II. Elizabethan Proverb Lore in Lyly's Euphues and in Pettie's Petite Pallace. Pp. x + 461. By MORRIS PALMER TILLEY. New York: Macmillan, 1926.

Washington University Studies. Vol. XIII, Humanistic Series, No. 2, pp. 267-444. Edited by RICHARD JENTE. St. Louis: Washington University, 1926.

Zeitschrift für Indologie und Iranistik. Edited for the DEUTSCHE MORGENLÄNDISCHE GESELLSCHAFT by WILH. GEIGER. Vol. IV, No. 2, pp. 173-348. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1926.

THE INFLECTION OF THE PRESENT INDICATIVE ACTIVE

IN INDO-EUROPEAN

LOUIS H. GRAY

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

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:3

ago 'do'

Athematic

Thematic Sg. Gadā Avesta avāmi 'strive'

&pasyā 'see!
Albanian kam 'have'

pud 'kiss'
Latin sum 'am'
Old High German tom 'do'

biru 'bear
Old Church Slavic jami 'eat'

veda, 'lead' Pl. Vedic bhárāmasi 'bear

bhárāmas Albanian kemi 'have'

púo (e)me, púðime 'kiss' Old High German beramēs 'bear' (?) birum In Armenian the thematic conjugation has vanished.

II. First Person Singular

With regard to this person it here seems sufficient to note that Kuchean shows *-7 (weskau 'I say'), the -u apparently being an enclitic particle added to the personal form. Old Church Slavic has an (vezan 'I lead'), perhaps best explained as from *-7-m (-m being a secondary termination), but forms in -mi also appear, as Old Church Slavic jam! 'I eat' (cf. Old Slovenian mogo 'I can': New Slovenian pečem 'I bake'; Russian jěmŭ 'I eat': Old Russian jěmt: Czech rozumim 'I understand': mohu 'I can').6

With Old Church Slavic -Am etc. one may perhaps compare Apabhra, sa Prākrit -aün (e.g. vattaün 'vartāmi', 'I exist': ordinary Prākrit vattāmi) and possibly Gāthā Pāli -an (gacchan 'I go'), these forms being represented in Modern Indian by Hindi -ūn, Panjābi -an, Marāthi -ēn, etc.? Gaulish seems to have had -ō, as in elw pou, ieuru 'I give'

*C. Bartholomae, in Grundriss der iranischen Philologie 1. 58, Strassburg, 1901; -ă 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 tin (astān '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.

?R. Pischel, Grammatik der Prākrit-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 Piśāca Languages of North-Western India 57, 58, London, 1906.