sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aorist, Augment (Indo-European), Infix, Suppletion

Proto-Indo-European and stem patterns

Petr Kocharov*

1. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON THE PIE STEM PATTERNS According to the traditional reconstruction, largely based on the and Old Indic verbal systems, the finite forms of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) were derived from three types of tense-aspect stems conventionally labeled “present”, “”, and “” since they could take the Present, Aorist, and Perfect Indicative respectively. These three types of stems are usually defined as expressing the grammatical category of aspect while endings together with the – expressed the tense, person, number, and categories, see Clackson 2007: 114-56 with a concise overview of the PIE verbal morphology including some issues related to the discrepancies between the Greco-Aryan and Anatolian verbal systems. Each stem type could be additionally specified by the ablaut, , and a range of . The range of stem kinds per type increases in the following order: perfect (root perfect, reduplicative perfect) < aorist (root aorist, sigmatic aorist, reduplicative aorist, thematic aorist) < present (root present, reduplicated present, present, thematic present, *sḱe/o-present, *ye/o- presents, etc.). This distribution allows to predict that a substantial number of combinations — stem patterns — existed already in the proto-. Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben (LIV), which is nowadays the most comprehensive reference book on the PIE verb, provides reconstructions of around 1200 roots with a variety of stem patterns constituted by 20 present stems, 3 aorist stems, and one perfect stem, not taking into account causatives-iteratives, desideratives, intensives, fientives, and essives. A comparable paradigmatic diversity is still observable in Greek and Vedic, the two IE branches that inherited the three-way

* Institute for Linguistic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences ; St. Petersburg State University. Email: [email protected] Part of research presented in this paper was supported by the research grant of the City of Paris “Research in Paris 2012” on the invitation of Prof. Anaïd Donabédian (INALCO, SeDyL). I am grateful to Prof. Charles de Lamberterie and Prof. Konstantin Pozdniakov for the opportunities to present part of the paper material at their seminars — Grammaire comparée des langues indo-européennes (EPHE, 24/01/2013) and Linguistique comparative historique : enjeux théoriques et méthodologiques (INALCO, LLACAN, 22/01/2013). Finally, I acknowledge the financial support of the research grant “The Proto-Indo-European root and stem-formation constituents” (Russian Science Foundation, grant n° 14-18-03585, head Prof. Nikolaj Kazansky).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 02:38:34PM via free access 76 Petr Kocharov opposition of stems from their common source. Thus, van de Laar (2000) classified the Homeric according to their stem patterns constructed by over 29 types of present stems, 13 aorist stems, and 6 perfect stems with some verbs participating in than one pattern. It is likely that paradigmatic stem patterns replaced derivational models that had been connecting these stems at earlier stages of the proto-language. Within this approach, the grammatical meaning behind the derivational stem patterns needs to be described predominantly in terms of aspectual semantics and with respect to the reconstructed lexical aspectual features.

2. MAPPING OF THE ASPECTUAL MEANINGS IN RECONSTRUCTIONS The modern aspect theory offers fine methodology for describing actionality (“lexical aspect”) and aspect (“”), see Bybee & Dahl 1989; Dik 1989; Klein 1994 among many others. The famous Vendlerian classification of predicates, based on the semantic parameters [± progressive], [± durative], and [± telic], distinguishes four actional classes: states [‒ progressive, + durative, ‒ telic] (e.g. to love), activities [+ progressive, + durative, ‒ telic] (e.g. to run), accomplishments [+ progressive, + durative, + telic] (e.g. to grow up), and achievements [‒ progressive, ‒ durative, + telic] (e.g. to stop); see Vendler 1957. This pioneering classification, based on English, was later adjusted taking into account typologically relevant semantic parameters; see Tatevosov 2003 for a survey of crosslinguistic actionality theory. The [± progressive] parameter was recognized as arbitrary from the typological perspective, and other parameters have been suggested in order to distinguish between states and other actional classes: [± dynamic] (unlike states, processes require the input of energy (Comrie 1976); however see Filip 1999: 33 and Gorbova 2010: 35-59 on the redundancy of the [± dynamic] feature for the description of purely aspectual semantics); [± subinterval property] — if a predicate holds true for a given interval it also holds true for every subinterval; the latter parameter describes states but not processes (Taylor 1977). Aspectual grams define predicates of different actional classes and their phases from the viewpoint of the topic time. A typologically valid model that describes a “universal” set of aspectual grams has been suggested by Plungian (2011) who operates with a set of primary aspectual meanings, which express grams denoting the relation of the topic time to the phases of a predicated situation, and secondary aspectual meanings which express aspectual meanings resulting from the change of the actional class. The primary aspectual meanings denote the overlap of the topic time and the predicated situation or its phases — beginning, middle, or final. Thus, Vendlerian achievement verbs have one aspectual gram — the punctive (topic time covers the entire situation); accomplishments can have the inchoative (topic time refers to the beginning phase), progressive (topic time refers to the middle phase), and completive (topic time refers to the final phase); activities can have the inchoative and progressive but do not have the completive, while states can have the inchoative (topic time refers to the initial change-of- state event) or durative (topic time refers to the middle phase of a state). The

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 02:38:34PM via free access PIE lexical aspect and stem patterns 77 secondary aspectual meanings allow to transfer a predicate from one actional class to another, e.g. the iterative represents achievement as an activity; the habitual represents achievement, accomplishment, and activity as a state; the limitative represents the middle phase of atelic verbs as an achievement1. Aspect markers combine primary and secondary aspectual meanings, taken alone or together with non-aspectual grams, in different fashions across . The opposition of the imperfective and perfective markers is a typical case of clusterization of aspectual grams, which can be found for example in , and Old Armenian. Languages conceptualize predicative situations in different ways. If the basic lexical meaning of a verb covers an entire situation, a sequence of coherent phases, e.g. a change-of-state event and the resulting state (see Breu 1998), it has the potential to express all relevant aspectual grams by the forms of its paradigm. Alternatively, the basic verb may require morphological derivatives to fulfill its aspectual potential; these derivatives split the paradigm. Finally, coherent phases of a situation can be described by several distinct lexemes and can then be formally described as a case of suppletivism or as a set of distinct verbs with defective paradigms. These ways to map actional and aspectual relations between predicates are often combined in one language. The polysemy of aspectual markers as well as the actional and aspectual potential of lexemes are thus two sides of the same coin and their relation to each other should ideally be established for each of the stages of the proto-language in terms of the universal inventory of aspectual parameters and grams. In order to apply the aspect theory to the proto-language correctly, one has to find out which of the lexical aspectual contrasts were morphologically significant. The limitations of lexical reconstruction and the work of morphological analogy are the two major hindrances for research on aspect in PIE. However, as the reconstruction of stems patterns becomes increasingly precise for each of the reconstructed PIE verbs, it seems to be worth an effort to establish correlations between the lexical semantics and stem patterns in order to open new perspectives for describing the grammatical meaning of stems, stem- forming affixes, as well as the lexical meaning of roots. A probative case study has been recently carried out by Bartolotta (2009) who demonstrated the relevance of [± telic] lexical feature for PIE stem morphology on the evidence of the Vedic injunctive and the Homeric augmentless preterite forms. However the [± telic] feature alone seems to be insufficient for the adequate explanation of the PIE verbal stem patterns, and further research in this direction remains to be done. Moreover the [± telic] feature is notoriously sensitive to the semantic features of arguments of a predicate and may not be lexicalized in the verbal lexeme as such; see Paducheva 2009 for further literature on aspectual composition. It makes the application of this feature ambiguous for the classification of verbal lexemes outside their contextual uses.

1 Discrepancies between the terminological labels of different aspectological traditions should not be the source of misunderstandings if a clear statement is provided about the actional class and its phase for each gram of the “universal” set.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 02:38:34PM via free access 78 Petr Kocharov

3. THE ACTIONALITY OF THE PIE DERIVATIONAL AND INFLECTIONAL VERBAL MARKERS According to Karl Hoffmann (1970), the PIE tense-aspect system was close to that of Greek and Indo-Iranian languages. The indicative mode had Present, Aorist, , and Perfect tenses. The Aorist and Imperfect shared the preterite prefix (augment) and endings, while the Present and Imperfect shared stems. Such distribution of markers unambiguously points to an aspectual opposition between perfective (“aorist stem”) vs. imperfective (“present stem”) in the preterite. The Perfect tense had a meaning (“erreichte Zustand”; this interpretation of the perfect stem goes back to neogrammarians (see Brugmann 1913: 83). The perfect stem as such was another perfective marker, while the perfect endings were reserved for one actional class only, namely that of states. The assumption that perfect tense endings had the stative meaning agrees with the fact that the present (primary) and preterite (secondary) endings back to one set of atemporal person markers still seen in the Vedic injunctive and augmentless preterit forms in Homeric Greek. Hoffmann’s analysis suggests that this atemporal had the lexical features [+ dynamic] and [± telic] as opposed to the perfect inflection which had the features [‒ dynamic] and [‒ telic]. The tense category developed after the free deictic particle i grammaticalized into the hic et nunc in PIE, cf. the Hittite present tense endings; the preterite tense category was further reinforced by the augment, probably only in part of the late Indo-European dialects, ancestors of Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Phrygian, and Greek2. A different approach was proposed by Warren Cowgill (1973; 1974: 563) who assumed that the perfect stem marked the actional class of states and not a perfective cluster of aspectual meanings in late PIE after the break-off of the Anatolian branch. This view is recognized in Sihler 1995: 564-68 and Fortson 2010: 104-05. The difference between the perfective and stative interpretation of the perfect stem is significant in that the [± dynamic] parameter, mostly related to lexical features of the subject, is considered as being morphologically embedded in the stem (Cowgill’s approach) or inflection (Hoffmann’s approach). Hoffmann’s scenario suggests that there was a stage when PIE only had perfective and imperfective stems that could take one and the same set of personal endings except for one kind of perfective stems which was capable of taking a separate stative inflection. One would know of the aspectual features of the original root stems by their later distribution across stem patterns. Hoffmann’s binary aspectual system predicts that verbs that belong to the actional class of states would have root presents, while Cowgill’s system necessitates a special explanation for stative predicates with root presents. Notice that prototypical stative *h1es- ‘be’ had a root present and no traces of the perfect stem.

2 I argue that the PIE present tense endings evolved on the bases of verbs with the inherent lexical feature [+ durative] but not necessarily [‒ telic] unlike the scenario proposed in (Bartolotta 2009) since accomplishment verbs ([+ telic]) could, in principle, have secondary imperfective stems before the rise of -i present tense marker.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 02:38:34PM via free access PIE lexical aspect and stem patterns 79

A growing consensus is centered around the third possibility valid for the stage of the proto-language close to Greek and Indo-Iranian - the three aspectual stems expressed the following aspectual clusters: perfective (aorist stem), imperfective (present stem), and resultative gradually turning into a true perfect and further preterite in the daughter languages (perfect stem); see Kümmel 2000. There are hints that the perfect system was centered on the subject-oriented and not object- oriented resultatives, cf. perf. τέτοκα ‘have given birth’ always of female subjects although pres. τίκτω ‘beget; give birth’ could be applied to both male and female subjects in Homeric Greek (Clackson 2007: 121). In fact, the aspectual meaning of the perfect stem could be more complex. The perfecto-present verbs found in Homeric Greek, Vedic, and Avestan could denote an aspectual meaning which cannot be described as “resultative” (cf. Gk. ἄνωγα ‘command’, Ved. āha-, Av. ād- ‘say, declare’). The lexical distribution of perfecto-present verbs (predicates of utterances, sound performance, sense perception, cognition, psychological states), their observable decay in the history of respective languages, and parallels in the Anatolian branch (cf. Hitt. wewakk- ‘ask’) allow us to assume that we are dealing here with an archaic Aktionsart which can be provisionally labeled “immediate and continuous effect” apud Maslov (1948) who described it for Modern Standard Russian. This feature characterizes predicated situations which can be considered effective whatever short the time of their fulfillment might be. The punctive construal of these verbs expressed by the perfective stem is co-referential with the durative phase of their processual or stative construals marked by the imperfective stem. Taking into account the lexical aspectual features [± subinterval property], [± durative], and [± telic]3, one can reconstruct the following primary and secondary aspectual meanings as the central ones for the three aspectual clusters of the Greco-Aryan system: IPFV.PFV.RES. States durative inchoative punctive Activities progressive inchoative punctive iterative limitative habitual Accomplishments progressive inchoative resultative iterative limitative habitual completive Achievements iterative punctive resultative habitual The table above shows that the three types of stems had different aspectual potential when derived from verbs of different actional classes. This trivial phenomenon can be illustrated by prefix co(m)- which normally has the inchoative value for state and activity verbs, and completive value for accomplishment verbs (Haverling 2000). Presumably, late PIE, like Modern

3 Other approaches to mapping the aspect of the PIE verbal lexemes have been employed. Thus, García Ramón (2002: 110-112), based ultimately on (Ruipérez 1954), operates with a different set of lexical features: [± durative], [± telic], [± transformative] (the latter feature primarily refers to the lexical properties of the subject and not the purely aspectual lexical feature of predicate).

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 02:38:34PM via free access 80 Petr Kocharov

English, belonged to the type of languages where tense-aspect stems constituted parts of the inflectional paradigm and taken together served to express the aspect of a verbal lexeme. However, common PIE could have a more complex system of aspectual features which were regularly marked not (or, at least, not only) by the forms of inflectional paradigms but by derivatives or even by different verbal roots. In this respect, the situation in the Tocharian and Anatolian branches are of special interest; see Melchert 1998 and García Ramón 2002.

4. THE ASPECT AND ACTIONALITY OF *NEW-/*NU-STEMS provide a salient example of a “simplification” of the inherited tripartite system to the binary opposition of perfective and imperfective stems; the intricate clusterization of aspectual meanings and their morphological expression within paradigmatic patterns largely belong to the history of that branch even though some of the morphological segments were inherited and could preserve archaic grammatical values. For example, Modern Russian has the perfective singulative -nu-, e.g. kus-nu-t’ ‘make a bite’ (PFV: singulative) beside kus-a-t’ ‘bite’ (IPFV: progressive/habitual), and a less productive homonymous imperfective suffix, e.g. soh-nu-t’ ‘be drying up’ (IPFV: progressive/habitual). A comparable, though not identical, polysemy is found in Old Church Slavonic: according to Lunt (2001: 127-30), the suffix -nǫ-, which probably goes back to PIE *-new-/*-nu- and is attested in some 60 simplex and 80 prefixed verbs, was a productive perfective marker (e.g. minǫti ‘pass’, krъknǫti ‘grunt’) although some imperfective stems had it too (e.g. povinǫti sę ‘be obedient’). Further with Greek, Indo-Iranian, and Armenian supports the derivational ties between the imperfective *new/nu-stems and telic (accomplishment) verbs. For instance, PIE *wes- ‘wear clothes’ is reconstructed with a root present stem (Hitt. wēsta, Gk. εἷμαι ‘id.’) and thus presumably had the lexical feature [‒ telic]. The inchoative event was marked by a derived sigmatic aorist *wes-s- ‘put on’ [+ telic] (cf. Toch. B wässāte, Gk. ἕσσαι, Arm. zgecʽay; (LIV 692 f.)). Secondary imperfective *wes-nu- ‘be putting on’ (Gk. ἕννυμαι, Arm. zgenum) accompanied the change from the achievement to accomplishment reading of *wes-s- ([+ telic], [+ durative]). The existence of a stem pattern pres. *-new- : aor. *-s-, even though it was restricted to the Greco-Armenian subgroup, provides evidence for the aspectual feature [+ telic] as characteristic for verbs which belonged to the *new-present pattern. To be sure, this evidence, positive as it is, does not exclude the possibility of other uses of *-new- suffix due to a polysemy comparable to the one just illustrated for Modern Russian -nu-. A similar case is provided by PIE *h2er- ‘receive’. This notion may be easily construed as telic or atelic depending on the context. However the co-existence of augmentless aorist ἀρόμην and the augmented sigmatic ἠράμην (Laar 2000: 86) may be taken as the evidence of the basic atelic meaning with a derived sigmatic perfective *h2er-s-/*h2r̥ -s- tr. ‘win, get’. This sigmatic formation is neatly paired with the *new-present [+ telic] attested in Gk. mp. ἄρνυμαι tr. ‘receive, gain (esp. of honor or reward)’, YAv. mp. ǝrǝnauu- tr. ‘receive

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 02:38:34PM via free access PIE lexical aspect and stem patterns 81

(benefits)’, and Arm. aṙnum tr. ‘take’. Arm. aor. act. aṙi is ambiguous — its ṙ can be either explained by analogy to the present stem where it can be explained by the regular sound change before n, or it can be taken as a regular outcome of *h2r̥ -s-. Note that if one assumes that by entering the stem pattern pres. *-new- : aor. *-s- the root *h2er- was specified as [+ telic] within the Greco-Armeno-Indo- Iranian domain, its perfective stem should be considered as the dominant stem of the paradigm, and the hypothesis of the analogical leveling with the present stem aṙnu- loses weight. The case of PIE *dhers- ‘have courage’ is of a different sort. The perfect stem *dhe-dhórs- (Goth. ga-dars, Skt. dadhárṣa, Gk. τεθαρσήκᾱσι) and root aorist *dhers-, attested in Vedic dhr̥ ṣánt- ‘brave, daring’, should be probably considered as a marker of the durative and inchoative aspects respectively. The present *new-stem (Skt. dhr̥ ṣ-ṇó-ti, OPers. adạrš-nau-š, OCS drъz-noͅ -ti intr. ‘become encouraged’) marked the durative stage of the telic predicate (*dhers-). Thus, aor. *dhers- was inchoative in relation to perf. *dhe-dhórs- and completive in relation to pres. *dhr̥ s-new-. The place that *-new- takes within the stem pattern of the root *dhers- is clearly consistent with its predisposition towards the [+ telic] lexical features. In Hittite, -nu- is a productive causative marker. There are few vestiges of the origin of the type, cf. PIE *dhǝbh-new-: Hitt. tep-nu-zi ‘diminish’, Skt. dabhnóti ‘deceive’, GAv. dǝbǝnao- (Kloekhorst 2008: 869f.). Even though causative semantics is involved here, the relation between the progressive phase of the accomplishment verb, the completive event, and the resultant state remains the same as in the case of *dhers- examined above. Here again, the suffix *-new- still marks the [+ telic] imperfective. In principle, the causative function of Hittite - nu- might have evolved due to the stable correlation between of the telic aspect and the bounding effect of the direct object which is obligatory of the causative verbs. Taking *new-verbs as an example, one can observe the dynamics of morphological change. It also shows that a certain nucleus of aspectual meanings may be associated with a certain kind of stem within the larger grouping of perfective, imperfective, and resultative aspectual clusters. The progressive phase of accomplishments seems to be the locus for *new-stems, at least in the central PIE branches.

5. PIE PREDICATES OF SLEEPING AND FALLING ASLEEP: LEXICAL ASPECT AND STEM PATTERNS

Much remains to be done to refine the currently reconstructed inventory of paradigmatic patterns and, more importantly, sets of verbs which are attested for each of the patterns with respect to their lexical aspect features. The application of stem patterns for lexical reconstruction has been recognized long ago. Thus, Hoffmann (1970: 30f.) claimed that PIE *peh3- was telic since it had the root aorist (cf. Ved. aor. ind. ápāt); consequently, the original meaning of the root must have been ‘make a swallow’ (achievement) while the secondary meaning ‘drink’ (activity) developed under the influence of the derived imperfective

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 02:38:34PM via free access 82 Petr Kocharov stems. Similarly Cowgill (1974: 563) claimed that verbs with the root aorist were “lexically telic” (accomplishments, achievements), while verbs with the root present were “lexically atelic” (activities); therefore PIE *steh2- originally meant ‘stand up’ and not ‘stand’. The major problem of this approach however is the fact that telicity often depends on the presence of an incremental argument (e.g. arguments corresponding to the semantic roles of incremental theme, itinerary, and quality; see Krifka 1998) so that a single lexeme can normally have both telic and atelic readings depending on the context. In order to check how far we can go with the reconstruction of aspectual lexical features and how secure the semantic implications based on the reconstructed stem patterns are, one would ideally want to reconstruct verbs together with their arguments. However, only rarely one can confidently establish verbal arguments and therefore gain a more precise aspectual reconstruction of a predicate. Thus, the well-known formula *klewos n̥ dhgwhitom ‘imperishable fame’ can be taken as a piece of evidence in favor of the lexical reconstruction intr. ‘perish (of fame)’ [+ telic] for PIE *dhgwhey-4. Another method of investigation of the aspectual lexical features through lexical meaning is to compare stem patterns of basic vocabulary items. Let us examine the verb ‘sleep’ which belongs to basic vocabulary and is stative ([‒ telic] and [+ durative]). In principle, its default stem should be either perfect (within Cowgill’s system), or present (within Hoffmann’s system) in terms of the late PIE morphology. The stative predicate ‘sleep’ is logically bound to the change-of-state predicate ‘fall asleep’, which can be construed as either an achievement (‘fall asleep’) or accomplishment (‘be falling asleep’). The change-of-state predicate, in its turn, has the aspectual potential to form a resultative form ‘be asleep’. Unlike the ‘sleep’ (antipassive), the change-of-state event allows for the variation of additional semantic parameters, cf. ‘go to sleep’ (volitional autocausative), ‘make asleep’ (causative), and ‘fall asleep’ (antipassive). Languages differ in how the connected change-of-state event and state are mapped in lexicon and morphology. For instance, English stative to know has to get to know or to learn as its change-of-state pairs, while this relation can be expressed by purely grammatical means in Spanish, cf. pres. yo sé ‘I know’ and yo supe ‘I got to know’. In what follows, I will revise a number of PIE reconstructions related to the predication of being or becoming asleep with special focus on their stem patterns. The following roots have been reconstructed for the predication of sleeping in PIE: *swep- (Hittite, Indo-Iranian, Slavic, Italic, Germanic), *ses- (Hittite, Indo- Iranian, and Celtic), *dreh1- (Old Indic) together with *drem- (Slavic, Italic) and h *derd - (Greek), as well as *sleh1b- attested only in Germanic; see (Mallory & Adams 1997: 526f.; LIV, s. vv.). Another candidate is PIE *(s)newdh- ‘sleep; doze’, cf. Gk. νυστάζω ‘doze’, Lith. snū́ti ‘fall asleep, slumber’, Arm. nnǰem

4 h wh In this case, the derived nasal present *d g i-neh2- (Gk. φθίνω ‘parish’, Ved. kṣiṇāti ‘destroy’) denoted the progressive aspect of an accomplishment predicate. Therefore the stem pattern pres. *-neh2- : aor. -ø- can be assigned to the lexical domain of accomplishments [+ durative; + telic].

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 02:38:34PM via free access PIE lexical aspect and stem patterns 83

‘sleep; fall asleep’ (Kölligan 2007). If several of these lexemes co-existed at a certain synchronic stage of the proto-language, it is desirable to establish their original lexical contrast. Explaining the co-existence of several roots with the same meaning as purely stylistic variants should be the last choice in the etymological research5. One of the valid contrastive lexical parameters is the “intensity” of the state (‘unexpected blackout’, ‘natural sleep’, ‘doze, slumber’). Benveniste (1967) pointed out that Lat. somnus ‘(natural) sleep’ should be distinguished from sopor ‘blackout (provoked by a soporific or a strike)’ and sōpiō ‘make asleep’ although both groups continue PIE *swep-; Lat. dormiō, from a different PIE root, fulfills the verbal slot for a natural sleep. This lexical contrast has implications in the aspectual features: dormiō and somnus describe a state, while sōpiō – an achievement predicate. A similar semantic contrast was suggested by Mayrhofer (1965: 250) for PIE *ses- ‘deep, dreamless sleep; blackout’ and *swep- ‘sleep (during a planned rest-time)’ and the volitional inchoative event ‘go to sleep’. Similarly, Benveniste suggested the “intensity” lexical contrast for PIE *swep- ‘sleep’ and *drem- ‘doze’, cf. OCS sŭpati and drěmati (‘dormir’ vs. ‘sommeiller, être somnolent’), and further for *swep- and *der-/*dr- (without extensions) taking into account the equation of Ved. ni-drā- and Arm. nihr ‘slumber’ (opposed to Arm. kʽun ‘sleep’) borrowed from an unattested Iranian source *ni- δrā-. The semantic analysis suggested by Kölligan for *(s)newdh- (2007: 32f.) — ‘nod’ > ‘be sleepy’ > ‘fall asleep, slumber’ constitutes a synonym of *drem- ‘doze’ within PIE. Beside the mentioned lexical features, the lexemical contrast could be determined by the inchoative and stative aspect of a single referential situation. Thus, Jamison (1982-1983) pointed out, against Mayrhofer, that the present stem of Ved. svap- is very poorly attested in the Rig Veda (impv. svapa VII.55.2; pres. ptc. svápant- V.44.13, X.164.3) although it becomes more common in later Vedic literature (Jamison 1982–1983: 8). Ved. sas-, on the contrary, was praesens tantum and is not attested in the inchoative or causative meanings, cf. the inchoative interpretation of PIE *swep- ‘einschlafen’ in LIV: 612. Likewise, Old Avestan hah- (hahmī; Y 34:5: kā īštiš š́iiaoϑanāi yaϑā vā hahmī “quelle est la possession pour l’action, ô Mazdā, ou quand je dors (= pour la veille ou le sommeil)?” (Kellens 1984: 87)), when related to Ved. sas-, points to the root present stem *ses- (EWAia II: 716f.). According to Jamison’s view, all the present forms of svápati were created by analogy to the intransitive present sásti. Further rich textual evidence for the atelic character of Ved. sas- and telic character of svap-, as well as a convincing scenario of the post-Vedic evolution of svap-, are provided in Barton 1985. Within Vedic, this view finds support in the association between sas- and budh- ‘wake up’ (e.g. RV 1.29.3), the latter being a logical result of the former, and the metaphoric use of svap- in the sense

5 It does not exclude however that a number of contextual synonyms could actually exist. In Homeric Greek, along with εὕδω and δραθεῖν ‘sleep; fall asleep’ (see below), one finds: ἀωτέω (ὕπνος) ‘enjoy a sleep’; aor. ἄεσα, pres. ἰαύω, rare ἀέσκω (νύκτα) ‘spend the night’; βρίζω ‘be sleepy, nod’.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 02:38:34PM via free access 84 Petr Kocharov

‘die’ (RV 7.18.14), unambiguously [+ telic]6. Such a paradigmatic suppletion, determined by aspectual lexical features (“Aktionsart-antonyms”), has been recognized for other PIE verb pairs, e.g. *speḱ- ‘watch’ [‒ telic] and *derḱ- ‘see, recognize’ [+ telic], or *ḱey- ‘lie’ and *legh- ‘get down’, etc.; see Strunk 1977 and García Ramón 2002. Both roots *ses- and *swep- are attested in Hittite. Hitt. šeš-/šaš- is a commonly used verb meaning both ‘sleep; rest; stay overnight’ and ‘fall asleep; go to sleep; lie down’ (CHD S/3: 439-45), while act./mid. šupp-(tt)a(ri) < mid. *sup-tó and secondary šuppar-ii̯ a-zi, derived from noun *sup-r- ‘sleep/dream’, are relatively rare (Kloekhorst 2008: 787-89). Proponents of the actional suppletion idea explained this situation by the secondary expansion of šeš- to the telic domain of šupp- within the history of Hittite (Barton 1985: 28 f.). From this perspective, the fixed use of šeš- together with the reflexive particle -za in the sense ‘go to sleep; to lie down’ is considered to be a Middle Hittite innovation; see Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 357-64 on the grammatical and lexical potential of -za, e.g. ēš- ‘remain seated’ vs. ēš + -za ‘sit down’. Barton further argues that while šeš- (-za) had the semantic parameter [± control], šupp- and šupparii̯ a- were [‒ control]. The lexical specification of šupp-, according to Barton, determined its decline in Hittite in favor of the less restrictive šeš-. The root stem šeš- was characterized by the productive imperfective suffix -ške/a- and this derived stem was used often enough to be reinterpreted as a root, whence šešk- iške/a- and even šešk-išk-iške/a-; see contexts in Kloekhorst 2008: 747; šešk- could be used in the middle voice quite unlike act. tant. šeš- and could presumably express the meaning ‘be going to sleep’ [± durative]/[+ telic] already in the Old Hittite period, cf. p[ai]t⸗aš⸗ššan [GIŠ]NÁ-aš šarkuwanza šešket “He proceeded to go to sleep in bed with his shoes on” KUB 24.8 i 25‒26 (pre- NH/NS), see CHD S/3: 440 and Hoffner & Melchert 2008: 322. The problem with Hitt. šeš- is that it demonstrates the meaning ‘lie (down)’ outside the contexts related to sleeping. This meaning seems to be the only one that is appropriate with inanimate subjects, e.g. nu šuppa PĀNI DINGIR-LIM še- eš-zi “The meat stays overnight in front of the deity” (CHD S/3: 442). Moreover, caus. šeš-nu- means ‘lie down’ besides ‘make asleep’ and ‘put to bed’, cf. [(n⸗a)n … išta]nani peran ša-aš-nu-an-zi “They make him lie down in front of the altar” KBo 13.120:14 (rit., MS) (CHD S/2: 306). In my opinion, it is highly unlikely that the verb ‘sleep’ would become the common designation of spatial position within the span of time from PIE to Hittite. A reverse semantic change from ‘remain lying; to stay idle; to lie down’ to ‘be asleep; to go to sleep’, on the contrary, seems quite natural. The following Proto-Hittite lexico-grammatical distribution looks probable: act. *ses-ti anim. ‘stay idle (overnight); to sleep’, neut. ‘be lying down’, *ses- sḱe/o- ‘get down; go to sleep’, mid. *sup-to ‘go to sleep; be asleep’.

6 Notice that PIE perfect stem *swe-swop- (suṣvāp-), if such a form existed, would be a quasi-exact equivalent to *ses-. Presumably, *swe-swop-, unlike *ses-, implied the reference to the inchoative event and therefore had the resultative connatation, cf. the metaphorical use of suṣvāp- in the meaning ‘be dead’ in the Rig-Veda.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 02:38:34PM via free access PIE lexical aspect and stem patterns 85

The verbal of PIE *swep- are less decisive in other languages. Thus, OCS usъnǫti ‘fall asleep’ < *u-sъp-nǫ-, demonstrating the [+ telic] morphology, is coupled with sъpati ‘sleep’ [‒ telic], both from the same root (Lunt 2001: 119, 28). The Germanic cognates are ambiguous; note however that PGerm. *sufan- ‘sleep’ has the zero-grade present which is likely to be a continuant of the mediopassive stem allomorph *sup- like Hitt. šupp- (Kroonen 2013: 489). It remains to comment on the nouns *swop-no-s/*swep-no-s/*sup-no-s ‘a sleep’ (PToch. *ṣw’äp(ä)ne, OInd. svápna-, Av. xvafna-, Gk. ὕπνος, Lat. somnus, OIr. sūan, Lith. sãpnas, OCS sъnъ, Alb. gjumë, Arm. kʽun), *swop-r̥ ‘dream’ (Hitt. denom. verb suppariya-, Gk. ὕπαρ ‘dream, vision’, Lat. sopor ‘deep sleep’), and *swop-n-(i)yo-m ‘dream’ (OInd. svápnyam ‘dreamy’, Gk. ἐνύπνιον, Lat. somnium, Lith. sapny͂ s ‘sleep, dream’); see Mallory & Adams 1997: 170, 526f.; Adams 2013: 730. Barton (1985: 36) claimed that the noun was “Aktionsart-indifferent”. However, if the underlying verbal root was strictly telic and was lexically opposed in that way to atelic *ses- already in the proto- language, one wonders why a noun would be formed from *swep-. I believe that the reason is that *ses- originally meant spatial position and not a physiological state for which *swep- was reserved. Of marginal importance is Gk. (κατα-, ἐν-)εὕδω which is attested in Homer as the thematic -ε/ο- and -σκε/ο- present stems with the stative meanings ‘sleep; to have rest’ (Laar 2000: 153; Kölligan 2001). According to the textual analysis carried out by Kölligan, εὕδω and the derived prepositional compounds could mean both the state and inchoative event (cf. Il. 1.609ff.) although the stative meaning was more common. Since Benveniste (1935: 156f.), *sew-d- was compared to *sw-ep-; hesitantly (Laar 2000: 153). It is tempting to put the system of root extensions in correlation with the opposition of the atelic vs. telic predicates. If so, *sewd- (and not the suppletive *ses- as Jamison suggested) would be the true stative counterpart of the inchoative *swep-. However this internal reconstruction remains highly speculative. Similarly to *ses- and *swep-, Jamison (against Benveniste) suggested the actional suppletion of stative *ses- and inchoative *der-. Ved. drā- appears (first in ŚB) with directive adverbs ní and áva and in the prepositional compound nidrā́- (already in the Rig Veda). Although the internal morphological structure of the underlying *drehx- remains unclear (resultative *dr-eh1- ?), it certainly should be derived from *der-/*dr-. In LIV, *derdh- is hesitantly reconstructed as a distinct root (‘einschlafen’) based on Gk. (παρα-, κατα-)δραθεῖν, it undoubtedly goes back to PIE *der-, while -θ- of the Greek root may be tentatively interpreted as a reflexive or autocausative marker, cf. perfective formations in *-dh- like the passive aorist in *-dhē- (-ϑη-) in Greek. Kölligan (2001: 201-04) demonstrated that the verb meant ‘go to sleep’ ([+ control]; e.g. Od. 5.471) and ‘sleep’ (e.g. Od. 23.18, Od. 15.494), but not ‘fall asleep’ [‒ control]. The aorist forms thus may have the limitative aspectual meaning along with the inchoative one. The indicated polysemy of the aorist stem allows for the durative interpretation of the nasal present stem δαρθάνειν. According to Kölligan, originally δραθεῖν was the inchoative counterpart of stative εὕδω, and only later the preterite uses of these

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 02:38:34PM via free access 86 Petr Kocharov two verbs, inchoative and limitative respectively, began to merge by the age of Homeric Greek. The variant *drem-, another extension of *der-/*dr-, probably existed already in PIE with the stative meaning; see above on Latin and Slavic cognates (note however that it is not attested in the Anatolian and Tocharian branches). If the underlying root *der-/*dr- was punctive, one can speculate that -em- had imperfectivising nuance whatever its origin, e.g. a nominal stem.

It is noteworthy that PIE *ses- and *swep-, the two basically stative verbs ‘stay idle’ and ‘sleep’, had root present stems, just like PIE *h1és-mi, while perfect stems evolved within a restricted dialectal area (Ved. suṣvap-) as a secondary imperfective used to mark the resultative state or a temporary state co-referential with its momentary construal. It seems that PIE root *swep-7 originally covered the change-of-state punctive event together with resultant state, and only later its use was reduced yielding a number of suppletion patterns in the daughter languages, e.g. Vedic sas-/svap-. This presented case studies illustrate that additional research is required to have a better picture of how the lexical aspectual features of PIE verbs interated with the multiple stem patterns of the proto-language, which in turn can shed new light on the PIE verbal morphology.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams D. Q., 2013, A Dictionary of Tocharian B: Revised and Greatly Enlarged, Amsterdam, New York, éd. Rodopi. Bartolotta A., 2009, Root lexical features and inflectional marking of tense in Proto-Indo-European, Journal of 45, p. 505-32. Barton Ch. R., 1985, PIE *suep- and *ses-, Die Sprache 31, p. 17-39. Benveniste É., 1935, Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen, Paris, éd. Adrien-Maisonneuve. Benveniste É., 1967, Un fait de supplétisme lexical en indo-européen, in W. Meid (ed), Beiträge zur Indogermanistik und Keltologie, Julius Pokorny zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet, Innsbruck, Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut der Universität Innsbruck, p. 11-15. Breu W., 1998, Komplexe aktionale Verbklassen, insbesondere Inchoativa, in von T. Berger & J. Raecke (eds), Slavistische Linguistik 1997. Referate des XXIII. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens Blaubeuren, 26.-28.8.1997, Slavistische Beiträge n° 375, p. 55-80. Brugmann K., 1913, Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen, Strassburg, éd. Trübner. Bybee J. L. & Dahl. Ö., 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world, Studies in Language 13, p. 51-103. Chantraine P., 1927, Histoire du parfait grec, Paris, Honoré Champion.

7 The disquieting possibility that *swep- was itself a generalization of derivationally or paradigmatically distributed *sew-d- and *sw-ep- may not currently be convincingly demonstrated.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 02:38:34PM via free access PIE lexical aspect and stem patterns 87

CHD S/2 = Güterbock H. G., Hoffner H. A. & van den Hout Th. P. J., 2005, The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. CHD S/3 = Güterbock H. G., Hoffner H. A. & van den Hout Th. P. J., 2013, The Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Clackson J., 2007, Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction, Cambridge-New York, Cambridge University Press. Comrie B., 1976, Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Qspect and Related Problems, Cambridge-New York, Cambridge Univ. Press. Cowgill W., 1973, The Source of Latin stāre, with Notes on Comparable Forms Elsewhere in Indo-European, Journal of Indo-European Studies 1, p. 271- 303. Cowgill W., 1974, More Evidence for Indo-Hittite: The Tense-Aspect System, in L. Heilmann (ed), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguistics, Bologna, Società Editrice il Mulino, p. 557-70. Dik S. C., 1989, The Theory of Functional Grammar, Dordrecht, Holland, Providence, RI, U.S.A., Foris Publications. EWAia = Mayrhofer M., 1986-2001, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen, 3 vols, Heidelberg, C. Winter. Filip H., 1999, Aspect, Eventuality Types, and Nominal Reference, New York, Garland Pub. Fortson B. W., 2010, Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, Chichester, U.K., Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell. García Ramón J. L., 2002, Zu Verbalcharakter, morphologischer Aktionsart und Aspekt in der indogermanischen Rekonstruktion, in H. Hettrich (ed), Indogermanische Syntax. Fragen und Perspektiven, Wiesbaden, Reichert, p. 105-36. Gorbova E. V., 2010, Akcional’nost’ glagol’noj leksiki i aspektual’nye grammemy: voprosy vzaimodejstvija (Actionality of verbal lexicon and aspectual grams: issue of interaction), St Petersburg, St Petersburg State University Press. Haverling G., 2000, On sco-verbs, , and Semantic Fnctions: A Study in the Development of Prefixed and Unprefixed Verbs from Early to Late Latin, Göteborg, Sweden, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis. Hoffmann K., 1970, Das Kategoriensystem des indogermanischen Verbums. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 28, p. 19-41. Hoffner H. A. & Melchert H. C., 2008, A grammar of the Hittite Language Winona Lake, Ind., Eisenbrauns. Jamison S. W., 1982-1983, “Sleep” in Vedic and Indo-European, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 96, p. 6-16. Kellens J., 1984, Le verbe avestique, Wiesbaden, Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Klein W., 1994, Time in Language, London-New York, Routledge. Kloekhorst A., 2008, Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon, Leiden-Boston, MA, Brill. Krifka M. 1998, The Origins of Telicity, in S. Rothstein (ed), Events and Grammar, Dordrecht-Boston-London, Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 197- 235. Kroonen G., 2013, Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic, Leiden, Brill. Kuryłowicz J., 1964, The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European, Heidelberg, C. Winter.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 02:38:34PM via free access 88 Petr Kocharov

Kümmel M., 2000, Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen: eine Untersuchung der Form und Funktion einer ererbten Kategorie des Verbums und ihrer Weiterentwicklung in den altindoiranischen Sprachen, Wiesbaden, Reichert. Kölligan D., 2001, Suppletion und Defektivität in griechischen Verbum: εὕδειν und δραθεῖν, Glotta 77, p. 198-216. Kölligan D., 2007, Arm. nnǰem ‘to sleep’, International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistics Reconstruction 4, p. 25-35. Laar H. van de, 2000, Description of the Greek Individual Verbal Systems, Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA, Rodopi. LIV = Rix H. et al. 2001, Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen, 2 Aufl., Wiesbaden, Reichert. Lunt H. G., 2001, Old Church Slavonic Grammar, Berlin-New York, Mouton de Gruyter. Mallory J. P. & Adams D. Q., 1997, Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, Chicago-London, Fitzroy Deaborn Publishers. Maslov Y. S., 1948, Vid i leksicheskoje znachenije glagola v sovremennom literaturnom russkom jazyke (Aspect and the lexical meaning of the verb in Modern Standard Russian), Izvestija Akademii Nauk 7, p. 303-16. Mayrhofer M., 1965, Hethitisches und arisches Lexikon, Indogermanische Forschungen 70, p. 245-57. Mayrhofer M., 1986-2001, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen, Heidelberg, Universitätsverlag C. Winter. Melchert C. H., 1998, Traces of a PIE Aspectual Contrast in Anatolian?, Incontri Linguistici 20, p. 83-92. Paducheva E., 2009, Telicity and incremental theme, Russian Linguistics 33, p. 109-19. Plungian V., 2011, Introducing Grammatical Semantics: Grammatical Values and Grammatical Systems in the World’s Languages, Moscow, Russian State University for the Humanities. Sánchez Ruipérez M., 1954, Estructura del sistema de aspectos y tiempos del verbo griego antiguo, análisis funcional sincrónico, Salamanca, Colegio Trilingũe de la Universidad. Seebold E., 1967, Sind got. nawis und sutis i-stämmige Adjektive?, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 89, p. 42-53. Sihler A. L., 1995, New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, New York, Oxford University Press. Strunk K. 1977, Überlegungen zu Defektivität und Suppletion im Griechischen und Indogermanischen, Glotta 55, p. 2-34. Tatevosov S., 2003, The parameter of actionality, Linguistic Typology 6, p. 317- 401. Taylor B., 1977, Tense and continuity, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, p. 199-220. Vendler Z., 1957, Verbs and times, The Philosophical Review 66, p. 143-60. Wackernagel J., 1926-1928, Vorlesungen über Syntax: mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch, Basel, E. Birkhäuser.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/01/2021 02:38:34PM via free access