Polymorphic Thematic Root Presents in Vedic and the
Origin of the Thematic Conjugation1
Eystein Dahl
In the Vedic language most verbal roots seem to be able to form several
present stems. This phenomenon is mostly regarded as an archaism, reflecting
a stage where derivationally expressed aktionsarten rather than a binary
aspectual opposition of the kind found e.g. in historically attested Greek were
central.2 In the present paper we will discuss a particular constellation of
present stems, namely class I (bhávati) beside class VI (tudáti) presents. We will
argue that this constellation for various reasons may be regarded as ancient.
It is commonly assumed that at some stage prior to the grammaticalisation
of the binary aspectual opposition the PIE verbal system possessed several
suffixes that were, practically speaking, freely combinable with the verbal
roots. The root together with a suffix constituted the stem to which the
personal endings were attached. The most primitive stem formation seems to
have been the simple root. PIE seems to have known two main types of such
stem formations often referred to as amphidynamic and acrodynamic. The
amphidynamic type is characterised by paradigmatic ablaut accompanied by
change of place of accentuation, e.g. 3.sg.act. *gwhén-ti “he slays” vs. 3.pl.act.
*gwhn-énti “they slay”. It shows accentuated, e-graded root in the strong forms
and unaccentuated, zero-graded root in the weak forms of the paradigm. This
stem type is attested both with the value of a present and of an aorist,
according to the meaning of the verbal root e.g. as (durative or iterative)
present 3.sg.act. *dewk-ti “he draws” from *dewk- “to draw” or (punctual/telic)
aorist 3.sg.act. *déh3-t “ he gave” from *deh3- “to give”.
The acrodynamic type also shows paradigmatic ablaut, but the accent
remains on the root syllable, which shows lenghtened ē-grade in the strong
forms of the paradigm, and full e-grade in the weak forms, cf. 3.sg.act. *stḗw-ti
“he praises” vs. 3.pl.act. stéw-n̥ti “they praise”. The acrodynamic stem type is
1 I thank Professor Kjartan Ottosson, Trygve Skomedal and Finn Thiesen for reading
through previous versions of this paper and giving valuable critique. I am further grateful
to Professor em. Fredrik Otto Lindeman for critical discussions on problems concerning the
thematic conjugation in PIE. I also thank my father Professor em. Ottar Dahl for stylistic and
grammatical advice.
2 For a detailed exposition of this view cf. Hoffmann (1976:523-540) and Rix (1986). Vekerdi
(1961) regards the polymorphy in the Vedic verbal system as an innovation.
58
Eystein Dahl
only attested as a present stem. It will be left out of the following discussion.
There are two further root formations that in our view must be closely
related with the amphidynamic type, namely the two thematic root
formations, the barytone type *wég̑he- ‘bear, carry’ and the oxytone type *lugé‘break’. The thematic root stems differ from the amphidynamic athematic type
in two respects. In the first place they are formed by means of a suffix, the socalled thematic vowel. Secondly they neither show paradigmatic ablaut nor
accent variation.3 The barytone stem assumes accented, full-graded root
throughout the paradigm, while the oxytone stem always shows unaccented
weak-graded root. There seems to be good reasons for assuming that the two
thematic root formations are closely related, as they show the same suffix.
Functionally, however, some differences may be noted.
The barytone thematic stem may be used both as present and subjunctive
of amphidynamic athematic stems, but does not seem to occur as aorist.4 Thus
a form such as 3.sg. act. *bhéydhe-ti may be doubly interpreted, either as a
regular present indicative of a barytone thematic present stem “he trusts” or
as a subjunctive of an amphidynamic aorist “he will trust”.5 Further it may be
used as a subjunctive of an acrodynamic stem, cf. ind. 3.sg. act. *stḗw-ti “he
praises” vs. subj. 3.sg.act. *stéwe-ti “he will praise”. The oxytone type seems to
be attested in several languages with both the value of present and aorist, but
apparently not with modal value. The thematic aorist is mostly regarded as
secondary. In the following we therefore will mainly focus on the oxytone
present, cf. *lugé-ti “he breaks”.6
The barytone thematic present type *wég̑he- seems to have enjoyed an
enormous productivity in late PIE. The Lexikon der Indogermanischen Verben
(LIV) assumes this present stem for 426 PIE roots, by far the most frequent
present stem formation.7 In contrast the oxytone stem is assumed for 52
roots.8 The oxytone type *lugé- is generally assumed to have a more or less
punctual or telic value.9 This seems to be one of several features connecting it
3 At least not in the finite forms, cf. below.
4 We here take the orthodox view that the subjunctive suffix is identical with the thematic
vowel, for another opinion in these matters cf. Tichy (2002). However, this question does
not play any crucial role in our further discussion.
5 This verb showing both stem types, cf. LIV2 s.v. *bheydh-.
6 The older literature mostly seems to accept that there is one thematic aorist that may
reasonably be assumed for PIE, namely gr. ἔÛιδε = ved. ávidat = arm. egit, which would yield
PIE *é-wide-(t). Today, the forms are regarded as secondarily evolved from an athematic
aorist, cf. Meiser (1993:298-299) and LIV2 s.v. *weid- with references.
7 Cf. LIV2 pp. 14ff. esp. p. 18. 224 cases are labeled as ”sicher”.
8 LIV2 pp.18-19. Only 20 cases are labeled as “sicher”.
9 Cf. Renou (1925) and Narten (1964:249n769).
Polymorphic thematic root presents in Vedic
59
with the (amphidynamic) aorist.10 According to the tables of LIV 22 of the 50
roots showing oxytone present do not also show root aorist.11 However, some
doubts remain about how the oxytone formation is to be interpreted, both
functionally and formally.12
In his monograph on the barytone present stems in Vedic Gotō discusses its
various functions, concluding that first and foremost it was used to furnish
“aoristic” roots (i.e. roots with an inherently punctual or telic meaning) with a
durative stem.13 If a basic durative function is assumed for the barytone type,
it is thereby distinctively different from the (punctual, telic) oxytone type.
Interestingly, the barytone type would rather have an affinity to the athematic
acrodynamic type, which also seems to have had a fundamental durative
function. The two thematic root stem types seem to attest strongly opposed
usages, although they only differ in ablaut and accentuation. Thus little or no
distinct semantic value may be traced in the stem suffix *-e/o-.
Apparently the prototypic functions of the thematic stem types are not
easy to harmonize. However, we find it plausible that their directly or
indirectly attested deviating functions may be a result of secondary
lexicalisation, rather than a reflection of their primitive semantic values. It
would hardly be prudent to assume two functionally distinct homophonous
derivational morphemes for a reconstructed proto-language. In the following,
we will discuss how the two thematic root types may be related.
The thematic root formations thus share a suffix *-e/o-, the exact semantic
value of which is not clearly identifiable. However, the conditions under which
the stem combined with the thematic vowel assumes the strong or the weak
form of the root remain obscure. In Kuryłowicz’ view,14 the oxytone stem
belongs to the most archaic layer of thematic verbal stem formations. This
assumption seems to be partly based on the fact that a stem of this type
conforms perfectly well to the PIE general rule of accentuation and partly on
10 Cf. below.
11 Cf. LIV2 715ff. According to the indexes of LIV2, only three of the oxytone stems not
showing root aorist are labeled as “sicher”.
12 Lazzeroni (1978) seems to be of the opinion that the oxytone present type has evolved
secondarily out of the thematic aorist and therefore has to be regarded as recent. Although
we do not share this view, it must be conceded that in other respects his analysis
satisfactorily accounts for the variable functional values of the oxytone type. In his model,
the oxytone type in itself has no particular function, the variable meanings of this stem
type being conditioned by the lexical meaning of each individual verb on the one hand and
of the role played by the oxytone stem in the paradigm of each individual verb on the other
hand.
13 Gotō (1987:69-71).
14 Kuryłowicz (1964:116ff.).
60
Eystein Dahl
an assumption of the thematic aorist as belonging to the proto-language. As
we have seen, the second assumption does not hold. We still would maintain
that the ablaut and accentuation of the oxytone stem is a strong indication of
antiquity.
Kuryłowicz proposes that the oxytone stem type originated from some
verbal adjective in *-é/ó-, which was directly derived from the weak form of
the root. This type soon replaced the old amphidynamic type in its main
durative function, which then maintained its secondary functions, i.e. nondurative, telic. The situation here described is where an oxytone thematic
present stem occurs with an amphidynamic aorist, cf. pres. inj. 3. sg. act.
*lugé-t vs. aor. inj. 3. sg. act. *léwg-t. The strong oxytone forms may be assumed
to have been closely connected to the corresponding forms of the
amphidynamic paradigm, cf. inj. 3. sg. act. *lugé-t beside *léwg-t.15 At a point
where the syncope of *-e- in unaccentuated syllables was no longer a
synchronically functional rule, it became possible for the strong forms of the
amphidynamic paradigm to exert an analogical influence upon the oxytone
forms. The result would be that the strong forms of the oxytone paradigm
assumed the ablaut grade of the corresponding forms of the amphidynamic
paradigm, thereby paving way for the barytone stem type, i.e. *gwérHe-t <
*gwr̥Hé-t < *gw r̥H-t.
In our view, several interesting irregularities could be illuminated by
accepting this model. Firstly the deviating present forms of the verb *bher-,
ved. bhárti vs. bhárati, (beside bíbharti) could be explained as different
diachronic realisations of the same stem. The athematic form would conform
perfectly to Latin fert and further to Greek ϕέρτε, the thematic form to Latin
ferō, Greek ϕέρω, Gothic bairan, Armenian berem, Tocharian B paräṃ etc.
Secondly, the active participle of the two thematic root stems in Vedic shows a
somewhat unexpected ablaut pattern. It is namely perfectly parallel to that of
the participles of the amphidynamic stems. The pattern shown by the
barytone thematic participles, however, is not accompanied by a mobile
accentuation, in contrast to the participles of the amphidynamic stems, cf.
Vedic amphidynamic masc. nom. sg. yán (<*h1y-ént) and oxytone tuján vs
amphidynamic instr. yataã (<*h1i-n̥téh1) and oxytone tujataã. The Vedic barytone
stems show parallel forms, the accent being stable in contrast to the two other
types, cf. masc. nom. sg. cáran, instr. cáratā.
15 The complicated question whether the relation between such forms is to be regarded as
derivational or inflexional cannot be further discussed here.
Polymorphic thematic root presents in Vedic
61
As the evidence of other languages is largely indicating that the barytone
participles had full-grade suffix in all forms of the paradigm, it is worth while
asking what the pattern shown by the Vedic paradigms indeed reflects. One
possible view is that the Vedic barytone participial forms have been
analogically renewed after the general pattern shown by the athematic stems,
yán : yataã → bháran : X; X=bháratā.16 If such an analogy is accepted, it would
ascribe chronological priority to the forms found outside Vedic. On the other
hand, an explanation of the barytone participial forms found in other
languages as reflecting secondary levelling is to our mind at least as likely. In
fact, neither the Vedic nor the Indo-Iranian evidence allows for assuming any
degree of productivity for the amphidynamic type. This speaks in disfavour of
ascribing to it any ability to exert an analogical influence on the thematic
stems. In contrary the most productive present stem type seems to have been
the barytone present.
However, the pattern shown by the oxytone stems in Vedic remains to be
discussed. Unlike the barytone stem type it shows participial forms whose
accentuation conform to the pattern of the amphidynamic type, something
which on the already mentioned grounds hardly can be interpreted as due to
analogy. The accentuation of the barytone participles, however, may without
any problems be regarded as a secondary.
We therefore conclude that the patterns shown by the participles of the
thematic root stems in Vedic reflect relatively old paradigmatic features.
These features easily conform to the model already described. We also wish to
stress that the accentuation shown by the Vedic oxytone paradigm seems to
confirm that the oxytone stem type generally shows more archaic traits than
the barytone stem. These facts seem to indicate that there is a close
relationship between the thematic root types on the one hand and the
amphidynamic athematic root type on the other. However, the evidence so far
presented is not very strong and we will proceed to see whether the
polymorphy in the Vedic present system may shed any light on these matters.
In the following we will examine some of the Vedic verbal roots which
show both types of thematic root presents. As there is a general tendency to
regard this particular constellation as secondary,17 a central question will be
whether the relation between the two stems may be old. We will pay particular
attention to any signs of a lexical opposition or remnants of a paradigmatic
16 The expected outcome of the postulated strong stem would be bhárantā < *bhérenteh1.
17 Cf. LIV2 passim.
Eystein Dahl
62
distribution between the stems. There are two main types of lexical opposition
which may be recognized. Firstly one may speak of lexical opposition in the
cases where two stems are used with distinctly different meanings. Secondly
there may be cases where one of the stems is combinable with certain
prepositions while the other stem shows a different behaviour. We regard both
cases as an indication of a relatively old age for both stems, as one would
expect a high degree of isofunctionality for stems that were recently
differentiated. The second criterion, i.e. paradigmatic distribution, is here
defined as the cases where the stems conform more or less consistently to the
ablaut pattern shown by amphidynamic stems, i.e. with barytone forms in the
strong forms and oxytone forms in the weak forms of the paradigm. The
strong forms comprise the singular active of the indicative, 3.sg.act. of the
imperative and all persons active and middle of the subjunctive, the weak
forms the dual, plural and middle of the indicative.18 If it is found that a verb
showing both stems conforms to the general pattern of the amphidynamic
paradigm, we will regard this as an archaism.
karṣ- „draw, pull, plough“
This verbal root is attested with forms belonging to both stems.19 Remnants of
a paradigmatic distribution for the two stems are scarce, as only 6 out of 13
forms conform to the expected pattern.20 The two stems show the following
combinations with preverbs:
Preverbs used with the thematic root stems of karṣúd-
ní
prá
ví
sám
kárṣa-
+
-
-
+
+
kr̥̥ṣá-
-
+
+
+
-
The relation between the two present stems of this verb has been variously
interpreted. Narten writes on the two present stems that “gegenüber karṣati,
18 The participial forms will be left out of consideration, as they have been formerly
presented in this paper as evidence for the hypothesis to be tested.
19 The attested forms of the barytone stem are indicative 3.sg.act. karṣati (TSP, MSP, KSP),
2.dual.ind.act. karṣathas (RV VIII.22.6), 3.pl.med. karṣante (TS III.1.3.2P), 2.sg.imp.act. karṣa
(RV V.83.7), 3.sg.inj.act. karṣat (RV X.28.11), optative 3.sg.act. kárṣet (AVŚ XV.13.12, twice, TS,
KS, KapKS), 3.sg.med. karṣeta (MS III.8.10). The attested forms of the oxytone stem are
indicative 3.sg.act. kr̥̥ṣáti (TSP, MSP, KSP, KapKSP), 3.sg.middle kr̥̥ṣáte (AVŚ XII.2.36),
imperative 2.sg.act. kr̥̥ṣa (AVP XIX.51.14), 3.sg.act. kr̥̥ṣatu ( RV IV.57.4), 3.pl.act. kr̥̥ṣantu (RV
IV.57.8), 2.dual. act. kr̥̥ṣatam (MS II.7.12) and 2.sg.middle kr̥̥ṣasva (RV X.34.13).
20 Some of the aberrant forms (karṣante, kárṣet, kr̥̥ṣáti) occur in relatively late texts.
Polymorphic thematic root presents in Vedic
63
das sowohl ’ziehen’ wie ’pflügen’ heißt, steht das schwundstufig-themat. Präs.
kr̥̥ṣáti vom RV. an ausschließlich für ‘pflügen’”, and thereby seems to assume a
certain lexical opposition between the stems.21 Also Gotō assumes a similar
semantic difference.22 In contrast, Joachim construes two separate roots, 1. kr̥̥ṣmeaning „plough” with oxytone present stem and 2. kr̥̥ṣ- meaning „pour out“
with barytone present stem. The second root is in her view a sigmatic
extension of kr̥̥̄- „scatter“.23 This proposal is rightly dismissed by Gotō.24 Hittite
seems to have preserved an athematic present stem with generalized zerograded root in 1.sg.act. gul-aš-mi etc. “draw”.25 This root thus seems to show
traces of all three stem forms assumed by the hypothesis discussed previously
in the present paper.
gari- “to sing, welcome, praise”
This verb shows several present stems in Vedic. The prevailing stem belongs
to the ninth class, the two thematic root stems being less frequently
encountered.26 As both stems only show medial forms no trace of a
paradigmatic distribution may be found. However, both stem forms are
perfectly explainable as the Vedic reflexes of the two forms of the root with
thematic vowel, PIE *gwérHe- and *gwr̥Hé-, respectively. This root also shows an
athematic root aorist, cf. injunctive 3. sg. middle prá gūrta (RV I.173.2).
The oxytone stem is only found in combination with the preverbs ápa, úd
and aã, while the barytone stem is found either as simplex or with the preverbs
práti and sám. This distribution allows for assuming a distinct lexical oppositon
bestween the two stems. According to Gotō27 the barytone stem shows the
fundamental meaning of the verb “to sing, welcome”, while the oxytone stem
is mainly found with the meaning “agree, consent”.
The oxytone stem is regarded as secondary by several scholars, as it is
attested only by aãgurasva in the RV.28 We find that this stem on behalf of its
21 Narten (1964:96).
22 Gotō (1987:112f.).
23 Joachim, (1978:70n127).
24 Gotō (1987:112n93).
25 Cf. Oettinger (2002:202f.) and LIV2 s.v. *kwels-.
26 The barytone stem is attested by the following forms: indicative 3.sg.middle jarate (RV
I.127.10; 181.9, VI.65.4, VII.68.9, X.45.1), 1.pl.middle jarāmahe (RV II.23.6, III.41.7), 3.pl.middle
jarante (I.2.2, VIII.2.16) injunctive 3.pl.middle jaranta (RV X.31.7), imperative 3.sg.middle
jaratām (RV IV.4.8). The oxytone stem is attested by imperative 2.sg.middle āgurasva (RV
III.52.2, AVŚ V.20.4 etc.), indicative 3.sg.med āguráte (TB I.4.7.7 twice, AB II.28.6), optative
3.sg.middle āgureta (AB II.28.5), ápagureta (TS II.6.10.2), subjunctive apagurātai (TS II.6.10.2).
27 Op.cit. p. 152.
28 Cf. e.g. Joachim (1978:75-76), Gotō (1987:154n242) and LIV2 s.v. *gwerH.
64
Eystein Dahl
specialised meaning and the restrictions regarding composition may be
considered as relatively ancient. If it were secondarily formed after the other
stems attested by this verb, one would expect more flexible characteristics.
The forms of the barytone stem, however, speak against assuming an ancient
age for the opposition between the two stems. Still, the three stems attested by
this verb in our view to some extent seem to support the assumption that the
thematic root stems show a close affinity to the amphidynamic type.
tari- „cross“
Four present stems seem to be attested to this verbal root. They comprise a
reduplicated stem represented by the participle nom.pl. títratas (RV II.31.2),
also being attested in young Avestan by the forms 3.sg.act. titarat̰ (Yt. 13.77)29
and the participle mask. sg.akk. titarǝntǝm (G. 1.6). Finally both thematic root
thematic stems are attested. The barytone stem tára- is well attested through
several active forms.30 Interestingly almost all forms from this stem found in
Vedic are active, the only exception being the form 3.dual.middle tarete
(ἅπαξ RV I.140.3). From the oxytone stem tirá- both active and middle forms
are found.31 Of the thirty-one personal forms of these stems attested in the
samhitās, fifteen do not conform to the pattern of strong and weak forms. The
fact that just one middle form is found from the barytone stem in our view has
some significance, but apart from that the evidence for a paradigmatic
29 It is unclear whether the form is a thematic present or a subjunctive.
30 Cf. 1.sg. pr. ind. tarāmi (AVP III.26.1), impf. ataram (RV X.108.2), pr.subj. tarāṇi (AVŚ
IV.35.1-6), 2.sg.pr.ind. tarasi (RV VI.64.4), impf. átaras (RV I.32.14, X.104.8; 108.1), pr.imp. tara
(RV IX.59.3), 3.sg. pr.ind. tarati (RV VI.2.4, VII.59.2, IX.111.1, X.61.16)30, impf. átarat (RV
IV.27.2, VII.18.6, VIII.100.8, MS IV.14.13, thrice, KS VII.10, XXXVII.8, KapKS V.9, all three
prose), pr.opt. taret (RV VI.68.5, MS III.6.9, KS XXIII.6, twice), 2.dual. pr.subj. tarāthas (AVŚ
XIV.2.43), 3.dual.middle tarete ( RV I.140.3), 1.pl.pr.ind. tarāmasi (RV VII.32.27), pr.opt. tárema
(RV ten times, AVŚ XII.2.48, XIX.50.3, RVKhil. II.6.19; 7.5; 8.5;), 2.pl.pr.imp. tarata (RV
X.42.1), 3.pl.pr.ind. taranti (RV VII.32.13, IX.73.6, X.27.21), impf. átaran (RV I.36.8, V.45.11, TS
V.3.12.1, KS VII.3, XIX.2, KapKS V.5, XXIX.8, AVP V.6.8), pr. imp. tarantu (AVP XVI.51.6),
pr.opt. tareyus (AVŚ XIX.50.3, AVP XIV.4.13).
31 The active forms attested are ind. 1.sg. tirāmi (AVŚ II.31.3, VI.131.1), impf. ud…atiram
(VSM XI.82, VSK XII.7.17, TS IV.1.10.3, V.1.10.2, MS II.7.7, KS XVI.7, XIX.10, KapKS XXX.8),
ind. 2.sg. tirasi (AVP XX.41.6), imp. tira (X.133.5), ind. 3.sg. tirati (TS VI.1.10.1, prose, KS
XXIV.6=KapKS XXXVII.7 twice), impf. átirat (RV I.101.5, VI.9.1, AVŚ V.18.11), imp. tiratu
(RVKhil. II 11.2), subj. tiraãt (MS I.10.4), opt. tiret (TS VI.10.1), ind. 3.dual. tiratas (AVŚ XIII.2.32,
AVP XVIII.23.10), impf. atiratam (RV I.93.4, 152.1), opt. tiretam (RV VII.84.3), ind.1.pl. tirāmasi
(RV III.36.10), subj. tirāma (KS XXXVIII.13), 2.pl.opt. tiretana (RV VIII.18.22), 3.pl. imp. tirantu
(AVP XV.6.6;8). Middle forms are only found in combination with the prepositions aã and prá.
The following forms occur: ind. 2.sg. prá…tirase (AVŚ VII.86.2, XIV.1.24), imp. pratirasva (AVP
XI.5.12) ind. 3.sg. pra…tiráte (RV I.104.4, V.48.2, VI.68.7, VII.59.2; 67.9, VIII.19.30; 27.16,
X.85.19, AVŚ X.7.42), subj. prá…tirāte (RV VII.61.4), opt. prá…tireta (RV VII.58.3), imp. 2.pl.
prá…tiradhvam (RV VII.56.14), ind. 3.pl. pratiránte (RV I.113.1; 125.6, III.53.7, VII.103.10,
VIII.48.11, X.67.2; 107.2, AVP XV.6.7).
Polymorphic thematic root presents in Vedic
65
distribution is rather meagre.
Apart from three simplex forms the oxytone stem is exclusively attested
with compound forms. The barytone stem, in contrast, is abundantly attested
with simplex forms. The stems combine with preverbs in the following way:
Preverbs used with the thematic root stems of tariáti ánu anu- ápa abhí abhi- áva aã úd
sám
ní pári prá ví sám sam-
sám
prá
tára- +
+
+
-
+
+
+
+ +
-
+
+
-
+
-
tirá- -
-
-
+
-
-
+
+ +
+
-
+
+
+
+
The two roots show a certain parallelism with regard to composition. The
preverbs áva, aãã, úd, prá and sám are combinable with both stems, although the
relative frequency of the stem forms varies.32
According to Joachim a difference in meaning may be distinguished for the
two stems.33 The barytone stem seems mostly to be used with an intransitive
meaning, while the oxytone stem has a factitive meaning. Tichy regards the
oxytone stem as having secondarily evolved by haplology out of a reduplicated
stem títir-.34 In her view, the factitive meaning of this stem is most consistently
explained in this way. The oxytone stem is by other scholars regarded as a
Vedic innovation.35 However, as the constellation tára-/tirá- conforms
perfectly to the patterns shown by the other verbs here investigated, we do
not find it necessary to regard the stem tirá- as secondary.
The barytone stem is normally regarded as old, as a Hittite stem is often
cited as etymologically related to it, cf. 3.sg.middle tar-ra-at-ta “is able, is
active”.36 This verb does not know of any athematic root formation in the
indoiranian languages, the aorist stem being sigmatic. However, the autors of
LIV suppose that an athematic stem may be reflected in the Hittite stem tar-aḫmi and maybe in the Latin preposition trāns.37
32 The preverb áva is combined with one form of the barytone stem and six forms of the
oxytone stem; aã is found with four forms of the barytone and six of the oxytone stem; of the
compound forms of úd, two barytone and five oxytone forms are found; a relatively great
imbalance is found in the case of prá, where four forms of the barytone stem are found,
while twenty-four forms from the oxytone stem are attested; sám shows four forms of the
barytone and two forms of the oxytone stem.
33 Ibid.
34 Cf. Tichy (2004).
35 Cf. e.g. LIV2 pp.633ff.
36 Cf. LIV2 s.v. *terh2- and Oettinger (2002:298-99).
37 Cf. LIV2 p. 633 and Oettinger (2002:299).
66
Eystein Dahl
dhavi- “to rub, wash”
Both a barytone and an oxytone present stem seem to be attested from this
stem.38 Only three of the seven forms show the expected ablaut pattern and
thus the evidence for a paradigmatic distribution of the stems is rather scarce.
As regards the distribution of the stems with different preverbs, the barytone
stem occurring both as simplex and in combination with aã, ní, prá, ví and sám
shows a more flexible character than the oxytone stem, which only occurs in
combination with úpa and ní.
It is commonly assumed that the oxytone stem is used with a somewhat
different meaning than the other forms of this verb. According to Gotō the
meaning of the oxytone stem is “befächlen” i.e. “to fan”.39 If this is correct,
there seems to be two reasons to regard the opposition between the two
thematic stems by this verb as old: Firstly the different patterns of
compounding and secondly the difference in meaning between the stems.
mardh- „neglect“
This verbal root is often assumed to have two present stems, one barytone and
one oxytone. The barytone present stem actually attests four forms 3.sg.act.
márdhati (VII 59.4), 3.dual.act. mardhatas (VI 60.4) and 3.pl.act. mardhanti (I
166.2, III 54.14). Although few forms are attested, this stem seems to be the
regular present stem and it certainly is of some antiquity, as we find the form
marǝdaitī (Y 51.3)40 in Avestan. Gotō assumes that the barytone present stem
has evolved from the subjunctive of the athematic aorist and in his view has
conserved the value of a subjunctive at RV VII.59.4, the form in the parallel
stanza being a subjunctive.41
The second stem is postulated by reason of one single form, namely a
3.sg.subjunctive mr̥dhāti (RV VI.23.9).42 Joachim has proposed to connect it
with the precative 3. sg. act. mr̥dhyās (RV III.54.21).43 This form is normally
regarded as belonging to an athematic root aorist stem. The subjunctive form
38 The barytone stem dhaãva- shows the forms indicative 3.sg.act. dhaãvati (KS, KapKS),
middle dhaãvate (TS, MS, KS), 2.pl.middle dhaãvante (TS VI.1.1.6), while the following forms
belong to the oxytone stem, indicative 1.sg.act. dhuvāmi (AVŚ III.11.7), imperative 2.sg. act.
dhuva (AVP II.20.2), optative 3.sg.act. dhuvet (TS, MS, KS, KapKS), 3.pl.act. dhuveyuḥ (KS XXIX
3, KapKS XLV.4).
39 Gotō (1987:187ff.).
40 The form is mostly considered a subjunctive, cf. Hoffmann and Forssmann (1996:225). It
is to be read as three syllables.
41 Gotō (1987:242).
42 The second attestation of the form mr̥dhāti (ĀŚS II 10) is probably a corruption of juṣāṇaḥ
found at the parallel passage TB II 5.3.1 cf. Narten (1964:199n581).
43 Joachim (1978:131).
Polymorphic thematic root presents in Vedic
67
in contrast seems to belong to a thematic stem. However, a tendency to
construct long vowel subjunctives to athematic tense stems is frequently met
with even in RV.44 Thus the evidence of this verb is rather scarce.
ravi “to roar”
This verb is attested with forms both from a barytone and an oxytone stem.
The oxytone stem shows the following forms, indicative 3.sg.act. ruváti (RV
IX.70.7), injunctive 3.sg.act. ruvát (RV I.173.3), imperative ruva (RV I.10.4, AVŚ
V.20.3). The barytone stem shows only one finite form, imperfect 3.pl.middle
áravanta (MS III.8.8P, JB, PB VII.5.112, TB I5.2.9P) beside middle participial forms.
This verb presents no conclusive evidence regarding paradigmatic
distribution of the two stems. The barytone form occurs as simplex or in
combination with the preverb úpa. The oxytone stem also occurs as simplex
and is moreover found compounded with the preverbs aã and abhí.
As few forms are attested from this verb, it is difficult to evaluate its
explanatory value. One important point is that the barytone stem occurs only
in relatively late texts, something which together with the fact that the
barytone type is highly productive in Vedic leads to the conclusion that the
barytone form is secondary.45 Thus the evidence of this verb is rather meagre.
roṣ- “to be hurt or offended by; to displease”
This verb seems to be used partly with a direct object, partly intransitively. It
is sometimes found with a direct object in the genitive. Although this verb
only knows of one form in the RV, 3.sg.act. roṣati (VIII.4.8; 11.4), which is
confirmed by citations of this verse, some further forms of the same stem are
attested in the later Vedic literature, ind. 3.pl.act. roṣanti (TB III.2.1.6; 8)46 and
subj. 3.sg.act. roṣāti (AB IV.10, twice): AB IV.10: viśvasya devī mr̥cayasya janmano
na yā roṣāti na grabhad “Goddess of all the perishable kind, who shall not be
wrath nor seize (us)”.47 An oxytone stem seems to be attested through the
following forms, subj. 3.sg.act. ruṣāt (AVP XIX 34.16) and the participial form
masc. acc. pl. ruṣatas (JUB III 5.8.2), and finally a past form 2.sg.act. aroṣīs (JUB
III 5.8.2).48 The last two forms appear in the same passage: samīco manuṣyān
44 Cf. dabhāti (RV VI.28.3, X.165.3), marāti (RV I.199.10;11), padāti (RV IX.73.9), papr̥cāsi (RV
I.141.11) and varāte (RV I.65.6, V.32.9).
45 Cf. also Gotō (1987:245ff.).
46 Unfortunately, no edition of the TB was at our disposal, therefore we do not discuss the
passage.
47 Translation Keith (1920). The second attestation of the form in this passage is identical
with the second half-verse.
48 Gotō (1987:277n640) dismisses the form as “eine durch Missverständnis entstandene
68
Eystein Dahl
aroṣī ruṣatas ta r̥ṣiḥ pāpmānaṃ hanti “Thou hast been angry with collective men;
of thee that are angry the sage slays the evil”.49 The form aroṣīs may be
interpreted as a secondarily restored form of the 2.sg.act. +aroṣ belonging to an
athematic stem.50
The passage where the subjunctive form ruṣāt is found, is rather opaque,
not least because of the syntactical problem regarding an obvious lack of
concordance between subject and verb: AVP XIX 34.16: yūyaṃ tu parṇinaṃ
śiram utāparṇam ruṣād “but you (pl.) will be displeased (3.sg.) with the leafy
and the leafless head(?)”. If this passage conveys any meaning at all, it points
to a transitive character of the form ruṣād.
It seems to be unclear whether the form aroṣīs is to be regarded as aorist or
imperfect. It is also questionable whether any difference in meaning between
the barytone and the oxytone stems may be distinguished. The fact that this
verb shows both thematic stems beside an athematic stem seems to confirm
that there is a close relationship between the amphidynamic stem type and
the two thematic types.
varṣ- “rain, pour out”
This verb is attested both through an oxytone and through a barytone
thematic stem, which in RV are attested with only few forms each.51 Narten
(1964:55) regards the variant avr̥ṣat (KS II.9) as the older formation. According
to her this form is a thematic aorist. It is not to be regarded as an imperfect of
the oxytone stem as it differs in meaning, syntax and diathesis.52
The meaning of the compound verb ā-vr̥ṣ- is according to Grassmann “ein
Lesung”.
49 Translation Oertel (1894).
50 Although Mayrhofer does not mention any secure etymological cognates outside indoaryan, the root has a structure which certainly could be PIE. The assumed form would be
the regular outcome of *érews-s. The actually attested form would be comparable to impf.
2.sg.act. aãsīs, which is attested beside aãs (= 3.sg.) from *éh1es-s.
51 From the barytone stem only an active form is found, ind. 3.pl.act. várṣanti (V 84.4). The
oxytone form knows of two middle forms, imp. 2.sg.middle vr̥̥ṣasva (ten times) and
2.dual.middle vr̥̥ṣethām (I.108.3, VI.68.11). In the later vedic literature one finds more forms
of the barytone stem, indicative 2.sg.act. várṣasi (AVŚ XIII.7.14), 3.sg.act. várṣati (AVŚ, AVP,
TSP, MSP, KSP), imperative 3.sg.act. várṣatu (VSM, VSK, TS, MS, KS, KapKS), 3.pl.act. várṣantu
(RVKh., AVŚ, AVP), optative 3.sg.act. várṣet (TSP, MSP, KSP, KapKSP). Only one form with zerograded root is attested without any preverbs, 3.sg.act. avr̥̥ṣat (KS II.9) and 3.sg.act. †avr̥̥ṣāt
(TS II.4.7.2). At a parallel passage the form avarṣīt (MS II.4.7) is found, which belong to the iaorist of this verb.
52 Narten (1964:249) emphasizes that some other Vedic verbal roots also seem to exploit
different ablaut grades of the root as a means of expressing the semantic difference
between recent past (aorist indicative) on the one hand and remote past (imperfect) or
actual present (present indicative) in the other hand, cf. avr̥dhat (aorist) vs. vardhati
(present).
Polymorphic thematic root presents in Vedic
69
Getränk in sich hineingiessen, schlürfen” or “sich ergiessen”. His
interpretation seems mostly to be followed.53 The fact that exclusively middle
forms are attested to the weak stem might be significant, as three forms out of
five belonging to the barytone stem conform to the predicted pattern. The
middle forms are evidently obsolete, as they do not occur after the RV. The
specialised meaning shown by these forms may be interpreted as a sign of a
semantical development due to a long period of co-occurrence with another
originally synonymous stem.54
havi- “call, invoke”
This verb seems to be attested with five different present stems. Among these
both a barytone thematic stem háva- and an oxytone thematic stem huvá- are
found. Both stems are normally inflected only in the middle, although
sporadically some active forms occur.55
Although this verb mostly shows a preference for medial forms, three
active forms are attested. The form subjunctive 1.pl.act. huvāma found in AVP
is isolated and is not supported by the parallel passages,56 but nevertheless is
perfectly possible in the context: agnim indraṃ vr̥trahanā huvāma “let us invoke
Agni and Indra, the two slayers of Vr̥tra”.57
Both stems are abundantly attested both as simplex and as compounds. One
53 The authors of LIV2 propose another interpretation of the oxytone stem. They translate
aãvr̥̥ṣasva with “ermanne dich” and asssume that it belongs to another PIE stem, cf. LIV2 p.
292n2 and p. 691.
54 It might be of some importance that both forms of the oxytone stem are imperatives of
the 2.person. As is well known, imperative forms in many languages tend to have a
somewhat isolated position in the verbal paradigm. Therefore obsolete forms sometimes
may be found with this function, cf. Watkins (1969:51-52). These considerations would
strengthen the assumption that these forms might be of a certain antiquity. It should be
noted that no imperative forms of the 2.sg. are attested by the barytone stem, while forms
of the 3.person act. occur, cf. sg. várṣatu, pl. várṣantu. Interestingly the form of the 3.sg.
conforms to the predicted pattern.
55 The forms occuring from the barytone stem are ind. 1.sg.middle háve (RV I.118.11,
VIII.3.13, twice), 3.sg. middle hávate (RV fourteen times), 1.pl.middle hávāmahe (RV more
than fifty times) 3.pl.middle hávante (more than fourty times in RV) and inj. 3.pl.middle
havanta (RV I.12.2, X.118.5). The oxytone stem is attested through the following middle
forms, ind. 1.sg.middle huvé (more than twenty times in the RV), injunctive 3.sg.middle
huvat (RV VIII.26.16), impf. 1.sg.middle áhuve (RV II.37.2) and 3.pl.middle áhuvanta (RV
VIII.38.9=42.6), optative 1.sg.middle huvéya (RV VIII.9.13) and optative 1.pl.middle huvemahi
(SVK I.380= SVJ I.39.11). Interestingly, also two forms of the active are found, subjunctive
1.pl.act. huvāma (AVP XX.14.9) and optative 1.pl.act. huvéma (more than fourty times in RV).
56 AVŚ VII.115.2 has 1.sg.med. huve’hám, MS IV.2.3 has huvema.
57 An interpretation of the form as an injunctive is unlikely, as this mode mostly do not
occur outside prohibitive sentences after the RV. Further the form cannot plausibly be
interpreted as injunctive because injunctive forms of the 1.dual and plural active are hardly
met with outside prohibitive sentences even in the RV, cf. Hoffmann (1967:110ff.).
Eystein Dahl
70
finds compound forms of the two stems with the following preverbs:
Preverbs used with the thematic root stems of haviánu
aã
upá
pári
práti
prá
ví
háva-
-
+
+
+
-
+
+
huvá-
+
-
-
-
+
+
-
As can be seen from this table, both stems are combinable with a variety of
preverbs, but they only share prá. This might be taken as a slight indication of
a certain lexical opposition between them. Although the forms of the stems
only imperfectly conform to the pattern shown by the amphidynamic type, it
is interesting to note that only the oxytone stem shows modal forms on the
one hand and active forms on the other. It is often assumed that the oxytone
forms do not belong to the present system, but rather to a thematic aorist.58 As
far as we can judge, this assumption is possible but not necessary. The
augmented forms where the tense opposition between recent past (aorist
indicative) on the one hand and remote past (imperfect) may be distinguished
are scarce and hardly bring any conclusive evidence.59 However, this verb also
shows an athematic aorist, cf. indicative 1.pl.med. áhūmahi (RV VI.45.10).
The investigated material now allows for some general conclusions. We
have seen that the thematic stems mostly do not show a consistent
paradigmatic distribution of strong and weak forms. In some cases, however,
the oxytone stem shows a preference for middle forms (cf. gari-, tari-, varṣ-) or
for weak forms (cf. karṣ-). These facts cannot be regarded as conclusive, but
still may be of some importance.
The picture is somewhat different when it comes to the two kinds of lexical
opposition. Some of the verbs express distinctly different meanings by means
of the two stems (cf. karṣ-, gari-, tari-, dhavi-, varṣ-) All verbs tending to form
compounds show an uneven distribution of the various preverbs with the two
thematic stems. Both these facts in our view strenghten the hypothesis that
the co-occurrence of both thematic stems might be remnants of an old
58 Cf. e.g. Gotō (1987:348ff.).
59 Cf. Gotō (1987:149): “Die Ansicht (...), dass ahvat Aor., ahuvat/ahuvat Ipf. sei, ist syntaktisch
nicht beweisbar, da der Aor. Ind. im RV auch zur Konstatierung einer Handlung der ferneren
Vergangenheit (these italics are ours) dienen kann.” However, this argument may be turned
in the opposite direction, as the regular function of the imperfect is normally to express
remote past, while the regular function of the aorist is to express recent past. Gotōs
argument is based on Hoffmann’s assumption (1967:154ff. and passim), that the Vedic aorist
in some cases may be shown to have preserved semantic elements of the PIE aorist.
However, this assumption does not seem to be tenable, cf. Tichy (1997:595ff.).
Polymorphic thematic root presents in Vedic
71
pattern. Thus the evidence of these verbal roots seems to confirm the
hypothesis that the thematic root stems originally have evolved out of the
amphidynamic paradigm. However, the barytone type seems less intimately
related to its athematic ancestor than the oxytone type. This may be explained
by the fact that the barytone stem type at an early point primarily seems to
have been used as the durative present of punctual or telic roots and thus
stood in an immediate opposition to the amphidynamic root aorists. The
prototypically durative function of the barytone stem type may reasonably be
regarded as the ultimate reason of its immense productivity in PIE, a factor
which may be taken to have blurred the relationship of the barytone stem to
the two other root formations.
However, the two parameters have shown different degrees of fruitfulness
when applied to the Vedic material. While most of the verbs show some kind
of synchronically functional lexical opposition between the stems, the
evidence for a paradigmatic distribution is somewhat more uncertain. This
divergence may in our view be explained in terms of relative chronology. The
paradigmatic distribution of the two stems is taken to belong to a relatively
ancient linguistic layer and thus may have been subject to several subsequent
evolutionary stages. The two kinds of lexical oppositions may plausibly be
regarded just as examples of such secondary evolutions. As they are more
recent, their interrelations are synchronically more clearly observable.60
References
Gotō, T. (1987) Die “I. Präsensklasse” im Vedischen, Wien.
Grassmann, H. (1996) Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda, Wiesbaden.
Hoffmann, K. (1967) Der Injunktiv im Veda, Heidelberg.
Hoffmann, K. (1976) Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik II, Wiesbaden.
Hoffmann, K. and B. Forssmann (1996) Avestische Laut- und Flexionslehre,
Innsbruck.
Joachim, U. (1978) Mehrfachpräsentien im R̥gveda, Frankfurt am Main-Bern-Las
Vegas.
Keith, A.B. (1920) Rig-Veda Brahmanas Translated, Cambridge, Mass.
Kulikov, L. (2000) “The Vedic type syáti revisited”, in Forssman, B. and R. Plath
(eds.) Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik. Arbeitstagung der
Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangen,
Wiesbaden:267-283.
60 The treatment of possible systematic semantic differences between the two stems must
be reserved for another occasion. For some general considerations, cf. Kulikov (2000:27778).
72
Eystein Dahl
Kuryłowicz, J. (1964) The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European, Heidelberg.
Lazzeroni, R. (1978) “Fra glottologia e storia: i verbi sanscriti della VI classe”,
Studi e saggi linguistici 18:129-148.
LIV2 = Rix, H. et al. (2001) Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Zweite, erweiterte
und verbesserte Auflage, Wiesbaden.
Meiser, G. (1993) “Zur Funktion des Nasalpräsens im Urindogermanischen”, in
Meiser, G. (ed.) Indogermanica et Italica. Festschrift für Helmut Rix, Innsbruck,
280-313.
Narten, J. (1964) Die sigmatischen Aoriste im Veda, Wiesbaden.
Oertel, H. (1894) “The Jāiminīya or Talavakāra Upaniṣad Brāhmaṇa: Text,
Translation and Notes”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 16:79-260.
Oettinger, N. (2002) Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums, second edition,
Dresden.
Renou, L. (1925) “Le type védique tudáti”, in Melanges Vendryes, Paris:309-316.
Rix, H. (1986) Zur Entstehung der indogermanischen Modussystems, Innsbruck.
Tichy, E. (1997) “Vom indogermanischen Tempus/Aspekt-System zum
vedischen Zeitstufensystem” in Crespo, E. and J. L. Garcia-Ramon (eds.)
Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy, Madrid-Wiesbaden:589-609.
Tichy, E. (2002) “Zur Funktion und Vorgeschichte der indogermanischen
Modi”, in Hettrich, H. (ed.) Indogermanische Syntax. Fragen und Perspektive,
Wiesbaden:189-206.
Tichy, E. (2004) “Vedisch tiráti”, in Hyllested, A., A. R. Jørgensen, J. H. Larsson,
and T. Olander (eds.) Per Aspera ad Asteriscos. Studia Indogermanica in honorem
Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno MMIV, Innsbruck:565571.
Vekerdi, J. (1961) “On Polymorphic Presents in The R̥gveda”, Acta Orientalia
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 12:249-287.