Abbildungen der Seite

latter. However, the u of *bhu-bhya-nt may as well have been due to contamination with unreduplicated forms of the same root. After *bhe-bhya-nt had become *fe-fa-nt in the Italic period,16 its structure was obscured and the influence of obviously related forms like Osc. Umbr. fust (fut. perf.) or Osc. fusíd (impf. subj.). changed *fe-fă-nt to *fu-fă-nt Osc. fu-fa-ns,17 and this form displaced *fe-fă-nt because of the identity of its first vowel with that of forms like *fusēt.

No matter in which of these two ways the u of the originally reduplicative syllable of *fu-fa-nt arose (original *bhu-bhya-nt would of course also have become *fu-fa-nt), its structure became obscured, and the obvious similarity of *fu-fant to forms with radical *fu- caused the reinterpretation of its first syllable as the root, and necessarily left -fā- as suffix. Since this *fu-fa-nt was an imperfect in meaning, it was easy to attribute that in which this form differed as to meaning from other forms beginning with fu-, to that in which they differed as to form, and thus -fā- Lat. -ba- became an imperfect suffix. After this point had been reached, it became easy for this -fa- to spread to other associated verbs. Moreover, since this fu- looked like the stem or root of the verb, all other imperfects in *-fā-, which were patterned after *fu-fā-, added the imperfect ending to the root or stem. To the analysis of the naive speaker stā-ba-nt was constructed exactly like *fu-ba-nt, and similarly fle-ba-nt, i-ba-nt, sci-ba-nt. Finally the suffix could spread to dissyllabic verb stems, as in ama-ba-nt or monē-ba-nt.

With this interpretation of *-fa- the third and fourth conjugation imperfects in -ēbam or -iebam could not have been the original forms after which e.g. -abam was patterned, 18 but were rather formed by analogy to those of the second. Occasions for such analogical formations were various. Some verbs had present forms both according to the second and to the third conjugations. Thus fervo fervere existed alongside of ferveo fervere,19 and the imperfect fervē-bam 'boiled, seethed', although derived 16 Cf. Brugmann 12.323.

17 Parallel with the development of the fa-imperfect went that of the f-perfect in Oscan-Umbrian. The oldest form of this I consider to be Osc. fufens 'fuerunt', which goes back to *bhe-bhy-ent with reduplication in e and secondary ending -ent instead of the original r ending. In the Italic period this became *fe-fent, which being structurally obscure was changed to *fu-fent through the influence of forms of the type Osc. fuid Lat. fuit. The next step here too was to mistake *fu- for the root instead of reduplication, and this left ƒ as a perfect suffix, after which it became possible to form similarly e.g. Osc. aíkda-fed (3. sing.).

18 So e.g. necessarily Sommer.

19 The analogical transfer of the ē is explained on the basis of the Latin, and may very well not have taken place till late in the development of the Latin language,

from ferveo, was referred instead to fervo, and caused by analogy ūrēbam: ūro 'burn'. At other times formations externally identical in second and third conjugation verbs caused the transfer of -ebam to the latter by proportional analogy. Thus the participles in -ēns -entis, e.g. monēns monentis: moneo and legēns legentis : lego, were common to both conjugations,20 while in some verbs the formation of the perfect afforded a foothold. Thus vidi: vide-bam (video) =ēmi :emē-bam (: emo). Then in turn after the type eme-bam : emo also capie-bam : capio and audiēbam: audio.

Whether Osc. fu-fa-ns, which thus represents the pattern for all Italic -fa- imperfects, was a solitary formation,21 or whether the category had become productive in Italic times, there is no way of deciding. Since Oscan and Umbrian show no other imperfect of any kind, it may be that -fā- was the general imperfect suffix of the Italic period, but as long as no other Oscan or Umbrian imperfect is forthcoming, there is no certainty. It is equally probable that Osc. fu-fans, which represents the pattern for the Latin imperfects, was still a pluperfect in Oscan, and that Oscan and Umbrian either had developed other types of imperfects of which no example is extant, or retained the IE imperfect. At any rate there was not the same motive for discarding the old imperfect as in Latin. In the latter language the formation corresponding to Gr. e-pep-o-v could not possibly have survived because all means of differentiation from the present had disappeared. Not only the augment, but the difference between primary and secondary endings22 had been obliterated from Latin, so that the forms of the present and of the old imperfect became identical. Here the imperfect in -ba-m therefore fulfilled a real want, and became the only form because it was the only clear form.23 On the other hand in Oscan and Umbrian,

even if the type amā-ba-m was pre-Italic. On the other hand, if the type legebam was also developed in the Italic period, we have only to think of the Latin forms as symbolical of the Italic-the nature of the analogy remains the same.

20 This analogy presupposes shortening of vowels before nt, but since this was already Italic (Brugmann 1.2800), this does not by any means involve us in chronological difficulties.

21 Here, as elsewhere, it would seem unnecessary to remark that the third plural, which is so often quoted because extant, represents the whole tense system. 22 The ending -m of amā-bam and the like is an exception. However, the same ending is found in the subjunctive and the future of the third conjugation, e.g. lega-m, and was not connected with past time any longer.

23 In this connection the probability suggests itself that the extreme frequency of the historical present in Latin was due to the fact that the Latin present tense perpetuated the IE imperfect as well as present in all forms except the first singular.

primary and secondary endings were still largely differentiated,24 and the old imperfect could easily have maintained its foothold after disappearing in Latin. At any rate the solitary fu-fa-ns, as explained above, would not be a guarantee of the existence of a larger category of imperfects in -fa- either in primitive Italic or Oscan-Umbrian.

By the way of a summary we may say that the Latin imperfect in -bam is most probably patterned after an old pluperfect of *bheu-, sc. *bhebhua- Italic *fe-fā-, which became *fu-fa- through the influence of the root vowel u. This became structurally obscure and was misanalyzed, the reduplication *bhu- *fu being taken for the root. Only in this way can the stems preceding the suffix of ama-bam, monē-bam, sci-bam, and the like be explained without operating with old infinitival forms, the existence of which cannot be made plausible.25 Only by the equivalence of the pluperfect of *bheu- 'become' and the imperfect of *es- 'be' is the use of the perfective stem *bheu- in *-fām -bam as a durative imperfect formation intelligible.

24 See Buck 151 ff.

25 It might be argued that *fu-ba-nt, the assumed pattern, has no existence in Latin, but Osc. fu-fa-ns puts it upon a much firmer basis than either an infinitive *age or an independent verb *fă-m *ƒā-s etc. for the Italic period. The disappearance of *fu-ba-nt in Latin was due to the rivalry of erant, which was patterned after the synonymous pluperfect *bhe-bhua-nt much more probably than after an IE *bhua-nt (imperfect) which cannot be proved to have existed in any Italic dialect. However, cf. Sommer 578.




1. Lat. auster 'south wind; south', austrālis 'southern': aurora, etc., is a well established etymology, but not sufficiently explained. Both groups of words may be referred to a base *awes- or perhaps rather *ēwes- (with a- from a), with the primary meaning 'wave, roll, rise', descriptive of fire and water. Hence *austro- was used both of the east, orient, in reference to the rising of the sun, and of the south, or rather of the south wind, as the rain-bearer, storm-bringer, thawer. For Lat. auster is described as fulmine pollens (Lucr. 5. 744), turbidus (Hor. Od. 3. 3. 4), nubilus (Prop. 2. 15, 56), humidus (Virg., G 1. 462), pluvius (Ovid, M 1. 66), and also as frigidus, hibernus, validus, vehemens. We may therefore compare Skt. oşám 'geschwind; sogleich', Swed. yster 'sehr lebhaft, unbändig', OHG ustar 'gierig', ustri 'Fleiss'; Norw. yr 'ausgelassen', Swiss ūr, ūrig 'stürmisch (von Wetter), wild, zornig', Bav. eurisch 'mürrisch' (or these with IE r); Norw. ÿsja 'swarm out, of small animals', usla 'stöbern' (of dust or rain), usle 'coaldust', ON usli 'glowing ashes', ysja 'fire', Lat. ūro, Skt. uşmā ‘Hitze, Glut, Dampf', etc.; vāsa-ḥ 'Wolgeruch', Swed. ōs 'Dunst, Geruch,' OE wōs 'moisture, juice', MLG wōs 'Absud, Brühe, Most', wasem 'Wasserdampf, Dunst', OHG wasulun 'pluviis', Norw. vaslast 'nass werden, fliessen'.

2. Gr. Eupos 'east-southeast wind' is most simply explained as *euroor *euro- from the base *ewer-, synonymous with the base discussed above. Compare OE ear (*aura-) 'sea', ON aurigr 'wet', Norw. aura, yrja 'wimmeln', yrja 'Gewimmel; Wind mit Straubregen', yra 'rieseln; wimmeln', Swed. ÿra 'stöbern, wirbeln, fliegen, spritzen,' ON ğıα 'Streuen, spritzen rieseln', ur 'Sprühregen, feuchter Nebel', MIr. feraim 'pour', OBulg. virěti 'quellen, sprudeln, wallen, sieden, kochen', Lith. virti 'sprudeln, kochen', varvéti 'in dichten Tropfen fallen, triefen, rinnen', Skt. var 'water', Av. var 'rain', etc., to which may be added Lat. ver 'the spring', just as other words for spring belong to No. 1. 3. Gr. vóros 'the south wind; the south or southwest quarter',

VÓTLOS 'wet, damp, moist, rainy; southern', voтepós 'wet, damp', from *snot- 'flowing, wet': Lat. nāre, etc. Cf. Boisacq 673 with lit.

4. OE sūp, OS suth 'south', OHG sund 'south wind', Germ. *sun þa-, probably from pre-Germ. *snto- 'dripping, wet, thawing', related to the above (IF 4. 103). Here, rather than to swim, may belong OE sund 'water, sea, sound', ON sund 'swimming; strait, sound', syndr 'capable of swimming', synda 'swim', MLG sunt 'strait, sound', to which may belong Lat. sentīna 'bilge-water', Skt. satīnám 'water'.

5. Lett. jedels 'Südwind': no-jedināt ‘abquälen, turbieren', jōds ‘ein böser Geist, Waldteufel', Lith. júods (turbid) 'schwarz', Skt. yādaḥ ‘ein im Wasser lebendes Ungeheuer, water-demon', base *jed- 'excite, stir up,' perhaps also in Skt. indra-ḥ 'Indra', indriyám 'Kraft, Vermögen, Sinn', and also OBulg. jędro 'Taxi', Russ.-ChSl. jadrů 'Taxis', Russ. u-jadrět' 'stark werden, sich kräftigen; schäumen, brausen, perlen (von Getränken)', Serb.-Croat. jédar 'voll, kräftig, frisch, stark', Russ.-ChSl. jadro 'nucleus, testiculus', LRuss. jadró 'Kern, Korn; Mark', jádernyj, 'kernig, dicht; frisch,' etc. (cf. Berneker I 455f.). Since *jed- 'excite, stir up, mix' is ultimately identical with *jed- 'join', compare also Lith. jednóti 'vereinigen, verbinden, versöhnen', Skt. ya'damānaḥ 'verbunden mit', etc. Cf. author, Post-Cons. w in IE, LANGUAGE MONOGRAPHS 3. 18 (in press).

A synonymous base *jebh- occurs in Czech jebati 'bewegen, rühren; schimpfen; futuere', jebati se 'sich fortpacken', Pol. jebac' 'schlagen; schimpfen; futuere', Skt. yábhati 'futuit', Gr. pupos (*jebhuro'stormy, turbidus') 'a westerly wind', represented as stormy, rainy, Jópos 'darkness, gloom'; and *jeg- or *jegh- in Russ. dial. jáglyj 'heftig; eifrig; geschwind', jágliť' 'brennen vor Begierde',-—s'a 'sich rühren, sich bewegen, vorwärts gehen', Skt. yákşati 'eilt vorwärts, verfolgt', yakşám 'übernatürliches Wesen, geisterhafte Erscheinung', Gr. ixavav ἐπιθυμεῖν, ἴχαρ 'vehement desire.

6. OBulg. jugu (*jougo-), LRuss. juh 'Süden, Südwind', juhá 'warmer Wind', júhovy 'südlich; brennend, warm', Slov. jug, gen. júga "Tauwind; Süden', jugovina "Tauwetter', od-júžiti se 'auftauen', júžina 'Mittagessen; Jause, Vesper', etc. (cf. Berneker I 457): OE gēocer (*jeugro'hot, bitter') 'full of hardship, sad', NHG Swiss giecht 'Entzündung, eiternder Zustand einer Wunde; Erbitterung, Hass, Zorn', Goth. jiukos 'Ovuoi, Zornausbrüche; épileiaι, Streitereien', jiukan 'kämpfen', MHG jucken 'prurire', base *jeu- in yuváti, yaʼuti 'vermengt', Lith. jauti 'heisses Wasser darüber schütten,' Lett. jáut 'Teig machen, einrühren', Lat.

« ZurückWeiter »