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

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 Sprachen2 2. 3. 583-642, Strasbourg, 1916; A. Meillet, Introduction à l'étude comparative des langues indo-européennes1 190–5, Paris, 1922.

* 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 Alt-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.

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 jěmů 'I eat': Old Russian jěmi: Czech rozumím 'I understand': mohu 'I can').

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

'C. Bartholomae, in Grundriss der iranischen Philologie 1. 58, Strassburg, 1901; - 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.

6 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.