latin deverbal presents in aa -de vaan

8/13/2019 Latin Deverbal Presents in Aa -De Vaan

1/21

The Indo-European VerbProceedings of the Conference of the Society

for Indo-European Studies .Los Angeles 13-15 September 2010

Edited byH Craig Melchert

Wiesbaden 2012Reichert Verlag


2/21

Table o ontentsForeword vnBENEDETTI, Marina: Valency Alternations with Perception Verbs m Indo-EuropeanLanguages 1-6BOZZONE, Chiara: The PIE Subjunctive: Function and Development 7-18DAHL, Eystein: Towards an Account o the Semantics o the PIE Imperative 19-28DAUES, Alexandra: Hittite Verbs in ssa : Can a Function Be Recognized? 29-41Dr G OVINE, Paolo: The Function o *a-Ablaut in the PIE Verbal System 43-50ESKA, Joseph F.: Absolute and Conjunct, Cowgill and Apocope 51-59GARCiA CASTILLERO, Carlos: The Old Irish Paradigm o Clause Types 61-72GARCiA RAMON, Jose Luis: Aspect and Mood in Indo-European Reconstruction 73-85HACKSTEIN, Olav: When Words Coalesce: Chunking and Morphophonemic Extension 87-104HILL, Eugen, and Michael FROTSCHER: The Accentuation o Old ludic Reduplicated (3rd

Class) Presents 105-114HOCK, Hans Henrich: Phrasal Prosody and the Indo-European Verb 115-126JASANOFF, Jay H.: Long-vowel Preterites in Indo-European 127-135KIM, Ronald I.: Unus testis, unicus testis? The Ablaut o Root Aorists in Tocharian and

Indo-European 13 7-149KLOEKHORST, Alwin: Hittite ii/e -ablauting Verbs 151-160KOCHAROV, Petr: Perfect Reduplication in Late Indo-European 161-165KOLLIGAN, Daniel: Patterns o Suppletion in Classical Armenian: The Case o Motion

Verbs 167-177KRASUKHIN, Konstantin G.: Indo-European Conjugation: History and Pre-History 179-189KROONEN, Guus: Reflections on the a/zero-Ablaut in the Germanic Iterative Verbs 191-200KOMMEL, Martin Joachim: The Inflection o the Hittite Verb Class o mema/i- 201-208LEI-INERT, Christian: Anmerkungen zum homerischen Augment 209-212LDI-IR, Rosemarie: Ereignistyp und Diathesenwechsel im Indogermanischen 213-224MAJER, Marek: An Archaic Indo-European Verbal Form in the Slavic Generalizing Particle

-ildo? 225-234MALZAHN, Melanie: Archaism and Innovation in the Tocharian Verbal System: The Case

o Valency and the Case for a Conspiracy Theory 235-240OETTINGER, Norbert: Das Verhaltnis von nominaler und verbaler Reduplikation im

Indogermanischen und Anatolischen 241-246PEYROT, Michael: e-grade in Tocharian Verbal Morphology 247-256PINAULT, Georges-Jean: Interpretation o the Tocharian Subjunctive o Class III 257-265


3/21

vi

POOTH Roland A.: Zum Auflwmmen transitiver Verben im frlihen Vedischcn am Beispiel 267-284rRASMUSSEN .Tens E.: The Origin of the Albanian Mediopassive 285-288REINHART Johannes: Inheritance or Innovation in the Proto-Slavic Verb: the Ending -mo

(1st Person Plural) 289-294SCIIEUNGRABER Corinna: Nasal Suffix Verbs in Germanic and KLUGE's aw 295-304SowA Wojciech: The Phrygian Middle 305-313DE VAAN Michie : Latin Deverbal Presents in 315-332VILLANUEVA SVENSSON Miguel: The Ablaut of the Middle Root Athematic Presents in

Indo-European 333-342YOSHIDA Kazuhiko: Notes on Cuneiform Luvian Verbs in -yelo- 343-351ZIEGLER Sabine: Zur Konzeption moderner Worterbiicher: Probleme der Philologie und

der Lexikographie dargcstellt anhand der uridg. Wurzeln e j ~ h r "antreiben","suchen" und ihrer Fortsetzer im rigvedischen Sanskrit 353-363Contact Information of Contributors 365-367


4/21

Latin Deverbal Presents in -ii-MICHIEL DE V N (Leiden)

1. The unitary approachLatin shows a number of presents of the first conjugation which are certainly or probably derived fromverbs, such as cubare, dicare, recuperare, sedare, and the iteratives in -tare and -sare. In the history ofIndo-European studies, one may discern a unitary and an isolationist approach to these presents. Theunitary view is historically the older one. t regards most of the deverbal a-presents as members of asingle category with an inherited suffix *-a-je/o-. In one form or another, this view can be found inmost of the older handbooks, e.g. Brugmann (1916: 160, 164-166), Sommer (1914: 507), Leumann(1977: 575), and in some of the more recent literature, e.g. Kurylowicz (1956: 303f.), Sihler (1995: 505,528-530). The main arguments for this interpretation are the presence of deverbal presents with asimilar suffix *-aje- in other branches of Indo-European, such as Balto-Slavic or Germanic, and thesemantic similarity ofthese verbs in Latin. As a representative of the unitary theory, Meillet (1937: 210,218) distinguishes PIE aoristic *-a- from durative , iterative or reflexive *-aje-, and notes thatin a number of verbal relics in Slavic, Armenian and Latin, the verbal root shows the zero grade infront of the suffix *-iiOe)-.

The foundations for a semantically uniform treatment of the a-present were laid by Meillet (1897)and Vendryes (1910-1911), and elaborated by Barbelenet (1913) and Sjoestedt (1925a, 1925b); comparealso Mignot (1969: 250). Meillet noted that preverbs added to a non-iterative verb tend to render theverb momentous or perfective: nov/- cogni5vz, sequor- assequor, vorlor-- convortor, calet -- concaluit,dormii5 -- obdormii5, bibi5 - ebibi5, feri5 - perferi5. The identification of this Latin phenomenon withaspectual oppositions of the type found in Greek or Slavic has been criticized by van der Heyde ( 1926,1932-34), Reinhold (1956) and Kravar (1968), among others. Reinhold's alternative distinction (1956:44) of Verbalinhalte [ ..], bei denen der Endpunkt ihres Ablaufs gewohnlich in den Blickpunkt desSprechenden tritt, und solche, bei denen dies gewohnlich nicht der Fall ist , foreshadows the verbclassification applied in Functional Grammar, which classifies verbs according to their state of affairs .The distinction between terminative and aterminative states of affairs (Pinkster 1990: 214-217) is closeto Reinhold's.

Meillet himself was well aware of the fact that Latin does not show a clear-cut opposition betweenmomentous and durative verbs like Slavic, but his use of the terms perfective and imperfective

has had a negative influence on the reception of his ideas. The topic of the influence of preverbs onactionality has recently been rediscovered by Latinists such as Haverling (2000, 2003), Romagno(2003), and Haug (2007). Romagno defines the function of preverbs as changing an unprefixed atelicverb (faci6, mi5/ior, dormii5) into a telic prefixed one (conficii5, emi5lior, obdormii5).

Meillet also saw that Latin had developed a strategy to provide a perfective compound verb with adurative counterpart by using the corresponding iterative: aspicere - aspectiire, edTcere - eloquz oredictiire. One can even discern derivational triplets of imperfective, perfective and imperfective verbs,such as dTcere- praedlcere- praediciire, or specere- conspicere- conspiciirz (Sjoestedt 1925a: 155),though the ablaut difference dTc I die- in the former pair already shows that the three members of theset did not necessarily arise in this order. As Mcillet himself indicates (1897: 83), this wordformational principle of Latin is quite comparable to Slavic triplets of the type Russian pisat 'write'(impf.) -- podpisat 'to sign' (pf.) - podpfsyvat 'to sign' (impf.). Some further pairs of prefixeddurative verbs derived from durative simplex verbs were added by Vendryes (1910--1911 , such asappelliire to pellere and occupiire to capere. Meillet's observation provides a simple explanation for


5/21

316 Michie de Vaan

the frequency with which a-deverbatives are found in compounds: they were used to create imperfectivecounterparts to perfective compound presents. Sjoestedt (1925a: 168) defines imperfectivity in theLatin verbs as consisting of two ingredients: durativity (" 'action dans son developpement") and atelicity ("indetermine", "sans impliquer Ia consideration d un terme").2. The isolationist approachThe isolationist approach divides the deverbal a-presents into several subgroups, each of them with adifferent phonetic origin of a . The category would thus be due to the coincidental merger of severalindependent phonetic constellations. This approach was advocated by Steinbauer (1989) and Rix (1995,1999), and has been followed by Schrijver 1991 ), Meiser ( 1998, 2003 ), de Vaan (2008), Weiss (2009:400-403), among others. I have now come to the conclusion that the older unitary approach has beenunjustly neglected, and, also, that the isolationist explanations have many shortcomings. Here are thefive main categoties found in modern handbooks, together with my main objections:

a. Intensive/causatives to roots in h 2 : doma- < *domHaje- < *domhreie-, tona- < *tonh2eie-,sona- < *suonh2eie-, lava-< *louh3eie- (Steinbauer 1989, Rix 1999, Meiser 1998: 186-188, 2003).The principal possibility of some verbs continuing a PIE eie-present after a root in *h2 cannot bedenied, but it is hard to find a reliable case. For instance, sonclre occurs beside and as a replacement ofsonere, without any visible semantic difference. Thus, sonare may well be a recent formation. Forlaviire, Rix (1999: 519) assumes analogical replacement of lowoje- by *lowaje-, which is ad hoc. Seebelow on domare.

b. Compounds from nasal presents which generalized the ablaut variant with full-grade suffix,appella- < *-pel-ne-hr beside pel/ere< thematicized *pelnhre-, also -clinare, -spernari, -sternare, -stinare,and possibly perfiniis (Steinbauer 1989: 134, Schrijver 1991, 1999, Rix 1995:402, 1999, Meiser 1998:186-188, 2003).

This hypothesis is insufficiently supported by the formal data, and unattractive from the point ofsemantics. The root-final laryngeal is h 2 in the case of -pellare and -stinare, but h 3 with -sternare, anuncertain *h 213 with -.1pernari, while no laryngeal at all occurred in the PIE root of -clmare. Specificanalogies are therefore required to explain the survival of only -na-: for instance, a remake of *sperni5-l*sperna- into *sperna-/sperna-. The generalization of *-na-to compound verbs and *-na-to simpliceswould be based on analogy with the interchange between i and in, for instance, oritur vs. adorltur(Rix 1995: 403, Meiser 1998: 187). Yet the rise of from *-je/o- in the foqrth conjugation must berelatively recent (Schrijver 2003), which means that the model invoked for the spread of -nii- arose sorecently that it is doubtful that it could play the role ascribed to it. The question why only the prefixedverbs take *-na- was solved by Meillet in 1897: prefixed simplices such as appellere and consternerehave perfective semantics which could only be made imperfective by means of a . Since all old nasalpresents involved belong to the third conjugation, I will treat the compounds in -nii- on a par with theother dcverbal a-presents.

c.je/o-presents to roots in a final laryngeal: ara- < *araje- < h2erh.;-ie/o-, cala- < *kalaje- < *klhrielo-.This theory takes for granted the vocalization of laryngeals between obstruents and yod, which isfar from certain (Schrijver 1991: 249f.; pace Rix 1999: 522). The verbs in a are the main evidence forthe vocalization of H to *a in this position, which makes the assumption that a verb like a rare provesthe vocalization circular. Ferire < *b erH-ie/o- apparently did not vocalize the laryngeal.

d. Denominal verbs to nominal compounds, e.g. educiire to *e-duk-s, occupiire to *ob-kap-s (Monteil1973: 298, Steinbauer 1989: 139-140, Bammesberger 1996).

I will mention four counterarguments. l) For most of the a-presents, no cognate compound rootnoun is attested. The theory must therefore posit a large number of such unattested compound nouns inorder to explain the attested verbs. (2) The proponents of the denominal theory fail to show that themeaning of the verbs can be regarded as denominal (that is, essive or factitive). (3) The dcnominaltheory does not explain the distribution of the prefixed a-presents. Many presents only have prefixedderivatives of the same conjugation as the simplex baetere 'to go', bibere 'to drink', cadere 'to fall',etc.), some have prefixed derivatives only of the first conjugation (e.g. -ligiire), while others form both


6/21


7/21

318 Michie de Vaan

that we are probably dealing with a-presents derived from Proto-Italics-presents of the form *kad-s-,*rap-s-, *tag-s-, *vex-s-, etc. In fact, some of theses-presents have been preserved ins-future forms inOld Latin, such as surrepsit and taxis. Due to the disappearance of the athematic indicative of the spresent in Latin- as opposed to its preservation as an s-future in Sabellic --the frequentatives in *-sawere reinterpreted as independent a-presents, and were dissociated flom their root: for instance, vexarewas dissociated from vehere.

Nussbaum 2007 assumes that the a-conjugation in these frequentatives ultimately arose in denominalpresents, as one might suspect for rixarl. The missing link would be an adjective in *-so-, to which thepresents in *-s-a- could be the regular denominatives. Such a formational pattern is unobjectionable ingeneral, but I find it difficult to accept in this case. A minor problem is that adjectives in *-so- are only(indirectly) attested for rixarf and vexare. The main problem is that a denominal origin does not explainthe imperfective and iterative meaning of these verbs. t seems more likely that they contain deverbal*-a- which was added to Proto-Italics-presents of the type *rap-s-.The main semantic characteristic of Latin frequentatives is their repetitive and/or atelic state ofaffairs (Bodelet 1913: 175-213, Sjoestedt 1925ab). This aspect clearly applies to the relic verbs in -sa-,all of which express atelic movement, that is, movement without a natural goal: cassare 'totter', errarewander ,fraxare 'go the watchman's rounds', grassar i 'go around', quassare 'shake vehemently',pensare 'weigh up, balance', rapsare 'hurry along', rixari 'struggle', taxare 'assess', versarf 'keep

turning round', vexare 'agitate, damage' (axare is attested without context). Many atelic movementsare repetitive, such as 'totter', 'err', 'shake', 'turn', 'agitate', which would explain why -sare andhence -tare became productive for iteratives and frequentatives in the way that Nussbaum envisaged;compare Kulikov 2008: 326-328 for the connection between atelicity and frequentativity. Since *Shad a conative (traditionally "desiderative") meaning, it must be a which provided the atelic semantics.

The rise of the type in *-s-a- must be relatively old. The suffix vowel cannot be equated with the a-subjunctive in its synchronic meaning since it would have competed with the subjunctive in *-s-f-( 'endure' with *tel- as in Latin -tulat and the Umbrian future en-telust. Since the latter hypothesisis based on a known stem variant, it may be preferred.


8/21

Latin Dcverbal Presents in ii- 319

4 Factitives to second-conjugation stativesA handbook example of this class is placare 'to appease' to placere 'to please'. At first sight, onemight regard the factitives as a subclass of the denominal factitives of the type novare, but a suitablenominal basis is only attested for sedare (viz. the noun sedes 'seat'), for which a verbal origin isequally available in the perfect sedf I sat'. t seems more likely that these presents are deverbal, -causing the factitive meaning.We have already hypothesized that *-iije- can change the verb's actionality from telic to atelic, andalso that the frequentative meaning of the iteratives in -sa- and -ta- has its source in verbs of atelic orrepetitive movement. Cross-linguistically it is not uncommon for intransitive verbs to become transitiveor causative when provided with a morpheme expressing iterativity or atelicity; for a generalintroduction to this topic, cf. Kulikov 1999. Four or five of the six verbs in this class are in fact verbs ofmovement. A good example is sedare 'to restrain, cause to lie down', literally 'to make someone sit'. tcan be viewed as a derivative, not of stative sedeo, but of its resultative perfect sed I sat'. Suffixationas *sed-a- with the suffix of atelic movement would cause the change from stative 'to sit' to dynamicto sit down (in various directions, in various places)', while the concomitant causative meaning 'to sit(someone) down forcefully, restrain' is explained by the increase in effectivity and transitivity which

often accompanies atelic movement (Kulikov 1999: 22, 26).This explanation implies that the link between factivitive a-presents and stative e-presents may be

accidental: the derivational base was stative, and could be furnished with *-eje- (expressing stativity) orwith *-aje- (atelic movement> [activity). I will discuss the evidence in alphabetical order of the rootverb.4 1 Creiire to make grow'. The classical meaning 'to engender' is more recent; all six attestations in Plautus referto 'causing satisfaction troubles delay opportunity' or 'committing a crime'. Thus, while the semantics arefactitive, they can in most cases be regarded as atelic. This present belongs to crescere 'to be born; increase', pfcrevl, from a Proto-Italic root *kre- 'to grow < PIE *k wJrehr. To the same root, creiire can represent a derivative*kre-iije- with the suffix of atelic movement.4.2 Deliciire 'to reveal, disclose' to liquere 'to be clear'. Whereas Old Latin consistently has de/ici5 with themeaning 'to reveal, disclose', from Varro on we find deli quo 'to strain (a liquid)'. Thus, delici5 with its derivedmeaning must be older, whereas qu was apparently restored in deliqui5 on the basis of liquei5.Since the primary and etymological meaning of stative liquere is 'to be liquid', an explanation for delici5 basedon the specific meaning of atelic movement of *-iije- is quite conceivable: 'to make liquid' 'to make flow', and'flowing' is typically atelic (in many directions, or all the time). There is also a third conjugation verb tiquor 'tobecome liquid, dissolve; flow, run' < *wleikw-. Thus, although deliciire synchronically looks like a derivative fromliquere, it may actually have been derived from the zero grade of an older athematic stem *wleikw- I wlikw- 'tobe( come) liquid'.4.3 Pri5mulgiire 'to make widely known' to mulgere 'to milk' to PIE *h2mlg- 'to milk'? This etymology isuncertain. Mu/gere may continue a PIE causative *h2mo/g-eie- 'to milk' or a stative verb *h2mlg-ehr 'to givemilk'. Pri5mulgiire could be interpreted, with some imagination, as to milk forth', whence metaphorical 'to bringout, spread, make known'. The verb is only attested from Cicero onwards, which seems to point to its recentformation; but in view of the meaning, that is hardly likely (unless it was a loanword of some sort). In support ofthe possibility of an earlier derivation of pri5mulgiire from h 2mlg-, note that mulctra I -um 'milking pail' isanother old derivative independent of mulgere.

Of course, it remains possible that the connection of promulgiire with mu/gei5 is only apparent. Forssman(2002: 180-181) has proposed to derive pri5mulgiire from *pri5-morigiire 'to postpone', dissin;ilated to ~ p r imolgiire whence pr6mu/gare. However, this hardly seems a more likely alternative than the solution proposed here.4.4 P/iiciire to make favourably disposed, appease' to placere to please'. The meaning of p/iiciire is not onlytransitive but also appears to be telic, and the verb already occurs once in the perfect in Plautus. An interpretationas a verb of atelic motion is possible if the root *plak- originally meant 'flat' (to PIE *plehr 'flat') and p/aceo 'tobe even, not to make a difference'. The factitive would then be 'to make even, flatten'. Scbrijver (1991: 181)suggests that p/aciire has the original PIE root ablaut whereas placere would have a secondary shmt a by analogywith other e-verbs, sucb as manere and patere. While not completely impossible, such an analogy seems unlikely,since Latin tolerates root ablaut in quite a number of verbs, and since a stem *p/iicere, had it existed, would havebeen supported by pliiciire. By Schrijver's own rules *CRHTC >Proto-Italic *CRaTC, Schrijvcr 991, 2006), apreform *p/Hk-C- would have yielded *plak-C-, which might be the origin of the ablaut form inplacere.


9/21


10/21


11/21

322 Michie de Vaan

alacris 'nimble' < *ala-tli- 'moving aimlessly' (Weiss 2009: 318) shows that -tli- was suffixed directly to theverbal stem, it seems more likely that vu/ucer is based on a verbal stem *g"'el-e/o-.5.2 Compounds from an intransitive baseamhu/iire 'to walk around, go for a walk' < *amb-aliire. A probable cognate is Umbrian amb-oltu 'must goaround < *-ala-tad (Meiser 1986: 270)


12/21

Latin Dcverbal Presents in 323

was sufilxcd when Proto-Italic *deik- *dik- was still an athematic present. Steinbauer does not discuss the Sabelliccognates, which would require a much earlier date for the denominative.It may seem much harder to deny a denominal origin for compounds with a nominal first member, such asiiidicare 'to judge' to iiidex 'judge', vindicare 'to lay claim to' to vindex 'surety', and Oscan medicatud 'judged'(abl.sg.) to meddik 'judge'. Still, all three verbs refer to the profession of the referent, which may be interpretedas atelic activity, so that an explanation as compounds with dcvcrbal dicare is equally possible. In that case, index,iiidex, meddiks were backformed to the compound verbs.do/are 'to hew or chop into shape; batter '. The semantics arc clearly repetitive. Rix ( 1999: 527) derives do/eo 'tohurt, be in pain' from a causative/iterative *dolhreie-, whereas do/are would reflect intensive *delhrie- > *delaje> *dolaje- or *dlhrie- > *dalaje, in both variants with vocalization of the laryngeal to *a. Schrijver (1991: 215)suggests a denominal origin from a noun *dola-. A good alternative seems to me that dolare contains the suffix*-aje- of atelic movement.domare 'to subdue' to PIE demhr 'to tame, constrain'. Because of its transitive meaning, domare is usuallyderived from a PIE causative *domhreie- >Pit. *domaje-, but a closer inspection of its usage in Old Latin rendersan imperfective interpretation quite likely, as was seen by Rix (1999: 521 fn. 36). The Oxford Latin Dictionarylists the meanings 'domesticate', 'habituate to', 'reduce to subservience, gain control over', 'bring under control','reduce to a more amenable form, bring under cultivation', all of which stress the process of bringing under control.Hence domare may reflect a Proto-Italic present in *-aje- with atclic semantics.forare 'to bore (through), pierce'. 'Boring' is typically atclic and repetitive. The a-grade of the root cannot beexplained from earlier *e or *a, as in the case of doliire, so that we must find a preform with PIE *o. Lith. harti toaccuse, scold', OCS brati .Ye), bor}Q 'to fight' reflect a PIE a-grade present *bhorH-. If this survived as *for- intoProto-Italic,.forare could reflect the addition of the suffix *-iije- ofatelic movement.iuvare 'to help, assist' to iuvere to help' (in Accius) and hlcundus pleasant < ~ j u w V / w n d o s The present iuvere


13/21


14/21

Latin Dcverbal Presents in 325

regarded as deverbal formations by many scholars, but Steinbauer (1989: 139) returns to a dcnominal analysis,based on a putative noun *op-kap- who takes on , whence *op-kap-a- to be an on-taker > to occupy, attack .Since no compound *op-kap- is attested and since occupare belongs so closely to occipere, the deverbal analysisseems more plausible.educare to bring up, rear < *-duk-aje- to ducere to lead < *deuk-e/o-, educere to lead out . The formal andsemantic aspects of the opposition resemble those of dicare versus dicere: zero-grade root in the a-present versusfull-grade root in the thematic present. Also, while educere usually refers to a single action of leading out ,educare typically stretches across a larger amount of time needed to rear a person or tend a plant.profllgare to defeat decisively, crush, ruin utterly . Found once in Plautus, Miles Gloriosus 230: conjidentiast nosinimicos profligare posse, which is hard to analyse for its tclic or atelic semantics. Note, however, the derivednounpr(jflzgator squanderer (Tac.). The simplcxfllgere to strike down is attested only a few times (Andronicus,Accius), but also occurs in the compounds ajf/lgere to strike, cause destruction , confllgere to collide andejj Tgere to strike dead . Thus, it seems quite possible that profllgare represents a deverbal present of atclic orrepetitive motion.infriare to crumble ingredients in or on',.friare to pulverize, crumble ,./i-icare to rub, chafe to PIE *hhriH- tocut . The verbs .fricare andfriare are both clearly atclic and denote repetitive action. Traditionally, it is assumedthat the Latin forms arc based on three adjectives, * lriH-o- cut (whence .friare), *1/'riH-uo- (whence theadjectivesfrivolus worthless, insignificant and refdvus shredded ) and *hhrilf-ko-. This is possible, but there arealternatives. Adjectives in Pit. *-wo-, apart from colour adjectives and clear old cases such as saevus, arc mostlydeverbal to presents of the third and second conjugation (Leumann 1977: 303): assiduus, continuus, etc. Withtransitive verbs, the adjective usually has a passive meaning. Thus, Proto-Latin *frlwo- small, shredded mightrepresent a wo-adjcctive rubbed to a present *jriH-e o- which did not survive, but of which an atelic a-present isfound in.fri-a-re. The *-k- ofjricare (and its originally strong perfectfiicul,.frictus, later replaced by -avl, -atus) isunexplained.elegans c a r e f ~ u l , picky, delicate to Iegere to gather, collect and eligere to select . The retention of unstressed eas an unreduced vowel suggest a more recent origin of elegans than of e/igere. Although only the present participleis attested, it seems clear from its meaning that *e-legare denoted atelic to be selecting I selective , whencecareful and in Plautus decadent . Selecting or picking is a often a repeated activity. A similar situationobtains with this root in Celtic, where we find Middle Welsh dilein to destroy < *di-leg-elo- but Old Irish legaid,-/ega melts, melts away, perishes < *leg-a-. t is not agreed that the Celtic root *leg- to melt (plus Germanic*lek- to leak) is the same as PIE *leg- to collect, read LIV2 400 separates them). Still, since melting ice ordripping liquid can be viewed as drops gathering , the connection is quite possible.alligare to fasten one thing to another, put a noose round, hold together, impede the activity or movement of,restrict , colligare to tie up, put in bounds, tie round , deligare to make fast by tying , obligiire to tie up restrainby tying; to assign for a specific purpose, pledge; to place under a moral or legal obligation, pledge oneself,prae/igare to tie round; to fasten on to the front or extremity , re/igare to make fast, hold firmly in place ,subligare to fasten, gird up . All have prevailingly atelic semantics referring to the repeated movement involvedwith tying. The fact that the simplex ligare does not occur before Catullus suggests that it was metanalyzed fromthe compound verbs. There is no certain cognate material in Italic, but in view of Albanian lidh ties we may posita PTE root *li{ ,-.appellare to speak to, call on, invoke, appeal, designate , compe/lare to address, call upon, rebuke , interpel/areto intem.tpt, obstruct to pe/lere to beat against, push, strike


15/21


16/21


17/21

328 Michie de Vaan

difficult to connect with ~ f i i t i i r e Outside Italic, one might connect the Germanic root baut- 'to beat', but its finaldental is different from that ofTtalic.propagiire 'to reproduce, prolong, extend' to pangere 'to insert firmly, fix'. The verb is atelic, and its meaningmakes a deverbal interpretation as *pri5-piig-aje- easier than a denominal explanation from an unattested *pri5-pago- 'offspring' or 'continuation'. The present was derived from the long vowel variant *pag- which is also attestedin compages 'framework, joint', pri5pages 'which continues', pri5piigi5 'offspring, space for planting', repiigula[n.pl.] 'door-bars', pagus 'country district or community' and piigina 'column or page of writing'.Jnsti'gare 'to incite, drive to action, urge on (in an action already being performed); to incite to anger, provoke; torouse (feelings)'. 'To urge on' clearly is atelic, while 'to incite to anger' has the factitive meaning of the typesedare. Rather than a denominal verb to a putative *steig-(o-) 'sharp point', instlgclre could therefore be an atelicpresent in *-aje- derived from verbal *steig-(e/o-). Verbal cognates are found in Skt. ati stigh- 'to overcome', astig- 'to harm, penetrate, assail', tejate 'to sharpen' (cf. Lubotsky 2008), Greek cnil;w 'to sting, tattoo' andGermanic *stikan- (OHG stehhan) 'to sting'. If the basic meaning of the root was stativc 'to be sharp', as is positedby LJV2, then Latin *steig-a- can be seen as an atclic derivative which adds dynamicity and transitivity, as with thetype sedare.praesti5lare i 'to wait for, expect'. To PIE *stet- 'to arrange, place, set' (sec de Vaan 2008: 486)? If so, adenominal origin is hardly likely: compare the meanings of Greek c n : 6 A o ~ 'equipment', cn:oA 1] 'armour, dress',from which praesti5lare cannot be derived. No other derivatives of the root *stet- appear in Latin, except possiblystolidus 'insensible, stupid' and stoli5 'shoot (in plants)'.amptruiire 'to execute a figure or movement', redamptruare 'to dance in response to the steps of a leader'. Thesecompounds have been explained as denominal to a putative *ambi-drew-o- 'running around', 'servant', but theymay equally well belong to a Proto-Italic verbal stem *drew-(e/o-) from PTE *dreu-; compare Skt. pr. dravati, 'torun, hurry', drava- [adj.] 'running', YAv. drauuaiia- 'to take a run-up'. In that case, *ambi-drew-a- may be adeverbal a-present of atelic movement.5.5.3 Nominal compoundsI have excluded verbs with a nominal first member from my material, mainly because of the chancethat they were built to nominal compounds. Still, I think there is much to say for a deverbal origin oftlsurpiire 'to carry out, make use of, take possession of, a clearly atelic verb, which is analyzed byVendryes (1910-1911: 300) and others as a deverbal present from an instrumental *t sii plus the a-presentto rapere, ii5 Especially the occurrence of t/,nlcapere and tlstifacere renders the erstwhile existence of*tisurapere plausible, more than a hypothetical nominal compound *usu-rap-o-. The same goes, mutatismutandis, for nuncupare to declare, appoint' < *nomo-kapaje-, which is generally seen as a denominal toa compound *nomo-kap-.

A separate class is formed by the compound verbs in -igare and -lgare. With short internal i we findiurigiire, itlrgare to quarrel', lltigare to litigate', navigiire to go by ship , piirigare, piirgiire to clean,purify', which are derived from the consonant stems itls-, lit-, nav-, pur-. Word-internal long Tis foundin derivatives of i-stern nouns: castzgare to reprimand' fattgare to tire', vestzgare 'to follow the trail'and investfgare to track down'. Both groups are usually explained as denominatives to putativecompounds in *-ex, *-igis < *-ag-s, *-agis (Weiss 2009: 402) or in thematic *-ago- (Dunkel 2000a),and of course this cannot be excluded. Still, a deverbal origin is equally plausible. All of these verbsrepresent atelic actions, so that we could be dealing with compounds in *-agare which were createdbecause telic agere was unsuitable.

l Watkins 1970: 323-328) has argued that the use of usurpiita and usurpare for the absence of a woman fromcohabitation with her man for three consecutive days in a year in order to avoid becoming his legal wife, mustrather continue *usu-rup- 'to break usus', from which the verb iJsurpare would be a back-formation. I agreewith Szemerenyi 1974: 181) who objects to the difficult if not impossible syntactic change presupposed byWatkins' etymology. At the most, Szemcrcnyi admits, one might suppose that classical usurpare is due to acoalescence of *usu-ruplire and usu-rapare.


18/21


19/21

330 Michie de Vaan

6.4 0-grade in the rootQuite a number of deverbal a-presents show short o in the root: dolare, domare fodare forare rogare,sonare, tonare, volare, vorare, and maybe Plautine vatare > Classical vetiire. As we have seen above,the a-grade is not in all cases reliable. First of all, sanare can be excluded because its a can go back to

wen-. The a offodclre is expected because its basisfodere < *fod-i- also has *o, as do some of the IEcognates of this verb. For dolclre, valare, vorclre, and Plautine votare, it is impossible to determinewhether they contain *o or underwent rounding of *e. For volare and voriire, I regard *wel/r- assomewhat more likely in view of the Latin tendency to unround *wo- to *wa- in open syllable(Schrijver 1991: 460-465). This would leave doliire, damare, fodiire, fa rare, rogare, and tanare asoriginal o-grade verb stems. These, then, might be built on PIE a-grade presents with iterative,intensive or resultative semantics, which alternated with zero-grade forms in the same paradigm; seeKlimmel2004 for the evidence, Kortlandt 2010: 373--382 for the semantics, and Kortlandt 2010: 383-386 for an explanation of the ablaut a vs. zero.7 Summary and conclusionAll verbs in sections 3 to 5 have atelic value, that is, the action has no natural endpoint. Section 3 dealswith the frequentatives in *-(e)s-a-, which involve repeated movement. In section 4, I discussed thecausatives to statives, which involve factitive verbs of movement. The following are the results forsectionS. to 5.4:ATE_LIC:POSITION: (-)cubare.ACTIVITY:

PROLONGED: ambulare, amare, arare, celiire, -dinare anticipare, occupare, (-)dicare, damare,educare, iuvare, lahare, lavare, meare, mitat, imperare, properare -pellare, assentar'i, (con)si5lar'i,(re)sonare, aspernar'i, -spicar'i, ci5nsternare, -stinare, (can)tonare, venar'i, vetare, vo are, varare.REPETITIVE (event-internal plurality): crepclre, daliire, pri5fllgare, fa rare, (in)friiire, fricare, lzbare,(-)micare, mulcare, -p icare, runcare, secare.FREQUENTATrVE, DISTRIBUTIVE (multiple-event plurality): calare, e egans, dissipclre.

ATELlC) IELIC: -ligare, parare.To be sure, the distinction between prolonged and repeated activity is sometimes an academic one. Forinstance, pe lare, arare, dicare, lavare, vorare may well have started out as repeated actions. Thepresents -ligare and parare were originally atelic, but have adopted telic usages such as 'tie' and'obtain' in due course. For the exceptional position of cubare (the only stative ), see section 5.1.

I conclude that it is possible to regard "atelic movement" as the central semantic component of thedeverbal suffix *-aje-. One might distinguish the following phases in the development of the functionof the suffix (though some functions will have overlapped, depending on the semantics of the verb):

I. Atelic movement (*-s-aje-, sedare)2 Repetitive movement (jorare, secare)3 Atelic activities (lavare, arare, crepare, parare)4 Atelic derivatives from telic compounds (ci5nspicere --> ci5nspicarl)5 Prefixed atelic verbs from a simplex (Iegere---> elegans)

Space restrictions prevent me from discussing the origin of the suffix *-aje- itself. The topic touches onmany disputed issues in the history of Latin (the a-subjunctive, the (b)a-imperfect, etc.) and ProtoIndo-European, and must be dealt with in a separate paper.


20/21

Latin Deverbal Presents in -ii- 331

ReferencesBammesberger, Alfred. I 996. Die maskulinen a-Stamme und der Verbaltyp occupare. In Alfred

Bammesberger and Friedrich Heberlein (eds.), Akten des VI . internationalen Kolloquiums zurlateinischen Linguistik, 50--60. Heidelberg: Winter.

Barbclenct, Daniel. 913. De l aspect verbal en latin ancien et particulierement dans Terence. Paris:Champion.Beekes, Robert. 2010. Etymological Dictionary ofGreek. Two volumes. Lcidcn/Boston: Brill.Brugmann, Karl. 1916. Vergleichende Laut-, Stammbildungs- und Flexionslehre nebst Lehre vom

Gebrauch der Wortformen der indogermanischen Sprachen. Volume 2, Part 3/1. Strassburg:Tri.ibner.

Cardona, George, Henry Hoenigswald, and Alfred Senn (eds.). 1971. Indo-European and IndoEuropeans. Papers presented at the Third Indo-European Conference at the University ofPennsylvania. Philadelphia: University o Pennsylvania Press.Forssman, Bernhard. 2002. Etymologie im Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Museum Helveticum 59.172-187.

Garcia Castillero, Carlos. 2000. La formaci6n del lema de presente primario osco-umbro. Vitoria:Universidad del Pais Vasco.Haver ing, Gerd. 2000. On ,\co-verbs, prefixes and semantic functions: a study in the development ofprefixed and unprefixed verbs from Early to Late Latin. Goteborg: University o Goteborg.

~ ~ 2003. On prefixes and actionality in Classical and Late Latin. Acta Linguistica Hungarica50.113-135.

van der Heyde, Klaas. 1926. Composita en verbaal aspect bij Plautus. Amsterdam University Ph.D.dissertation.. 1932--34. L'aspect verbal en latin. Revue des Etudes Latines 10.326-336; REL 11.69--84; RilL12.140-157.

Isebaert, Lambert. 1992. Spuren akrostatischer Prasensflexion im Lateinischen. In Oswald Panagl andThomas Krisch (eds.), Latein und Indogermanisch. Akten des Kol/oquiums der lndogermanischenGesellschafi, Salzburg, 23.-26. September I986, 193-205. Innsbruck: Institut filr Sprachwissenschaft der Universitat Innsbruck.

Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden/Boston:Brill.

Kortlandt, Frederik. 2007. Italo-Celtic Origins and Prehistoric Development of the Irish Language.Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.

. 2010 . Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uratic. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.Kravar, Miroslav. 1968. Zur Frage des lateinischen Verbalaspekts. Ziva Antika 18.49-66.Kulikov, Leonid. 1999. Split causativity. Remarks on correlations between transitivity, aspect, andtense. In Werner Abraham and Leonid Kulikov (eds.), Tense-Aspect, Transitivity and Causativity:essays in honour ofVladimir Nedjalkov, 21-42. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

. 2008. The Vedic type patayati revisited: semantic oppositions, paradigmatic relationships andhistorical connections. In Alexander Lubotsky, Jos Schaeken and Jeroen Wiedenhof (eds.),Evidence and Counter-Evidence. Festschrift Kortlandt, vol. I, 323-342. Amsterdam/New York:Rodopi.

Ki.immel Martin. 2004. Zur o-Stufe im idg. Verbalsystem. In James Clackson and Birgit Anette Olsen(eds.), Indo-European Word Formation, 139-158. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.

Kurylowiez, Jerzy. 1956. L apophonie en indo-europeen. Wroelaw: Zaklad im. Ossolinskich.Leumann, Manu, 1977. Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. Miinchen: Beck.LIV2 = Rix, Helmut, eta . 200 I. Lexikon der lndogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primiirstammbildungen. Zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Lubotsky, Alexander. 2008. The Indo-Iranian root *stig-. In Leonid Kulikov and Maxim Rusanov

(eds.), Indologica. T Ya. Elizarenkova Memorial Volume, Book I, 305-313. Moseow: RGGU.Meillet, Antoine. 1897. L'expression de l'aoriste en latin. Revue de Philologie 21.81-90.


21/21

332 Michie de Vaan

Meiser, Gerhard. 1986. Lautgeschichte der urnbrischen Sprache. lnnsbruck: Institut fi.ir Sprachwissenschaft dcr Universitiit Innsbruck.1998. Historische Laut- und Forrnenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftlichc Buchgescllschaft.2003. Veni Vidi Vici. Die Vorgeschichte des lateinischen Perfekt. >ysterns. Mi.inchen: Beck.

Melchert, H. Craig. 1984. Studies in Hittite Historical Phonology. Gottingen: Vandcnhoeck and Ruprecht.Mignot, Xavier. 1969. Les verbes denorninatifs latins. Paris: Klincksieck.

Nussbaum, Alan, 2007. Latin present stems in -sa-: A possibly not so minor type. Handout, Kyoto,September 2007.Pedersen, Holger, 1921. Les formes sigrnatiques du verbe latin et le problerne dufutur indo-europeen.(Kg . Danske Vidcnskabernes Selskab. Historisk-filologiskc Meddelclser. Bind 3, nr. 5) Copenhagen : Host and Son.

Pinkstcr, Harm. 1990. Latin Syntax and Semantics. London: Routledge.Praust, Karl. 2000. Studien zum indogermanischen Verbum. Ph.D. dissertation, Universitiit Munster.Reinhold, Heinz. 1956. Zum lateinischen Verbalaspckt. ZVS 74.1-44.Rix, Helmut. 1995. Einige lateinische Priisensstammbildungen zu Set-Wurzeln. In Wojciech Smoczyn

ski (ed.), Kurylowicz Memorial Volume, Part one, 399-408. Cracow: Universitas.. 1999. Schwach charakterisierte lateinische Priisensstiimme zu Set-Wurzeln mit Vollstufe I. InHeiner Eichner and Hans Christian Luschi.itzky (eds.), Compositiones Indogermanicae in memoriam Jochem Schindler, 515-535. Praha: enigma.

Romagno, Domenica. 2003. Azionalita e transitivita: II caso dei preverbi Iatini. Archivio glottologicoitaliano 8 8 . 1 5 6 ~ 170.Schrijver, Peter, 1991. The Reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European Laryngeals in Latin. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.. 2003. Athematic i-presents: the Italic and Celtic evidence. lncontri Linguistici 26.59--86.. 2006. Review of Meiser 2003. Kratylos 5 1 . 4 6 ~ 6 4 .Sihler, Andrew. 1995. New Comparative Grammar of Latin and Greek. New York/Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Sjoestedt, Marie-Louise. 1925a. Les iteratifs latins en -tare (-sare). Bulletin de a Societe deLinguistique de Paris 25.153--173.. 1925b. Les iteratifs latins en -tare (-sare) (Suite). Bulletin de Ia Societe de Linguistique de Paris26.113-143.

Steinbauer, Dieter. 1989. Etymologische Untersuchungen zu den bei Plautus belegten Verben derlateinischen ersten Konjugation. Unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Denominative.Universitiit Regensburg Ph.D. dissertation.

Szemerenyi, Oswald. 1974. Review of Cardona, Hoenigswald, and Senn 1971. Journal ofLinguistics10.178-185.Tucker, Elizabeth F. 1990. The Creation ofMorphological Regularity: Early Greek Verbs in -eo -ao -66, -uo

and fa. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.de Vaan, Michie . 2008. Etymological Dictionary of Latin and the Other Italic Languages. Leiden:

Brill..Forthcoming. PIE i-presents, s-presents, and their reflexes in Latin. Glotta 87 [2011].

Vendryes, Joseph. 1910-1911. Sur quelques presents en a du verbe italo-celtique. Memoires de laSociete de Linguistique de Paris 16.300-305.

Watkins, Calvert. 1970. Studies in Indo-European legal language, institutions, and mythology. InCardona, Hoenigswald, and Senn 1971,321--354.Willi, Andreas. 2010. The Umbrian perfect in -n9-l-ns-. TPS I 8 . 1 ~ 14.

Wissmann, Wilhelm. 1932. Nomina postverbalia in den altgermanischen Sprachen: nebst einerVorunterschung iiber deverbative Verba. Gottingen: Vandenhoeck Ruprecht.

latin deverbal presents in aa -de vaan

Documents