together might make it possible to derive the PIE optative ending from an incorporated athematic verb * 1- ~ *lh1- (>*j 1- ~ *ih1-) to a t , as see i Grk. (Dor.) to a t , Ved. - illi g , OCS. ь ( jǫ) j ъ li et , et . Ger a i let is also derived from this same root, with an extension *-d (PGmc. -, Goth. a , a ). The fact that the optative suffix can itself take further verbal endings (such as the s-aorist endings in the Vedi e edi ti e or pre ati e , may be taken as additional evidence for the optati e s origi 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 *h3 -néu- ~ h3 -nu-, 1m * i-néH- ~ i-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 NasalInfix-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 * (* -né- - ~ * -n-u-), and I find it implausible that the whole category of *nu-verbs arose on the - itself offers only limited support for model of that single verb alone, especially since the root * the theory about the genesis of the nu-verbs5. Only Ved. ó unambiguously reflects * né -. YAv. surunaoiti may represent a contamination of * né and unmetathesized *klu-neu-. OIr. ro-cluinethar, TochA. kälniñc, B. a are, according to LIV, derived from unmetathesized *klun-. 5 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 *nuverbs, 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-n-més likw-n-tés likw-n-énti > linkw-més > linkw-tés > 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-: likw-nú-mi likw-nú-si likw-nú-ti linkw-més linkw-tés linkw-énti > li-né-kw-mi > li-né-kw-si > li-né-kw-ti ghwén-mi ghwén-si ghwén-ti ghw -més ghw -tés ghw( )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 kiss , the atized fro *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, Slavic6 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-7, 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- - -e/o- > -n-C-an-e/o- (as in αμβά , θά , etc.). Hittite has something similar with the -nin- infix (the metathesis of the nasal was in Hittite apparently only triggered by RC/RH clusters ending in -k(k)- and -ḫ ḫ)-). Except for a few isolated n-infix remnants: ǫ, ǫ, ǫ ǫ. Germanic and Slavic also coincide in the suppletive use of reflexes of the *neH-category in the preterite / infinitive: OCS ǫti, Gothic da. 6 7 OCS Goth. - ǫ full-na dvig-ne-š full-ni-s dvig-ne- ъ full-ni-þ dvig-ne- ъ full-na-m dvig-ne-te full-ni-þ - ǫ- ъ full-na-nd Lith. ti-n-kù ti-n-kì ti-ñ-ka ti-ñ-kame ti-ñ-kate - - 8 The simple nu-verbs have: Ved. Grk. k ó ίκ ῡ ι k ó ίκ ῡς k ó ίκ ῡσι k ίκ k ίκ k ικ ύᾱσι Lat. Grk. - -c α-μ-β-ά vi-n-cis α-μ-β-ά vi-n-cit α-μ-β-ά vi-n-cimus α-μ-β-ά vi-n-citis α-μ-β-ά vi-n-cunt α-μ-β-ά -εις -ει -ομε -ετε -ο σι Hitt. harni(n)kmi harni(n)kti harni(n)kti *harninkweni harni(n)kteni harninkanzi Hitt. arnumi arnusi arnuzzi arnummeni arnutteni arnu(w)anzi It seems that the zero grade of the suffix in the weak forms was given up in favour of *nu (except in the Vedic 1 du-pl. , a d that se o daril a e stro g grade as reated for the stro g for s of the sg. (I-I *-nau-, Grk. - -). As to the ultimate origin of the suffix, since the main function of the *n(u)-verbs is to make presents fro pu tual roots9, a connection with the word *nu o would seem to be hidden in plain sight10. The stative in *-eh1(i) LIV sets up two separate categories: 7a fie ti e (*eh1 ~ *h1) and 8a essi e (*-h1 é/ó-). I fully agree with Jasanoff 2004 that there is no reasonable basis for this, and that what we are actually deali g ith here is a si gle stati e ategor , hara terized the suffi *-eh1(i). The crucial observation, concerning the forms in Latin, is ade Jasa off: a c c a c ac a a c ac c - ac a ac . This pro es beyond a doubt that the forms in are nominal in origin, to be exact instrumental singulars. Co i ed ith for s of the er to e , the *eh1-stative makes imperfects in Slavic and Latin. Again, Jasa off s o ser atio that - -a a a a x a a a “a c a c- -bam = OCS ved- -axъ a a ca the two formations is completely correct, and reflects my thoughts exactly. 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. 8 The 3pl. has been lost in Lith., but the form, if not the accent, is preserved as the nom. pl. of the present participle. 9 Except in Hittite, where -nu and -nin- make causatives. 10 I find it hard to believe that nobody has ever made a similar suggestion. Although I a t re e er ha i g ever seen it in print, I sure someone must have suggested it at some point somewhere. It is clear that Balto-Slavic, Greek and Latin all reflect a thematic formation *-eh1 -. 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 *- j - > *- (j)e- > -ai- in the 2-3 sg. and 2pl., as against *- ja- > *- (j)a- > - - 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 μι next to Attic-Ionic ι ). 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 do the rules go er i g the PIE lo g diphtho gs (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 stative verbs follows these rules exactly: 1. In the thematic forms, we have *-eh1i- before the thematic vowel (Slav. - jǫ, Lith - j ). 2. In the present singular, we have original *-éih1mi, *-éih1š , *-éih1ti, yielding Proto-Slavic > -jǫ, - š > -ȋšь, - > -ȋ ь (and > -ȋ ъ *- mi, *- š and *- ti, later thematized to *> -ȋ , - a > - ь), merging with the iterative-causative presents. 3. In the preterit, we have *-éh1m, *-éh1s, *-éh1t > Slav. - Balt. - , which was also transferred to the infinitive *-eh1-thaj > Slav. - , Balt. - . 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 stative suffix is in origin an instrumental singular (*-eh1), but the forms with *-eh1i- (or *-eih1-) can be explained as variant forms of the instrumental follo ed a dei ti ele e t *-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 *-et, *-ot, and *-eti, *-oti (=Luw. -adi, Hitt. -az). In the Auslaut, the ins. sg. *-ét gave *-éh111, 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 * ι ειμι instead of ι μι and perhaps * ι ιμε instead of (*) ι εμε . But the type might well be analogical after an original athematic preterite paradigm * ι , * ι ς, * ι , akin to the Greek -aorist . 11 This also means that alleged cases of stative *-éh1- in Anatolian cannot exist, as the instrumental suffix was still *-ét in Anatolian. We can have cases of stative *-ét-, which is probably what we have in a š is false and similar verbs. But that means that the formation is definitely athematic (*marsét-ti > a š ). Forms of the thematic stative: PIE OCS Lith. *-eh1 - jǫ - j *-eh1 - j šь - j *-eh1 - j ь - ja *-eh1 - j ъ - ja *-eh1 - j - ja *-eh1 - jǫ -- Grk. - -õ - Goth. -a -ais -aiþ -am -aiþ -and Lat. -eo -et -ent Forms of the athematic stative present: PIE Slav. Lith. (Grk.) *-éih1mi -jǫ -iù *-éih1si -ȋšь -ì *-éih1ti -ȋ ь -i *-h1imés -ȋ ъ -ime -emen *-h1ités -ȋ -ite -ete *-h1iénti - ь --ensi Forms of the athematic stative preterite: PIE Slav. Lith. Grk. *-éh1m - xъ - ja *-éh1s - ja *-éh1t - j *-h1imé - x ъ - j *-h1ité - j *-h1iént - š -- a Imperfects based on the stative: PIE Slav *-éh1 - axъ 2 *-éh1 - aš 2 *-éh1 - aš 2 *-éh1 - ax ъ 2 *-éh1 - a 2 *-éh1 bhuh2 - axǫ 12 Gmc. ? -i-da12 Lat. - a - a - a Jasanoff 2003b also suggests that the Germanic weak preterite is built on the eh1-stative (in a formation similar to Lat. ca ac ). This seems like an attractive proposition, but I can see no direct evidence for it in the Germanic forms (e.g. Gothic nas-i-da, a - -da, hab-ai-da, - -da). References Adams, Douglas Q., 1999, A dictionary of Tocharian B, Amsterdam-Atlanta. Derksen, Rick, 1996, Metatony in Baltic, Amsterdam-Atlanta. Jasanoff, Jay H., 2003a, Hittite and the Indo-European verb, Oxford. Jasanoff, Jay H., 2003b, The Origin of the Dental Preterite: A New Perspective, Buffalo. Jasanoff, Jay H., 2004, “ a - - revisited, Die Sprache 43, 127-170. Rasmussen, Jens E., 1989, Studien zur Morphophonemik der indogermanischen Grundsprache, Innsbruck. Rix, Helmut et al., 2001, Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben (2nd ed.), Wiesbaden. Sihler, 1995, New Comparative Grammar of Latin and Greek, Oxford. Villanueva Svensson, Miguel, 2008, a a ž ó , Baltistica 43(2), 175-199. Villanueva Svensson, Miguel, 2011, Indo-European long vowels in Balto-Slavic, Baltistica XLVI(1), 5-38. Villanueva Svensson, Miguel, 2012, a c c , Glotta 88, 1-4E, 239-252.