Abbildungen der Seite





I. Introductory

The difference between the present indicative active personal endings in the athematic and thematic conjugations is self-evident, as in Greek δίδωμι, δίδωσι (Doric) in contrast with λύω, λύει. It is also recognised that the Old Irish verb shows the same phenomenon in its 'absolute' and 'conjunct' forms (without and with preverbs respectively), as berim <*bheremi and -biur <*bherō.2 Old Lithuanian presents a similar distinction:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]



Sporadic instances are found elsewhere in the first person singular and plural:

1 For general summaries, with citations of preceding literature and bibliographies, see especially K. Brugmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen? 2. 3. 583-642, Strasbourg, 1916; A. Meillet, Introduction à l'étude comparative des langues indo-européennes 190-5, Paris, 1922. 2 See especially Meillet, 'Sur l'origine de la distinction des flexions conjointe et absolue dans le verbe irlandais', in Revue celtique 28 (1907). 369-73, and MSLP 14 (1908). 412-15, 18 (1914). 234; H. Pedersen, Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen 2. 331-44, Göttingen, 1913; R. Thurneysen, Handbuch des All-Irischen 326-7, 337-41, Heidelberg, 1909.

For the material see A. Bezzenberger, Beiträge zur Geschichte der litauischen Sprache 198–201; Göttingen, 1877; F. Kurschat, Grammatik der littauischen Sprache 304-6, Halle, 1876; A. Leskien, Litauisches Lesebuch 195-7, Heidelberg, 1919.

[blocks in formation]

With regard to this person it here seems sufficient to note that Kuchean shows *-ō (weskau ‘I say'), the -u apparently being an enclitic particle added to the personal form. Old Church Slavic has -a, (veza, 'I lead'), perhaps best explained as from *-ō-m (-m being a secondary termination), but forms in -mi also appear, as Old Church Slavic jami 'I eat' (cf. Old Slovenian mogo 'I can': New Slovenian pečem 'I bake'; Russian jěmu 'I eat': Old Russian jěmě: Czech rozumím 'I understand': mohu 'I can').

With Old Church Slavic -a, etc. one may perhaps compare Apabhra sa Prakrit -aün (e.g. vaṭṭaü, 'vartāmi', 'I exist': ordinary Prakrit vaṭṭāmi) and possibly Gāthā Pāli -a, (gaccha, 'I go'), these forms being represented in Modern Indian by Hindi -ūn, Panjābī -ān, Marathi -en, etc. Gaulish seems to have had -ō, as in ewpov, ieuru 'I give'

'C. Bartholomae, in Grundriss der iranischen Philologie 1. 58, Strassburg, 1901; -i is found beside -mi thirteen times in the Vedic subjunctive (A. Macdonell, Vedic Grammar 314, note 2, Strassburg, 1910). The reverse is seen in Balūči an (astan 'I am') Sanskrit subjunctive -āni (W. Geiger, in Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, 1. 2. 243).


'Meillet, in Indogermanisches Jahrbuch 1 (1913). 8, 13; S. Lévi and Meillet, in MSLP 18. 10.

• Brugmann 540; cf. W. Vondrák, Vergleichende slavische Grammatik, 2. 132–4, Göttingen, 1908; Leskien, Grammatik der altbulgarischen (altkirchenslavischen) Sprache 190, Heidelberg, 1919; Meillet, Le Slave commun 262–3, Paris, 1924.

7R. Pischel, Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen 322, cf. 239, Strasbourg, 1900; Geiger, Pāli 107, do. 1916; J. Beames, Comparative Grammar of the Modern Languages of India 3. 102, 105, London, 1879; A. F. R. Hoernle, Comparative Grammar of the Gaudian Languages 333, 334-5, do. 1880; J. Bloch, Formation de la langue marathe 233, Paris, 1920; G. A. Grierson, The Pisaca Languages of North-Western India 57, 58, London, 1906.

(?). Balūči -ā, (e.g. rasā, 'I may arrive') is probably subjunctive in origin (cf. Sanskrit bhárāņi). The final -n' in Albanian verbs like martón' 'I marry' is to be derived from *-aniō.10 Beside the usual termination -mi (jami 'I make') 'Hittite' has forms in -hhi- (daḥhi 'I give', tehhi 'I say' [but tezzi 'he says'], etc.), which F. Hrozný" explains as formed from bases in -h (mostly denominatives), with the original -ō changed to -i by analogy with all the other persons of the present, while C. Marstrander12 considers the -h- as an enclitic particle or enclitic pronoun qualifying the first person (cf. Latin e-g-ō, mi-h-i, etc.) with -ō changed to -i by analogy with the remaining persons (daḥḥi < *daja-ba-ō or "daja-ha-ō).

III. Second Person Singular

The problem of the original type of the thematic ending for this person is far from easy.13 The forms which actually occur are as follows: Ossetic is (West Ossetic fävís 'doest'), Tāliš -i(š) (bīš 'art': bu-ka'i 'makest'), Wai-Ala -š (viaš 'strikest'),14 Greek pépes, Old Irish -bir, Middle Welsh ceryd 'lovest', Lithuanian suki 'turnest', Lettish metti 'throwest', Old Prussian giwassi 'livest', druwese 'believest', seggései 'doest', Old Church Slavic bereši 'bearest',15 and possibly Albanian del' 'comest forth' (first singular dal').16

As regards the type of Greek pépes, Brugmann' held that it is to be explained either as (a) *bheresi > *❤epehi > *pepei, to which -s was added on the analogy of rions, didws, etc.; or (b) that *pepel gave rise to pé pels through contamination with *pepes (cf. Sanskrit d-bharas and such Sanskrit injunctives as dáhas, váras, etc.); or (c)

G. Dottin, La Langue gauloise 37-8, 122, 263, Paris, 1920. 'Geiger, in Grundriss 1. 2. 243.

10 Pedersen, in Vollmöller's Kritischer Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der romanischen Philologie 9 (1905). 1. 210–11.

11 Die Sprache der Hethiter 101, Leipzig, 1917.

11 Caractère indo-européen de la langue hittite 91-2, Christiania, 1919.

13 See especially Brugmann, 'Zur Bildung der 2. Person Singul. Akt. in den indogermanischen, insbesondere den baltischen Sprachen', in IF 17 (1905). 177–86. 14 V. Miller, Sprache der Osseten 70, Strasbourg, 1903; Geiger, in Grundriss 1. 2. 365; Linguistic Survey of India 8. 2. 51, Calcutta, 1919.

15 The -s in Armenian (e.g. beres 'bearest') is apparently on the analogy of es 'art' < *es-si (Meillet, Esquisse d'une grammaire comparée de l'arménien classique 88, Vienna, 1903).

16 Cf. Brugmann, Grundriss 1. 365, 1020, 2.3. 605-6.

17 Griechische Grammatik 397-9, Munich, 1913, with bibliography.

that it was based on a pre-Indo-European second singular imperative in *-ei, appearing in Old Lithuanian ved-i 'see!'.18 Hirt and MeilletVendryes,19 on the other hand, compare the termination of *pep-el with the -i of the second singular present in Lithuanian suki, reflexive sukie-s 'turnest thyself' (cf. Lettish metti, reflexive mettie-s 'throwest thyself'),20 etc. The Baltic type of Lithuanian suki, Lettish metti goes back to a proto-form in *-ei, not *-eis, for final -s is preserved in this group; and the absence of -s in this person in Modern Greek dialects in Italy, as pezzi, ‘raiçes', yelái 'yeλáes', is a modern loss, not an ancient survival.21 Albanian del' is ambiguous, since it may be derived equally well from *dales, *daleis, or *dalei; and Latin agis 'doest' may represent either *-si or *-s. If the Hesychian gloss és πÓÐ' Ěρπes' πόθεν ἥκεις. Πάφιοι and the Theocritan συρίσδες ‘pipest', ἀμέλγες 'milkest' (1. 3; 4. 3) are correctly transmitted, they are probably to be explained as being in reality augmentless secondary forms (injunctives) used as presents.22 The Kuchean ending - (e.g. nesed 'art') is obscure. 'Hittite' shows -ti beside the normal -ši (jaši 'makest'), as in arnutti 'bringest' beside arnuši, epti 'takest' beside epši, daitti 'givest', harnikti 'takest' (but harnikzi ‘takes'), etc. Hrozný23 thinks that this is to the second plural -teni as the first singular -mi is to the first plural -yeni, -meni; Marstrander24 considers it an original imperative (cf. Sanskrit sṛṇudhi 'hear! Greek 0 'come!'); Friedrich derives it from the second singular imperfect in -ta (e.g. jatta 'madest'), with a changed to -i by analogy with the other persons of the present.

[ocr errors]

The pre-Indo-European form of the thematic second person singular present indicative active would appear to have had two forms: *-eis

10 Cf. Bezzenberger 222.

19 H. Hirt, Handbuch der griechischen Laut- und Formenlehre2 486-7, Heidelberg, 1912; A. Meillet and J. Vendryes, Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques 301, Paris, 1924.

20 On the disputed origin of this Lithuanian form see Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 609-10.

21 A. Thumb, Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacular 22–3, 152, Edinburgh, 1912.

22 G. Meyer, Griechische Grammatik3 538, Leipzig, 1896; Brugmann, Grammatik 398; Hirt 487; R. Meister, Griechische Dialekte 2. 278, Göttingen, 1882–9; O. Hoffmann, Griechische Dialekte 1. 259, do. 1891-8; F. Bechtel, Griechische Dialekte 1. 430, Berlin, 1921-4; A. Thumb, Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte 295, Heidelberg, 1909; Meillet-Vendryes 301.

23 Sprache 160-1.

24 Caractère 143.

26 ZDMG 76 (1922). 167.

and *-ei. To the former group (*bhereis) belong the types of Ossetic fävís, Tāliš bīš, Wai-Ala viaš, and Greek pépeis (it may be suggested in passing that the -s of Tions, didws, deiκvis instead of *Tinhi > *Top, etc., may be due to analogy with the thematic inflection rather than to the borrowing of a secondary ending from the imperfect, as is usually supposed [λύεις : λυες :: τίθης : ἐτίθης]).26 To the latter group (*bherei) one may assign Old Irish -bir, Middle Welch ceryd, Cornish keryth, Middle Breton querez 'lovest' (<*-i-jei),27 Lithuanian suki, Lettish metti, and, very possibly, Old Church Slavic bereši, Old Prussian druwese, seggēsei, giwassi, the Slavic and Prussian forms being explicable as contaminations of a thematic inflection with an athematic, and so constituting, in reality, a 'double second', representing a *bheresei blended of *bherei(s) and *bheresi, the normal type occurring in such forms as Old Russian velist 'commandest', Serbo-Croatian daši 'givest'.28

IV. Third Person Singular

The thematic termination of this person is closely connected with that of the second singular. The crucial type is represented by Greek pépeɩ. Brugmann, Hirt, and Meillet-Vendryes29 hold that this is based on *PEPELT, formed by analogy with pépes and replacing an original *peper (cf. Sanskrit á-bharat and such Sanskrit injunctives as bhárat). Nevertheless, it may be suggested that the pre-form was *bhereit, preserved not only in épet, but perhaps also in the Old Irish conjunct -beir. This latter is usually explained as from *beret < *bheret, and the presence of e would indeed appear to militate against derivation from *b(h)ereit, which would normally give *bir, as is actually found in the second person. Such a form, however, would make the second and third persons identical, and though this is by no means a grave

26 e.g. Meillet-Vendryes 301.

27 Pedersen 2. 342-3.

* Cf. Meillet, in MSLP locc. citt.; Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 609; Leskien, Altbulgarische. Sprache 190-1; Vondrák 2. 134-5; Meillet, Slave 268-70. The Latin forms cupis, facīs (Plautus, Curculio 264, Amphitryo 555) do not belong here (see W. Lindsay, Latin Language 475, Oxford, 1894; F. Sommer, Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre2 504-6, 511, Heidelberg, 1914; MeilletVendryes 267-8.

29 Grundriss 2. 3. 582; Griechische Grammatik 397-8; Handbuch 486–7; Grammaire comparée 303, 325 (cf. Meillet, Introduction 192). Regarding the Latin type pōnīt, sinīt, which does not belong here, see the preceding note.

30 Thurneysen 54, 339; Meillet, Introduction 192; Pedersen 2. 343; Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 611, 614.

« ZurückWeiter »