UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Los Angeles Tense and aspect in Indo-European: A usage-based approach to the verbal systems of the Rigveda and Homer A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Indo-European Studies by Ian Benjamin Hollenbaugh 2021 © Copyright by Ian Benjamin Hollenbaugh 2021 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Tense and aspect in Indo-European: A usage-based approach to the verbal systems of the Rigveda and Homer by Ian Benjamin Hollenbaugh Doctor of Philosophy in Indo-European Studies University of California, Los Angeles, 2021 Professor Stephanie W. Jamison, Chair Though Greek and Sanskrit possess clearly cognate tense–aspect categories, they differ signifi- cantly with respect to the function of these categories. This dissertation investigates the usage of the Aorist and Imperfect indicative in Homeric Greek and Rgvedic Sanskrit, in order to reeval- ˚ uate the functional range of both categories in each language. A qualitative and quantitative examination of the data reveals that the differences in usage between the two languages are only superficial. In Homer as in the Rgveda, the Aorist is commonly used to express perfect as- ˚ pect, while the Imperfect is used to sequence events in past narration. This thesis thus further extends the findings of Hollenbaugh 2018 in proposing that the Aorist and Imperfect do not represent a perfective/imperfective system, nor can they be traced back to such a system in the proto-language, as is often assumed. Rather, they originally marked perfect aspect and a simple past tense respectively. In addition, this dissertation explores the pragmatic interactions across functional categories to explain the lack of application of certain forms in contexts with which they are semantically compatible. The differences in usage observed for the two languages are thus attributed to systematic differences in their respective verb systems overall, rather than to any particular functional innovations per se. The Vedic injunctive and Homeric augmentless forms are also considered, and an account is given of the interaction between the augment and ii the verbal bases with which it combines. This provides insights into why the augment and aug- mentless forms behave differently in the two languages in the way that they do, and suggests how each can be derived from a common source in the proto-language. iii The dissertation of Ian Benjamin Hollenbaugh is approved. David Goldstein Tim Stowell Ashwini Deo Stephanie W. Jamison, Committee Chair University of California, Los Angeles 2021 iv For Kristen v TABLE OF CONTENTS General introduction ......................................... 1 Purpose of this dissertation....................................1 Structure of the dissertation....................................2 The matter of meaning: A usage-based approach.......................3 Background and problematization................................8 Overview of verb systems of Greek and Sanskrit........................ 12 Sanskrit verb system..................................... 13 Greek verb system....................................... 17 1 Methodology ............................................ 22 1.1 Texts............................................... 22 1.2 Forms under consideration................................. 24 1.3 Evidence and its assessment: The usage-based approach............... 27 1.4 The role of translation.................................... 31 1.5 Corpora and data collection................................. 32 1.5.1 Corpus annotation in XML............................. 32 1.5.2 Citing frequency data and security of interpretation.............. 35 1.5.3 Secure augmentation................................. 35 1.6 Assessment and interpretation of forms in context................... 37 1.7 Presentation of textual citations.............................. 40 1.8 The notions of regularity and blocking.......................... 41 1.9 The role of frequency data in explaining relative frequency of usage......... 47 1.10 Null hypothesis significance testing............................ 48 vi 1.11 TheIE language family and its proto-stages....................... 48 2 Semantic theory and typology of tense and aspect ...................... 50 2.1 Grams, gram types, and grammaticalization....................... 51 2.2 Time intervals, aspect, and situation types........................ 54 2.2.1 Time intervals..................................... 54 2.2.2 Definitions of tense and aspect categories.................... 57 2.2.3 Assertion time and adverbial expressions..................... 59 2.2.4 Situation types and actionality........................... 60 2.3 “Perfect-like” readings: Theoretical background..................... 61 2.4 Terminative readings: Theoretical background...................... 65 2.5 Imperfective grams: Typology and semantics....................... 68 2.6 Modality: indicatival vs. modal uses of the injunctive.................. 74 I Aorist and Imperfect indicative in Homeric Greek 76 Introduction ............................................ 77 3 The augment in Mycenaean and Homeric Greek ....................... 79 3.1 The augment in Mycenaean................................. 79 3.2 The augment in Homer................................... 84 4 Aorist indicative with and without augment ......................... 98 4.1 “Perfect-like” readings of the Aorist............................ 99 4.2 Terminative readings of the Aorist............................. 105 4.3 Pluractional and modal readings of the Aorist...................... 111 4.4 Functional range of the Homeric Aorist.......................... 120 4.5 Denotation of the Homeric Aorist............................. 124 vii 5 Imperfect with and without augment ............................. 131 5.1 Imperfective readings of the Imperfect.......................... 132 5.2 “Perfect-like” readings of the Imperfect.......................... 135 5.3 Terminative readings of the Imperfect........................... 140 5.4 Pluractional and modal readings of the Imperfect.................... 147 5.5 Functional range of the Homeric Imperfect........................ 152 5.6 Denotation of the Homeric Imperfect........................... 153 6 Comparison of the Homeric Aorist and Imperfect ...................... 155 7 The Perfect and Pluperfect indicative ............................. 160 II Aorist, Imperfect, and injunctive in the Rgveda 164 ˚ Introduction ............................................ 165 8 The augment in the Rgveda .................................... 168 ˚ 8.1 Role of the augment in the Rgveda ............................. 168 ˚ 8.2 Further differences between the use of the augment in Homer and the Rgveda ... 173 ˚ 9 Aorist indicative and Aorist injunctive ............................. 181 9.1 “Perfect-like” readings of the Aorist: Examples & frequency.............. 184 9.2 Terminative readings of the Aorist: Examples & frequency............... 193 9.3 Pluractional and modal readings of the Aorist: Examples & frequency........ 206 9.4 Imperfective readings of the Aorist in the Rgveda(?): Possible examples....... 214 ˚ 9.5 Functional range of the Rgvedic Aorist as compared to Homeric........... 219 ˚ 9.6 Denotation of the Rgvedic Aorist.............................. 225 ˚ 10 Imperfect indicative and Present injunctive ......................... 229 viii 10.1 Imperfective readings of the Present injunctive/Imperfect: Examples & frequency. 230 10.2 “Perfect-like” readings of the Present injunctive/Imperfect: Examples & frequency 238 10.3 Terminative readings of the Present injunctive/Imperfect: Examples & frequency. 247 10.4 Pluractional and modal readings of the Present injunctive/Imperfect: Examples & frequency............................................ 256 10.5 Functional range of the Rgvedic Present injunctive/Imperfect............ 262 ˚ 10.6 Denotation of the Rgvedic Present injunctive/Imperfect................ 265 ˚ 11 Perfect indicative/injunctive and Pluperfect ......................... 268 General conclusion .......................................... 276 References ................................................ 298 ix LIST OF FIGURES 2.1 Perfect aspect: resultative/experiential (tE), stative (tE0), and universal (tE00)....... 63 2.2 Concentrative interpretation, past tense........................... 65 2.3 Complexive interpretation, past tense............................. 66 2.4 Inceptive interpretation..................................... 67 2.5 Egressive interpretation..................................... 67 2.6 Progressive/continuous-state and habitual interpretations, past tense (available to Type 1, 2, and 3 imperfectives)......................... 69 2.7 Complexive interpretation, past tense............................. 70 2.8 Concentrative interpretation, past tense........................... 71 9.1 Progressive-like interpretation of perfect(ive) aspect.................... 218 11.1 Most common “perfect-like” interpretations of the Perfect (tE) and Aorist (tE0)..... 271 x LIST OF TABLES 2.1 Semantic weakening of tense–aspect gram types over time................ 54 2.2 Typical “tripartite” perfective/imperfective system..................... 54 2.3 Typology of imperfective grams................................ 69 2.4 Aspectual systems differing by complexive use....................... 72 2.5 Western Slavic aspect....................................... 72 2.6 Homeric aspect.......................................... 73 3.1 Readings of the Aorist with and