Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Old Russian budeti 'becomes' beside bude10) calls for no special remark in the present connexion.

V. The Dual

The dual number in the verb has survived only in Sanskrit, Avesta, Greek, Teutonic (Gothic, Runic Norse, and possibly in the stereotyped Old Saxon wīta 'let us'41), Lithuanian, and Old Church Slavic. The scanty material available may be tabulated as follows, the two forms in brackets being restored analogically:

[blocks in formation]

These terminations are apportioned thus:

Primary athematic: 1-Gāṇā Avesta usvahî 'we two wish';

[ocr errors]

thematic: 1 a-Sanskrit bhárāvas, Gothic baírōs; 1 b-Lithuanian sukava (reflexive sukavo-s[i]), Old Church Slavic berevě,43

2 a-Sanskrit bhárathas, Gothic baírats; 2 b— Lithuanian sukata (reflexive sukato-s[i]), Old Church Slavic bereta;

3 a-Sanskrit bháratas, Avesta barato; 3 bOld Church Slavic bereta, berete.44

Secondary: 2-Greek pépeтov <*еpeтoμ (cf. Sanskrit ábharatam). (In the present pépeтov has also assumed the functions of the third person, though the original distinction is maintained in the imperfect, so that ἐφέρετον : ἐφερέτην [cf. Boeotian ἀνεθέταν] : : Sanskrit ábharatam: ábharatām.)

40 Cf. also O. Wiedemann, Beiträge zur altbulgarischen Conjugation 11-23, Petrograd, 1886; for Slavic -tu beside -ti see Meillet, 'La Désinance -tu du vieux slave', in MSLP 18. 232-8, and Slave 270-2.

41 Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 638.

42 Originally there may also have been forms in *-ue, *-uō if we may draw an inference from the corresponding plurals *-mē, *-me, *-mō,^ *-mo.

43 The final -ě is probably influenced by the pronoun ve 'we two' (Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 639).

"See Wiedemann 25.

It would also appear that, unlike the first and third persons, the second person dual and plural have had a strong reciprocal influence, though from or to what point is wholly obscure. This inter-relation becomes clear from the following table:

[blocks in formation]

The first person plural seems, for the most part, to be derived from forms so similar to those of the first person dual-except that the plural is characterised by m as the dual is by u-that we may again resort to tabulation:

[blocks in formation]

(a) mési: Sanskrit smási, Old Irish ammi < *esmési, Kuchean ymäsä 'we go';

(b) '-mosi: Sanskrit bhárāmasi, Avesta barāmahi, Albanian kemi, Old Irish bermi < *bherómosi;

(c) -mé(s): (i) Sanskrit imás, Doric pépoμes, Old High German beramēs (?); (ii) Czech neseme;

45

(d) '-mo(s): (i) Sanskrit bhárāmas, Turfanian Kalkāmas 'we go'; (ii) Latin ferimus, Albanian pú0(e)me, púbime, Gaulish priavimo (?),4 Old Irish -beram, Gothic bindam, Serbian pletemo.

There are also some forms which do not fit in this scheme.

(1) Apabhra, sa Prakrit vaṭṭahun (ordinary Prakrit vaṭṭāmo, -mu, Sanskrit vartāmas), for which Pischel46 could offer no explanation, probably receives its -un by analogy with the first person singular, while the h may be by another analogy with the second person plural, where h legitimately corresponds to Sanskrit th. The Pali ending -ma (labhāma 'we seize') is taken from the imperfect;47 the Afyān -ū is of uncertain

45 Dottin 122.

46 Grammatik 257, 323; cf. also Hoernle 335-6; Beames 3. 105-6. Sindhi has its plural in -un, Marathi in -un or -on, and Uriyā in -un; Hindi shows -ēn (<*-ahin?), Panjabi has -ye, Gujarātī -(i)ye, and Bengālī -i.

47 Geiger, Pali 107.

origin;48 and the Balūči -ūn (-in) is probably influenced by the -n of the first singular, as is also West Ossetic -än (first singular, -un) as contrasted with East Ossetic -äm (first singular, -in).

(2) Greek pépoμev has a curious parallel in 'Hittite' -wen(i), -meni (e.g. jaweni 'we make', waḥnummēni 'we surround').49 Before 'Hittite' had been deciphered, Brugmann50 advanced the suggestion that Greek -μev was formed on the analogy of a vanished first dual *-fev (so that the Indo-European imperfect dual should be reconstructed as *-ye, -yo, -yen [-yon (?)]; -tom; -tām); but however this may be, in the 'Hittite' forms we have an alternation between m and w not uncommon in that language.51

(3) Old High German tuomēs 'we do', berames 'we carry', etc., used both as indicatives and as adhortatives, can scarcely be derived from an Indo-European termination *-mēsi, of which we find no evidence elsewhere. All the explanations hitherto advanced52 are quite doubtful, perhaps the most plausible being that -mēs receives its ē by analogy with the subjunctive (e.g. berēs, berēt, berēn), especially in view of its frequent use as an adhortative, a possible parallel being found in the Baluči first person singular in -an. On this hypothesis berames would be for a pre-Teutonic *berames, Indo-European *bheromes. One also finds a few instances of the ending -ēm (e.g. bittēm 'we ask'), which later regularly becomes -ēn (e.g. nëmën 'we take'), this being the subjunctive used as an indicative.53

(4) Old Church Slavic nesemů 'we bear' (beside forms in -mi, -my, and once -mo),54 though usually regarded as very obscure in formation, is probably best explained 55 as for *-mos (cf. Old Church Slavic vlňků,

48 Geiger, in Grundriss 1. 2. 220.

49 Hrozný 155; cf. Marstrander 91.

50 Grundriss 2. 3. 618; cf. also Hirt 488; Meillet, Introduction 141-2, 193; Meillet-Vendryes 309.

51 Marstrander 151-2.

52 Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 621; W. Braune, Althochdeutsche Grammatik 253-4, Halle, 1911; W. Streitberg, Urgermanische Grammatik 321, Heidelberg, 1896; F. Hartmann, in F. Dieter, Laut- und Formenlehre der altgermanischen Dialekte 505-6, Leipzig, 1900; O. Behagel, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache3 266–7, Strasbourg, 1911; F. Kluge, Urgermanisch3 186, do. 1913; R. Kögel, in Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 8 (1882). 126-34. The rare forms in -mas represent an internal dialectic change, those in -mus (found five times) are probably miswritings, and those in -men apparently arise from a wrong interpretation of the final m- in Old High German manuscripts (Kögel 130-1). 53 Braune 254.

54 Wiedemann 7-8.

55 Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 622; Vondrák 1. 138, 2. 138; Meillet, Slave 265–8.

Lithuanian vilkas 'wolf': *ulgos, dative plural Old Church Slavic vlukomu: Lithuanian vilkamus, vilkáms).56

VII. Second Person Plural

The thematic form of this termination usually appears as *-t(h)e, e.g. Sanskrit bháratha, Gātā Avesta išaoā 'ye seek', Armenian berēk' < *berete-?,57 Greek pépere, Latin (imperative) agite, Old Irish -berid, Gothic bindip, Old High German bintet,58 Lithuanian vēžate, Old Church Slavic berete. Here belongs also Albanian delne 'ye go forth' for *dalnet(h)e, the n being taken over from presents in -n.59

On the other hand, *-t(h)es seems to be the source of the ordinary Latin form, as in agitis, this explanation apparently being more plausible than an interpretation from *agite with -s added on the analogy of agimus, or as being to agis what agite is to age, or as an old dual.60

One may suggest, furthermore, that an athematic *-t(h)esi underlies the Old Irish absolute berthe <*bertsi < *bheret (h) esi, this being lenited as one would have expected to be the case in the first persons singular and plural berim(m), bermi (*bheremi > *berimh; *bher ómosi > *berimhi), except that they were influenced by the analogy of the copula am, ammi, an influence which is lacking in the second person plural adi(b), idib.61

"Whether the Old West German dative Vatvims, Runic Norse borumR* 'to the sons' really belongs here, or whether we have an instrumental used as a dative, is uncertain (Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 2. 257-8, 262; Streitberg 232; R. Bethge, in Dieter 546-7; Kluge 197; A. Jóhannesson, Grammatik d. urnordischen Runeninschriften 49, 52, Heidelberg, 1923).

57 Cf. Meillet, Esquisse 89. For an interesting explanation of -k' as a plural ending both in nouns and in verbs (< *-tva-, i.e. a neuter abstract used as a plural for nouns and then transferred analogically to verbs) see A. Zanolli, 'Qualche osservazioni sulla formazione del plurale nell' antico armeno', in Husch ardzan 275-8, Vienna, 1912.

53 On the Old High German forms, including the difficult Monsee type of zimbrit 'ye build' (perhaps by analogy with the second and third persons singular), see Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 625-6; Bethge, in Dieter 382-3; Braune 255; Kögel 135-9.

"G. Meyer, Kurzgefasste albanesische Grammatik 32, Leipzig, 1888.

60 Cf. Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 625; Sommer 489-90; Lindsay 529; F. Stolz and J. Schmalz, Lateinische Grammatik 305, Munich, 1926; R. von Planta, Grammatik der oskisch-umbrischen Dialekte 2. 283, Strasbourg, 1897; J. Wackernagel, in IF 31 (1913). 260, note. Meillet-Vendryes 310, 326 also hold that Latin -tis is for *-tes, which may have been Indo-European.

61 Thurneysen 340 offers no explanation for this form; Pedersen 2. 344, because of the Brythonic forms (Middle Welsh carewch, Cornish careugh 'ye love'), derives

*The b of this word should be a crossed letter.

The 'Hittite' ending -teni (e.g. jatteni 'ye go') seems to be a secondary termination corresponding to that found in Vedic vádathana 'ye speak' etc., and parallel with the secondary -ueni, -meni of the first person plural.62 In Kuchean triçcer 'ye will sin' the -r is apparently an affixed particle.63 Some of the Modern Iranian and Indian forms are quite obscure, as Afyān -ai, Kuhrūdī -ige, -ike, and Bhašgali -r (with nasalisation of the preceding vowel); Ossetic has -etä in the western dialect and -ut in the eastern.64

VIII. Third Person Plural

The original endings of this person are universally regarded as *-nti for primary and *-nt for secondary tenses. The overwhelming majority of forms actually found seem to support this view: Sanskrit bháranti, Avesta -barenti, Kuchean weske, 'they say', Turfanian şeñcä 'they are', 'Hittite' janzi 'they make', West Ossetic fä(v)úncä, East Ossetic fäúnc 'they are', Armenian beren, Doric pépovT (Delphic ἀνατίθεντι, Phocian ἀφίεντι, Elean μετέχοντι, Locrian φυλάσσοντι, Boeotian xaλéove with 0 on the analogy of the middle endings -μea and -σ0€), Latin ferunt, Old Latin tremonti 'they tremble' (?),66 Umbrian furfant 'they purify' (?), Gaulish cartaont 'they cleanse' (?),67 Old Irish berit, Gothic bindand, Old High German bintant < *bindandi, Old Saxon, Anglo-Saxon bindad < *bindán þi, Old Russian beratǎ68 for the present, and Sanskrit ábharan, Avesta baran, Armenian berin, Greek čepov, Latin fere-b-ant, Old Irish -berat, Old Church Slavic pleta, 'they wove' for the imperfect. Here, too, Attic pépovσi (Les

it from *berete ues, *ues being the personal pronoun of the second plural. The first person singular is, however, lenited in other Celtic dialects (Middle Welsh, Cornish caraf, Middle Breton caraff 'I love'; but note Old Breton rannam, 'partior').

62 Hrozný 152, 155; Marstrander 91.

63 Lévi and Meillet, in MSLP 18. 10.

64 Geiger, in Grundriss 1. 2. 220, 396; Linguistic Survey of India 8. 2. 37; Miller 69-70. For the Lithuanian and Lettish reflexive and the Old Prussian forms, of minor interest in the present connexion, see Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 626; Trautmann 274.

65 Brugmann, Grammatik 400–4; Hirt 488-90; G. Meyer, Griechische Grammatik 343-5; Meillet-Vendryes 304-6.

"This form is, however, not beyond suspicion (see especially Lindsay 530). $7 Dottin 122, 243.

68 On -tŭ beside -tt in Slavic see Vondrák 2. 140-1; Leskien Altbulgarische Sprache 191; Wiedemann 23–5; Meillet, in MSLP 18. 232–8, and Slave 272-4.

« ZurückWeiter »