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.