The passive voice in ancient Indo-European languages

Silvia Luraghi Guglielmo Inglese and Daniel Koumllligan

The passive voice in ancient Indo-Europeanlanguages inflection derivationperiphrastic verb forms

httpsdoiorg101515flin-2021-2033Received May 29 2020 accepted October 20 2020

Abstract The IE languages developed different strategies for the encoding ofthe passive function In some language branches the middle voice extended tothe passive function to varying extents In addition dedicated derivationalformations arose in a number of languages such as the Greek -ē--thē- aorist andthe Indo-Aryan -ya-presents Periphrastic formations involving a verbal adjectiveor a participle are also widely attested and played an important role in thebuilding of the passive paradigm in eg Romance and Germanic languages Asthe periphrastic passive is also attested in Hittite alongside passive use of themiddle both strategies seem to be equally ancient Some minor strategies includelexical passives and the extensive lability of verbs A survey of possible strategiesprovides evidence for the rise of a disparate number of morphemes andconstructions and for their ongoing incorporation into the inflectional paradigms(paradigmaticization) of given languages thus adding to our knowledge aboutcross-linguistic sources of passive morphology and grammaticalization processesinvolved

Keywords ancient Indo-European languages derivation inflectionmiddle voicepassive periphrastic forms

1 Introduction

The Indo-European (henceforth IE) languages inherited from Proto-Indo-European (henceforth PIE) a two-way voice system with an opposition between

Corresponding author Silvia Luraghi Dipartimento di Studi Umanistici Universitagrave degli Studi diPavia Pavia Italy and National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University)Moscow Russian Federation E-mail silvialuraghiunipvitGuglielmo Inglese Department of Linguistics KU Leuven Leuven Belgium and FWO (ResearchFoundation ndash Flanders) Brussels Belgium E-mail guglielmoinglesekuleuvenbeDaniel Koumllligan Institut fur Altertumswissenschaften Julius-Maximilians-Universitat WurzburgWurzburg Germany E-mail danielkoelliganuni-wuerzburgde

Folia Linguistica Historica 2021 42(2) 339ndash391

Open Access copy 2021 Silvia Luraghi et al published by De Gruyter This work is licensedunder the Creative Commons Attribution 40 International License

an active and a middle voice both inflectional and with complete paradigms atleast in the present and in the aorist1 In most languages the middle voice alsoacquired the function of a passive This development is usually held to have takenplace at a late stage of PIE or possibly later in the individual languages Howeverthis is not the only way in which the ancient IE languages acquired a third voicedistinction2 as is well known Indo-Iranian and Greek also have a distinct passiveat least in some tenses while Hittite makes use of a periphrastic passive fromits earliest stages The way in which this third voice was created in individuallanguages and language families involves an interaction of inflectional andderivational processes with derivational means increasingly acquiring a place ininflectional paradigms In addition periphrastic verb forms occur at very earlystages in some language families sometimes involving only part of the paradigmas in Latin or Gothic

The interaction of inflection derivation and periphrastic formations andthe paradigmatization of forms that in origin featured different morphologicalprocesses have never to our knowledge received a unified treatment encom-passing all branches of the Indo-European language family In this paper we aimto bridge this gap and offer a comprehensive view of the rise of the passive voice inindividual languages3 We also provide some details about developments andtendencies at stages that follow those of the earliest sources While the aim of thispaper remains mainly descriptive4 by highlighting such developments we also

1 The reconstruction of themiddle paradigm in PIE is a notoriously controversial topic especiallyin its connection to the PIE perfect and the Hittite -ḫi conjugation (see Jasanoff 2003 see alsoKuumlmmel 2020 for a recent discussion) The reconstruction of the inflectional middle is furthercomplicated by the fact that individual branches do not agree in the shape of the endings Somelanguages including Hittite Italic Celtic and Tocharian make use of a distinctive component -rin the present (eg 3SG Hitt -tari Lat -tur) while languages such as Ancient Greek and Indo-Iranian show present middle endings in -j (eg 3SG Gk -tai) For the purpose of this paper weregard r- and j-middle endings as essentially equivalent The language-specific shape of themiddleendings as well as their reconstruction falls beyond the scope of this paper and will not bediscussed further here For further reference see various IE linguistics textbooks includingAdradoset al (2016) Brugmann (1916) Clackson (2007 142ndash151) Fortson (2010 93ndash95) Meier-Bruumlgger(2010) On the distribution of middle endings in IE languages see the description of individuallanguages in Fortson (2010) and Kapović (2016)2 We use the term lsquovoicersquo in reference to active middle and passive forms in accordance with thetradition adopted in Indo-European linguistics For a typological definition of verbal voice seeZuacutentildeiga and Kittilauml (2019 4)3 A recent overview of passive constructions in Ancient IE languages has been presented byFellner and Grestenberger (2017)4 A reviewer points out that our paper ldquodoes not attempt to provide explanation for many of thesedevelopmentsrdquo While we certainly do not deny the importance of finding explanations for thetrends we describe we think that this should be the task of (at least) another paper indeed a

340 Luraghi et al

strive to add evidence to what is known about the sources of passive markersIndeed as pointed out in Haspelmath (1990 25) ldquoattention from the point of viewof syntax corresponds [to] a relative negligence of the morphological aspects ofpassive constructions most importantly the passive marker on the verbrdquo Notablythis still holds after a time span of three decades

The paper is organized as follows In Section 2 we discuss the use of theinherited middle voice with passive function in various ancient IE languagesconcentrating on Greek (Section 23) Indo-Iranian (Section 24) and Latin(Section 25) In Section 3wemove on to discuss innovativemorphologicalmarkersfor the passive function in Greek (Section 31) Indo-Iranian (Section 32) Old Irish(Section 33) and Middle Armenian (Section 34) Section 4 is devoted to the dis-cussion of periphrastic passive constructions with a focus on Hittite (Section 41)Latin (Section 42) Slavic (Section 43) Indo-Iranian (Section 44) Germanic(Section 45) and Armenian (Section 46) In Section 5 we give an overview ofmarginal strategies employed to encode passive function in early IE languagessuch as lexical passives (Section 51) and resultative and stative constructions(Section 52) with a focus on lability and conjugation class change in Armenian(Section 53) Section 6 contains the conclusions

Before going into the discussion of the data some more attention needs to bepaid to our definition of passive The literature on passive its role within voicesystems passive constructions and their properties is very extensive and we donot wish here to enter a theoretical discussion on what qualifies as passive (seeamong others Keenan and Dryer 2007 Shibatani 1988 Siewierska 1984 2013Zuacutentildeiga and Kittilauml 2019 82ndash102 the collections of papers in Abraham and Leisiouml2006 for a recent discussion in relationwith voice in Indo-European languages seeGrestenberger 2021) For the purpose of our paper we adopt a somewhat adaptedversion of the criteria set out in Haspelmath (1990 27) integrated with the defi-nition of prototypical passives in Zuacutentildeiga and Kittilauml (2019 83) and consider pas-sive those constructions that show the following properties5

(i) the construction is somehow restricted vis-agrave-vis another unrestrictedconstruction (the active) eg less frequent functionally specialized not fullyproductive

(ii) the active direct object (O) corresponds to the subject (S) of the passive

comprehensive description is a necessary preliminary for explanatory studies As such acomprehensive description is missing we aim to bridge this gap and pave the way for furtherresearch5 Grestenberger (2021) following formal approaches (Alexiadou and Doron 2012 Alexiadou andSchaumlfer 2013 Alexiadou et al 2015) makes a distinction between two types of passive based onldquowhether they select a transitive input structure or are compatible with intransitive verbsrdquo

The passive voice in ancient Indo-European languages 341

(iii) the active subject (A) corresponds to a non-obligatory oblique phrase or tonothing

(iv) syntactic valency is reduced by one argument compared with the activediathesis (eg the verb ismonovalent when its active counterpart is bivalent)

Point (iii) must be given special attention6 As we will see the passive interpre-tation of some constructions and of some morphemes crucially depends on theoccurrence of an agent phrase On the other hand some constructions that canexpress a passive meaning remain marginal on account of their non-occurrencewith agent phrases (see especially Section 5) Notably non-occurrence with agentphrases is determined by various factors including the verbrsquos semantics theproperties of the agent participant (A) and the type of construction (see Siewierskaand Bakker 2012) It does not depend on the reconstructability of a specific way ofencoding passive agents in PIE on which there is no general agreement (seeHettrich 1990 Jamison 1979 Luraghi 1986 Melchert 2016 among others)

2 The medio-passive

In this section we discuss the use of inherited middle forms to express the passivemeaning After a survey of the reconstructed voice system of PIE (Section 21) and asurvey of voice opposition across the IE languages (Section 22) we focus on Greek(Section 23) Latin (Section 24) and Indo-Aryan (Section 25) We concludeshowing some general tendencies of ancient IE languages with respect to thepassive use of the middle voice and highlighting divergent developments in thelanguages surveyed in greater detail (Section 26)

21 The PIE middle voice and its reflexes in IE languages

The original meaningfunction of the PIE middle voice is a matter of discussion(see among others Benedetti 2006 Clackson 2007 142ndash151 Grestenberger 2016Inglese 2020 Kulikov and Lavidas 2013 Luraghi forthcoming Meiser 2009) butthere is general agreement on some at least partial connection with uncontrolledevents both stative and inchoative (ie involving a change of state) and withreflexivity while the passive function represents a later development How thesemeanings may connect with the passive function has been discussed in the

6 Among other things this is a distinctive feature of passives as opposed to anticausatives whichnever allow agent expressions (Zuacutentildeiga and Kittilauml 2019 41)

342 Luraghi et al

framework of IE linguistics and of linguistic typology As this semantic extension isnot the focus of this paper we refer to Creissels (2006 Chs 22 23) Haspelmath(1990) Kemmer (1993 196ndash198) Kulikov (2013) Zuacutentildeiga and Kittilauml (2019 223ndash226)among others for details

Here we would like to stress the fact that the existence of a sizeable numberof media tantum in several ancient IE languages points to a possible lexicaldistribution of active and middle voice at least at an early stage of PIE Thissituation may be reflected in the occurrence of only a few verbs that display voicealternation in Old Hittite (OH) originals ḫalzai- lsquocallrsquo ḫantae- lsquoalignrsquo ištarni(n)k-lsquoafflictrsquo nai- lsquoturnrsquo and šuppiaḫḫ- lsquopurifyrsquo (and possibly markiyea- lsquorefusersquo)7 Themiddle forms of ištarni(n)k- ḫantae- and nai- have anticausative meaning themiddle forms of šuppiaḫḫ- have reflexive meaning while the middle of ḫalzai- isimpersonal or passive (cf Inglese 2020 201ndash206 Luraghi 1990 135 note 76 Neu1968 115ndash116 see further Melchert forthcoming) Voice alternation expanded afterthe OH period when more media tantum developed active forms while activatantum developed middle forms (Inglese 2020 206ndash218)

Similarly in Ancient Greek voice opposition though well attested in HomericGreek expanded further at later language stages Indeed several verbs that occurin Homer asmedia tantum or activa tantum show new forms with voice oppositionat later stages of the language as for example Homeric theromai lsquobe warmrsquo versuslater therō lsquowarm up (tr)rsquo atuacutezomai lsquofearrsquo shows some active forms in later epicswith the meaning lsquofrightenrsquo (see Delbruumlck 1897 410 Lazzeroni 2004 143 Luraghi2020) Notablymedia tantum developing new active forms follow this pattern andinstantiate the anticausative alternation (see Allan 2003 50ndash51) Activa tantumalso show new middle forms in the course of time but such development couldhave two opposite results either it remained limited to specific tenses typically thefuture and did not bring about any semantic opposition or it created an activepassive opposition (see Schwyzer and Debrunner 1959 225ndash226)

As we discuss in Section 22 with the exception of Balto-Slavic all languagebranches inherited at least in part the inflectional middle of PIE these includeAnatolian Indo-Iranian Greek Italic Celtic Armenian Tocharian Albanianand among Germanic languages Gothic By the time of the earliest attestationsthe Balto-Slavic languages had already developed the so-called reflexive middletypical of many European languages today They do not show any reflexes ofthe PIE inflectional middle and the passive voice is expressed by periphrasticconstructions involving participles (Section 43)

7 Some OH middle verbs lack an active counterpart in Old Script (OS) but this might be anaccidental gap see Inglese (2020) for details


22 The medio-passive in Indo-European languages

In the languages that preserve its reflexes the middle may also function asa passive though to different extents In Gothic the extant middle forms arevirtually all passive and are restricted to the present tense indicative and optative(Braune 2004 141 Kleyner 2019 see Braune 2004 148 158 for a list of syntheticpassive forms) The passive function of these forms is shown by the fact that theyusually translate Greek medio-passive and passive forms as in (1)8

(1) twos wairthornand malandeins samana ainatwoNOM AUXPRS3PL grindPTCPNOMPLF together oneNOMSGFusnimada jah anthornara bileithornadatakePRSMP3SG and otherNOMSGF leavePRSMP3SGlsquoTwo women shall be grinding together the one shall be taken and theother leftrsquo(Luke 1735 Gk esontai duacuteo alēthuosai epigrave tograve auto hēmiacutea paralēmphthēseta[takeFUTPASS3SG] hē de hetera aphethēsetai [leaveFUTPASS3SG])9

In the other Indo-European languages one must distinguish between verbs thatcan have voice alternation and media tantum or deponent verbs that only havemiddlemorphology The lattermay be transitive and in some languages they canoccur in impersonal passive constructions However they do not develop specialmorphology for this reason they will not be further discussed here (on deponentverbs in PIE see Grestenberger 2016)

In Hittite as we have remarked above voice alternation was on the rise Afterthe Old Hittite period verbs increasingly display voice alternation Among othermeanings typical of the middle voice the Hittite middle also features the passive

8 While Gothic passives are often used to translate Greekmedio-passives there are also instancesof active verbs in Greek translated as passives in Gothic See Kleyner (2019) and Ratkus (2020) for acritical discussion of the Gothic material9 Examples are glossed following the Leipzig glossing rules (httpswwwevampgdelinguapdfGlossing-Rulespdf) Note that in this paper we gloss as MP forms that feature continuants ofthe PIEmedio-passive inflection irrespective of their function in context Separate glosses MID andPASS are given for those constructions that distinguish between the two (eg the Ancient Greekaorist system) Other glosses include AOR = aorist CONN = connective GERV = gerundiveIMPF = imperfect PERL = perlative PPP = perfect passive participle PTC = particle PREV = preverbTranslations of examples are ours or adapted from reference editions Textual sources of examplesare indicated following the standard practices and abbreviations in the field

344 Luraghi et al

function which becomes prominent especially in New Hittite (see Inglese 2020221 Melchert forthcoming)10 Let us consider example (2)

(2) n=ašta MUL-aš nepišaz katta maušzi KUR-yašCONN =PTC starNOM skyABL down fallPRS3SG countryGENAŠAgrave kuraš IZI-it warnutarifield sliceGEN fireINS burnPRSMP3SGlsquoWhen a star falls down from the sky the field of the country will beburned by firersquo(KUB 825 i 3 NH)

The verb warnutari is a medio-passive form of the causative of themedium tantumwar- lsquobe burningrsquo In (2) it functions as passive as shown by the occurrence of theagentforce phrase IZI-it lsquoby firersquo11 Its meaning is similar to the meaning of thebasic verb indeed -nu- causatives are often regarded as fulfilling the function ofactive counterparts of some media tantum (Neu 1968 53)

Tocharian also displays traces of the inherited middle voice (Pinault 2008622ndash624 629ndash630 see Adams 2015 Malzahn 2010 Ch 5 Schmidt 1974 for athorough discussion) Besides a number of media tantum one also finds a fewverbs that occur both in the active and in the middle Specifically the middlevoice operates as a valency decreasing device mostly with passive meaning (seeespecially Adams 2015 on Tocharian B)12 An example from Tocharian A is (3)which contains an agent phrase in the perlative case13

(3) kuṣtlwākā tā=śśi yaumlrtaumlrpredatorPERLPL where=PTC dragPRSMP3SGlsquoWhere is he being dragged by the predatorsrsquo(CEToM A 55 b2)

The most detailed evidence for the outcome of the PIE middle in Celtic comes fromthe better preserved Insular Celtic languages chiefly Old Irish The PIE middle

10 Evidence for a passive use of the inherited medio-passive inflection in other Anatolian lan-guages is rather scanty andmost of the alleged evidence is controversial at best See Inglese (202087ndash88) with references11 Agentforce is encoded through the instrumental or the ablative case in Hittite Notablyagented passives do not occur in OH originals (data from Inglese 2020 141)12 A limited number of anticausative middle forms occur (see Malzahn 2010 87 102) Howeverthe anticausative alternation in Tocharian is predominantly encoded by stem alternation ratherthan by voice see Carling (2003) and Malzahn (2010 Ch 4)13 Animate agents are encoded through the perlative case in Tocharian while inanimate forcescauses are encoded in the instrumental (attestations are limited to Tocharian A) see Luraghi(1986)


gave rise to two distinct inflectional paradigms in Old Irish the deponent and thepassive In the first place Old Irish features a number of lsquodeponentsrsquo that ismediatantum which display an inflection distinct from the active in all tenses Thedeponent inflection is characterized by r-endings and historically derives from thePIE middle (see Cowgill 1983 McCone 2005 Watkins 1969 12ndash17) The PIE middlealso lies behind the present passive inflection which likewise features r-endingsas in eg beirid lsquoshe carriesrsquo versus berair lsquoshe is carriedrsquo As deponents showalready in Old Irish a tendency to be transferred to the active paradigm (Cowgill1983 73 Thurneysen 1998 328) the reflex of the PIEmiddle remained increasinglylimited to the passive Hence one can say that in this respect Old Irish alignswith Gothic (as described above) and Latin (Section 24) in showing a strongspecialization of the inflectional middle for the passive functions since its earlieststage indeed other oppositional functions of the middle are unattested in OldIrish In the preterite -r endings are attested for deponent verbs only whereas anew passive paradigm has been created on the basis of the PIE verbal adjectives in-to- (McCone 2005 231ndash236 Thurneysen 1998 437ndash440) We discuss this newformation in Section 33

In spite of its late attestation Albanian shows traces of the PIE middle voiceThis language displays an alternation between active and non-active inflectionthe latter indicating a range of functions including passive reflexive and anti-causative (see Kalulli 2006 443 Rusakov 2016 584 for an overview) In the presentand the imperfect non-active voice is indicated by a dedicated set of endings thatdirectly continues the PIE middle voice (Orel 2000 213 Rusakov 2016 594) Inaddition the passive function can also be indicated by participles of transitiveverbs with the copula jam lsquobersquo in periphrastic tenses Elsewhere the system haspartly been reshaped with other finite and non-finite non-active forms of the verbsmarked by the clitic form u Notably this form is the outcome of the PIE reflexivepronoun sw- (Orel 2000 213 Rusakov 2016 596) which has been fully integratedin the verbal paradigm and can also function as a passive marker Similar de-velopments whereby an original reflexive marker shifted to the encoding of themiddle voice including the passive function are also attested in (Balto-)Slavic(Section 43) Germanic (Section 45) and Romance languages as thoroughlydiscussed by Kemmer (1993)

23 Ancient Greek

In Homeric Greek the passive function is partly associated with the middle voiceeven though as noted by Chantraine (1953 180) a passive reading of the middle isoften dependent on the context in other words middle forms may have passivemeaning but not necessarily Thus as has been argued in Luraghi (2010a) it is often

346 Luraghi et al

the case that the occurrence of an agent phrase triggers a passive interpretationwhich would not be available if no agent phrase co-occurred as shown in (4)ndash(6)

(4) e maacutela dḗ se biaacutezetai ōkugraves AkhilleuacutesPTC much PTC 2SGACC constrainPRSMP3SG swiftNOM ANOMlsquoCertainly swift Achilles does great violence to yoursquo(Il 22229)

(5) Euruacutelokhrsquo e mala dḗ me biaacutezete moucircnonEVOC PTC much PTC 1SGACC constrainPRS2PL aloneACCeoacutentabePTCPPRSACClsquoEurylochus you do great violence to me who stand alonersquo(Od 12298)

(6) Aiacuteas drsquo ouketrsquo emimne biaacutezeto gagraver beleessinANOM PTC NEG remainIMPF3SG constrainIMPFMP3SG PTC dartDATPLlsquoBut Aiax could not hold on as he was oppressed by dartsrsquo(Il 11575ndash6)

In (4) and (5) both themedio-passive form biaacutezetai and the active form biaacutezete haveactive function and accordingly take accusative direct objects se lsquoyoursquo in (4) andme lsquomersquo in (5) In (6) the agentinstrument phrase beleessin lsquoby dartsrsquo lsquowith dartsrsquoalong with the absence of an accusative object induces a passive interpretation

On the other hand there are verbs whose passive function does not depend onthe occurrence of an agent phrase such as verbs of consumption as in (7)

(7) hoacutessa toi ekpepotai kaigrave edḗdotai enhow_muchNOM PTC drinkPRFMP3SG and eatPRFMP3SG inmegaacuteroisipalaceDATPLlsquoAll that has been drunk and eaten in (your) palacersquo(Od 2256)14

14 Notably the forms ekpepotai and edḗdotai are middle perfects The middle of this tense isthought to have originated at a late stage when the perfect acquired object-orientedmeaning seeCrellin (2020 438 454ndash457) Schwyzer and Debrunner (1959 263ndash264) Willi (2018 219ndash220)Indeed originally the function of the perfect was ldquothat of a subject-oriented resultative orlsquointensiversquo present the pluperfect being its past ie a stative imperfectrdquo (Kuumlmmel 2020 28) Inpractice in Ancient Greek the perfect forms may express ldquopure state resultative and anteriorsemanticsrdquo and these meanings show a lexical distribution based on the different types of verbbases that the perfect may occur with (Crellin 2020 437)


The future of the verb edō lsquoeatrsquo always hasmiddlemorphology and activemeaningcf Luraghi (2010a 63)15

24 Latin

The Latin verb shows signs of deep restructuration of the verbal system tradi-tionally reconstructed for PIE (Clackson and Horrocks 2007 18ndash26 Fortson 2010278ndash281 with further references) Finite forms of the verb are based on two stemsthe present stem or infectum which mostly continues the PIE present and includesa newly created imperfect and the perfect stemor perfectum which is based on themerger of the PIE aorist and the perfect along with the newly created u-perfects

Concerning verbal voice Latin inherited the two-fold active versus medio-passive voice opposition which is only preserved in the infectum (see Section 42on the perfectum) As in other ancient IE languages the middle inflection isattested with two groups of verbs that is media tantum which are traditionallylabelled lsquodeponentrsquo verbs in Latin linguistics (see Flobert 1975 Gianollo 2010) andoppositional middles Unlike Ancient Greek oppositional middles in Latin show aspecialization in passive function from an early date (Clackson andHorrocks 200725ndash26 see Pinkster 2015 for a general overview of voice alternations in Latin) whiletheir use as anticausatives was muchmore limited (Cennamo et al 2015 683ndash704Gianollo 2010 2014 Inglese 2021)

As remarked above however the inherited medio-passive morphology inLatin was limited to the infectum system while as we will see in Section 42 theperfectum featured a periphrastic construction Hence Latin featured a syntheticpassive only for tenses based on the present stem As an example considerthe passive form amantur lsquoare lovedrsquo in (8) in which an Agent phrase withab + ablative also occurs (on the expression of the Agent in passive sentences seeLuraghi 2010b 44ndash50 66ndash70)

(8) et ab eis ita amanturand by 3PLABL thus lovePRSMP3PLlsquo(Certain animals up to a certain time love their offspring) and are so lovedby themrsquo(Cic Amic 27)

15 Tense-based distribution of voice morphology is typical of several verbs in Ancient GreekAccording to Schwyzer and Debrunner (1959 225) activa tantum ie verbs that only or mostlyshow active morphology tend to show middle morphology with active meaning in the futuretense On individual verbs see further Allan (2003 209) Luraghi (2020 199 248ndash249 253) Luumlhr(2012) discusses the case of the verb piacutenō lsquodrinkrsquo which similarly to edō lsquoeatrsquo consistently showsmiddle morphology and active meaning in the future

348 Luraghi et al

25 Indo-Aryan

In Indo-Aryan the passive function of themiddle voice though attested is limitedand other strategies are preferred already at an early time (see Sections 32 and 43)The extent to which middle forms are used with passive meaning depends on theverbal stem present aorist perfect and future

According to Kulikov (2006) in forms based on the present stem passive use ofthe middle is limited to a handful of occurrences in the earliest books of theRigveda One of the forms he mentions is miacutemīte lsquobe measuredrsquo that can be inter-preted as having passive meaning in three occurrences in RV 81210 81211 and81213 (even though remarkably there are no agent phrases in these passages)

Among other occurrences of passive middles the middle present śumbhatefrom the root śubh- lsquoadornrsquo functions as passive in (9)

(9) yābhir maacutedāya śuacutembhateRELINSPL exhilarationDAT adornPRSMP3SGlsquoBy whom he is beautified for exhilarationrsquo(RV 9383)

Kulikov also mentions the comparatively frequent staacutevate lsquois praisedrsquo from stav-stu- which is commonly considered along with grṇīte lsquois invoked is praisedrsquo abackformation from the stative form stave (Kuumlmmel 1996 135ndash136) and -tundate(attested in ni-tundate) lsquobe pushedrsquo In addition to this the form stuṣe also from theroot stav- stu- is attested along with grṇīṣe from the same root as grṇīte as in (10)

(10) iacutendra grṇīṣaacute u stuṣeIVOC invokePRSMP2SG and praisePRSMP2SGlsquoIndra you are invoked and praisedrsquo(RV 8655)

Themorphological statusofboth forms isdisputed theymightbe firstor secondpersonNotably while in the latter case the two forms would indeed have passive meaning ifthey are taken as first persons then theymust also be taken as having activemeaning16

16 Jamison and Brereton (2014 34) summarize the different interpretations as follows ldquoThemorphological identity of the forms gṛṇīṣe and stuṣe is disputed Ge[ldner] takes them as second sgpassives (favored also by Old[enberg]) though he mentions the possibility that they are first sg -seforms in his n Lub[otsky] identifies themas first singulars I take themas infinitives rather than firstsg primarily because they are accented However it is possible that a finite verb would bear theaccent after the accented initial voc iacutendra and that the second formwouldbeaccented contrastivelyso first sg is certainly not excluded Since the lsquoyoursquo of the publ tr ( lsquodichrsquo of Ge[ldner]rsquos tr) is notovertly expressed either interpretation fits the textrdquo To these Kuumlmmel (1996 36) must be addedwho takes the two forms as first person singular (hence both with active meaning)


Middle forms from sigmatic aorists may have passive meaning An occurrenceis aacutesrkṣata in (11)

(11) yaacutet pāntildecajanyayā viśā iacutendre ghoacuteṣā aacutesrkṣatawhen clan_fiveINS tribeINS IndraLOC cryNOMPL sendAORMID3PLlsquoWhen cries were sent surging to Indra by the clan belonging to the FivePeoplesrsquo(RV 8637)

According to Kulikov (2006 73) ldquothere are also a few isolated occurrences ofmiddle aorists of other morphological types found in passive constructions Theseinclude a 3sg form of the thematic aorist of khyā lsquosee consider reckonrsquo (-akhyata)at RV 9617 [hellip] and a 3sg form of the root aorist of śā lsquosharpenrsquo (-aacuteśīta) at RV1572rdquo The latter passage is given here as example (12)

(12) yaacutet samaacuteśīta haryataacuteḥ iacutendrasya vaacutejraḥwhen whetAORMID3SG enjoyableNOM IGEN maceNOMlsquoWhen the enjoyable mace of Indra has been whettedrsquo(RV 1572)

Outside the present and the aorist systems for which other dedicated passiveformations exist (see Sections 32 and 43) the middle can function as passive inthe future and in the perfect as noted in Burrow (1955 295) Notably not only isthe future considered to be a late formation it also features a passive participlethe so-called gerundive that can replace the passive (see Section 43) A numberof middle perfects might have originated from the stative see Kuumlmmel (1996 9)

To sum up while the middle can function as a passive in Vedic Sanskrit otherstrategies are preferred and even in later prose the extent to which the middlevoice can express the passive remains limited due to the extension of other stra-tegies as we will discuss especially in Section 43 Still as we argue in Section 32the middle endings remained associated with the passive function in Indo-Aryanas the present passive always featured the middle endings with only a handful ofexceptions

26 Discussion

Aswe have shown in Section 22 the extent to which themiddle voice extended tothe passive function varies among the Indo-European languages Zooming inon Ancient Greek Indo-Aryan and Latin we have observed three differentsituations and these as we argue below were also followed by different de-velopments While in Greek the passive use of the middle voice did not cover the

350 Luraghi et al

majority of occurrences but was clearly on the rise in Indo-Aryan passiveoccurrences are marginal if not inexistent without additional marking (seeSection 32) In Latin on the other hand the middle voice appears to bespecialized for the passive function at an early stage already Remarkably Greekis the only Indo-European language that has preserved an inflectional middle upto today with the percentage of passive occurrences steadily increasing overtime Indo-Aryan underwent a thorough change in its alignment system partlyconnected with the widespread use of the periphrastic passive (Section 43) InLatin an inflectional medio-passive was available only for part of the tenses andleft no traces in the Romance languages

Historical data on the development of the Greek voice system shows that theassociation between middle forms and passive meaning remained constantly onthe rise over time A comparison of data from different language stages canillustrate this point Even though the Modern Greek middle largely preserves thesemantics of the Ancient Greek middle token frequency shows a different dis-tribution of the variousmeanings In a corpus study comparing different stages inthe history of Greek Luraghi and Mertyris (2021) found that the percentage ofpassive middles increased dramatically from Homeric Greek to literary ModernGreek passing from 196 to 639 (while reflexivereciprocalautobeneficiaryand anticausative middles decreased from 383 to 121 and from 421ndash24respectively)

Latin is also particularly instructive from a historical perspective The voicesystem of Classical Latin underwent profound changes in Late Latin and theinflectional medio-passive eventually disappeared A number of factors contrib-uted to the demise of the medio-passive from Latin to the Romance languagesFocusing on the passive function the loss of the inflectional medio-passiveresulted in the extension of the periphrastic passive construction which in Latinwas restricted to the perfectum (see Section 42) to the entire paradigm (on thegrammaticalization of periphrastic passives in Romance see eg Cennamo 20062019 2020) Other functions of the medio-passive notably the anticausativeended up being increasingly associated with the reflexive pronoun sibise as canbe seen already in Late Latin in which several verbs also show anticausativelability (Cennamo et al 2015 Gianollo 2014)17

After the Vedic period Indo-Aryan shows a stable situation for the presentstem with middle endings associated with the passive function in the dedicatedderivational passive in -ya- (Section 32) In the other tenses however the passive

17 The media tantum were also eliminated and new non-oppositional verbs showing reflexivemorphology arose in the Romance languages eg Lat irascor lsquobe(come) angryrsquo corresponds toItalian arrabbiar-si lsquoget angryrsquo (Cennamo et al 2015 686ndash689 693ndash703 Kemmer 1993 151ndash182)


function of the middle voice remained limited on account of the ongoingreplacement of past tenses (in the first place the aorist) and partly also of the futuretense by non-finite verb forms a development that eventually led to changes in thealignment system We return to this issue in Section 43

3 Morphological passives

Morphological passives are attested in Ancient Greek and in Indo-Iranian In theselanguages some verbal tenses display dedicated passive forms which feature aderivational suffix (typically a suffix for stative verbs) In Greek such derivationalpassives are considered as being fully integrated in the verbal paradigm while indescriptive grammars of Indo-Iranian at least in the case of the present passivethey are kept apart as belonging to the group of derived inflections To these asfurther examples of morphological strategies being integrated into paradigms aspassive markers one can add the creation of a new preterite passive inflection outof the verbal adjectives in -to- in Old Irish and the complex system of inflectionalclass change attested in Armenian and the rise of a new passive in -v- in MiddleArmenian

In this section we discuss these formations paying special attention to Greek(Section 31) Indo-Aryan (Section 32) Old Irish (Section 33) and Middle Armenian(Section 34)We compare and discuss the data from these languages in Section 35(Classical Armenian which shows a different scenario will be treated further on inSection 53)

31 Ancient Greek

In Ancient Greek the future and the aorist have separate passive paradigms Inboth tenses the passive is formedwith the suffixes -ē- or -thē- and takes the activeendings The originalmeaning of these suffixeswasnot directly connectedwith thepassive Concerning the suffix -ē- the general consensus is that it derived from thePIE suffix -eh₁--h₁- of stative verbs (eg Beekes 2011 256ndash257 Fortson 2010 100Rix 1992 218 Ruijgh 2004 Sihler 1995 497 Jasanoff 2004 reconstructs instead asuffix -eh₁-yeo- based on the ending of the instrumental case -eh1- not - h1 or -h1-yeo- and denies the possibility that the suffix of stative verbs was a source for thepassive see further the discussion in Haspelmath 1990 51ndash52)18

18 According to some this suffix might also have had an inchoative (lsquofientiversquo) meaning andindicate uncontrolled change of state (eg Harđarson 1998 LIV2 25 Meier-Bruumlgger 2010 307)however this view has been challenged by Jasanoff (2004)

352 Luraghi et al

The origin of the suffix -thē- must be sought in all likelihood withinGreek Both Chantraine (1961) and several other scholars have suggested re-segmentation of verbs that featured the suffix -th- which possibly indicatedchange of state19 As Benveniste (1935 196) pointed out the re-segmentationprocess is not a result of chance indeed the Greek suffix -th- goes back to the PIEsuffix -dh which had a resultative meaning Already Prevot (1935) calledattention to the similarity between the aorist in -thē- and the presents in -thōBenveniste (1935 188ndash210) who has devoted a whole chapter to this suffixshowed that in the present the suffix -th- occurs with verbs that in spite featuringactive inflection are ldquoall intransitives and with a clearly middle meaningrdquo20

(1935 194) He argues that the re-segmentation was semantically motivated andwrites that it ldquowas not arbitrary The aorist in -then is easily connected withpresents in -thohellipBy its ownmeaning the suffix th- had the tendency to be addedto impersonal intransitive or stative verbs and convey a meaning similar to thatof the medio-passiverdquo21 (1935 196) Benvenistersquos analysis has been revived in arecent study by Magni (2010) who surveyed the existing literature and arguedthat all meanings detected by Benveniste can be related as different in-stantiations of a basic inchoative meaning Cognates of this suffix also occur insome resultative verbs in Indo-Iranian (Benveniste 1935 193)

The suffix -eh₁--h₁- of stative verbs occurs in many ancient IE languages forexample a number of second conjugation verbs in Latin feature this suffix such asiaceo lsquoliersquo taceo lsquokeep stillrsquo sedeo lsquositrsquo Elsewhere too the suffix adds a stativesense to the root compare Lat sedeo video with OCS sěděti viděti from the PIEroots sed- ueid- Hittite marše- lsquobe corruptedrsquo (Watkins 1971 74) A number ofstative verbs with the same suffix derive fromnominal bases such as Lat rubeo lsquoberedrsquo seneo lsquobe oldrsquo and the very productive group of denominal verbs in -eō (from-ēō eg aacutenthos lsquobloomrsquo antheō lsquoto bloomrsquo aor anthēs(a)-) in Greek (see Jasanoff2004 127ndash129) Most likely this suffix is the same that also forms the presentpassive in Indo-Iranian see Section 32 and possibly the Armenian -i-stems dis-cussed in Section 53

19 Chantraine (1961 168) explains the suffix as a combination of suffix -ē- with the suffix -th-which occurs in aorists such as eskhethon lsquoI got I held backrsquo and possibly had a telic meaning (seealso Risch 1974 254) Similarly Ruijgh (2004 292ndash294) explains the suffix -thē- as a re-interpretation of the form e-staacuteth-ē-n lsquostoodrsquo (with root sta- plus extension -th-) For alternativeexplanations see Rix (1992 219ndash220) and Szemerenyi (1996 283 note 29 and the literaturetherein)20 ldquo[ces presents] sont tous intransitifs et de valeur nettement moyennerdquo21 ldquohellip nrsquoa pas ete arbitraire Lrsquoaoriste en -θην srsquoapparente bien au present en -θωhellip agrave lui seul lesuffixe -θ- tendait de par sa valeur intrinseque a srsquounir aux verbes impersonnels intransitifs oudrsquoetat et a convoyer une modalite voisine du medio-passifrdquo


In Greek it is remarkable that the increase in the number of verbs that showboth active and middle morphology is parallel to the development of the use ofthe middle voice in passive constructions This points to increasing grammatic-alization of the activepassive opposition across the entire verbal system and to atendency of the middle voice to specialize as passive which is also visible in otherIE languages such as Latin andGothic However the extent of this specialization inGreek remains lower as the Modern Greek middle has indeed extended to passivefunction but as remarked in Section 26 has not lost the other functions of theAncient Greek middle in spite of substantial limitation

32 Indo-Iranian

Similar to Ancient Greek Indo-Iranian also shows a dedicated passive formedwitha derivational suffix It is formed on the present stem plus the suffix -ia- (Sanskrit-ya- Avestan -iia- Old Persian -ya-) and it shows somewhat different features inIndo-Aryan and in the Iranian languages

The most important difference between the two branches consists in thepossible choice of ending while in Sanskrit the -ya- passive consistently featuresthe middle endings with only sporadic exceptions in Iranian languages bothmiddle and active endings occur In particular while Old Avestan takes middleendings both active and middle endings are attested in Younger Avestan OldPersian only features active endings (Beekes 1988 188 Kellens 1984 129 Skjaeligrvoslash2007 2017 532ndash533)22

As pointed out in Burrow (1955 353) ldquothe formation of the passive is closelyconnected with that of the fourth present classrdquo Indeed the fourth class featuresthe same suffix -ya- in Sanskrit and when inflected in themiddle voice it ends upbeing distinct from the passive only by the position of the accent According toBurrow (1955 354) the origin of the -ya- passive ldquowas due to the frequency ofintransitive verbs in that class [ie the fourth class] particularly with middleinflection jaacuteyate lsquois bornrsquo paacutecyate lsquobecomes ripe cookedrsquo taacutepyate lsquobecomes hotrsquoetc Since a number of these verbs had differently formed transitive presents besidethem (tapati lsquoheatsrsquo etc) they could easily form the nucleus from which thepassive system developedrdquo According to Burrow accent shift was introduced todistinguish between fourth class middles and lsquorealrsquo passives

22 Themedio-passive endingswere likely becominggradually dysfunctional in Iranian (note theircomplete disappearance in Middle Persian) in Old Persian they are sometimes used inter-changeably with active forms (eg abaranta [3PLIMPFMID] sim abaran [ACT] lsquothey brought (tribute)rsquoāhanta [3PLIMPFMID] sim [ACT] āhan lsquothey werersquo)

354 Luraghi et al

This traditional view however seems to be based on a generalization thatturns out to be unwarranted at least in Vedic Kulikov (2012 400ndash406) discussesthe -ya- forms of the verb pac- lsquocookrsquo and argues that this is virtually the only verbwhich does in fact feature passive and middle forms clearly distinguished by theposition of the accent with paacutecyate lsquoripenrsquo (anticausative) and pacyaacutete lsquobe cookedrsquo(passive) For the verb taacutepyatetapyaacutete lsquobecome hotbe heatedrsquo according toKulikov (2012 380ndash390) accentuation does not provide clear evidence Remark-ably passives and middles alternate with active forms of first class verbs pacatilsquocookrsquo and tapati lsquoheatrsquo which seem to function both as a counterpart for themiddle (instantiating the anticausative alternation) and as base for deriving thepassive On the other hand it is also remarkable that some non-passive -ya- verbssuch asmriyaacutete lsquodiesrsquo are unambiguously accented on the suffix (see the discussionand the references in Kulikov 2012 179ndash181)

Several etymologies have been proposed for the suffix and are briefly reviewedin Kulikov (2012 758ndash759) who is inclined to connect -ya- passives with -aya-causatives andwrites ldquoVery attractive is Kortlandtrsquos (1981 127f) hypothesis on thegenetic relationship between Vedic i-aorists -aacuteya-causatives and -yaacute-passives theformer may go back to lsquoa deverbative noun of the type kwori [gt Ved (aacute)kāri ndash LK]which could itself be used predicativelyrsquo whereas causatives and -yaacute-passives aresupposed to be derivatives from this nounrdquo (Kulikov 2012 759)

The most widely accepted etymology of Sanskrit -ya- connects both thepassive and the fourth class suffix to the PIE suffix -eh₁--h₁- of stative verbs thatis also reflected in the suffix -ē- of the Ancient Greek passive aorist discussed inSection 31 and with Armenian intransitive -i- stems discussed in Section 53(under this view the preform of Sanskrit -ya- is more specifically -h₁-yeoacute- seeLIV2 25) This etymology was proposed in Meillet (1900) and variously discussedby other scholars among whom Cowgill (1983) and Harđarson (1998 332ndash334)who offers an overview on this issue (see Section 31 for Jasanoffrsquos 2004 critique)If accepted this etymology has the merit of indicating a parallel development ofthe suffix in Greek and Indo-Iranian as in both branches of Indo-European it hasincreasingly been integrated into the verbal paradigms to produce an inflectionalpassive Note that the fact that in Iranian -ia- passives may feature theactive endings supports the assumption of a parallel between the Greek and theIndo-Iranian formation However in Indo-Iranian one cannot disconnect the -ia-passive from fourth class verbs as argued above As shown in Kulikov (2012)non-passive -ya- presents in Vedic basically show the same semantics as mediatantum in the other ancient IE languages Hence the generalization of the suffixas a marker of passive voice must be viewed as a development which took placeinside the fourth class presents


A parallel to the Indo-Iranian situation might be viewed in conjugation classalternation between -i- (intransitive anticausative and passive) and -e- stems(transitive and active) in Armenian (see Section 53) If one accepts the etymologythat connects Sanskrit -ya- with Armenian -i- then voice opposition might haveoriginated as conjugation class change in both branches of Indo-European Lateras an Indo-Iranian development the -ya- passive became disconnected fromfourth class verbs to the extent that grammarians analyzed it as a secondaryconjugation on its own which constituted a true dedicated passive

Beside the suffixed passive formed on the present stem Indo-Iranianlanguages also have dedicated passive forms in the aorist The paradigm of thepassive aorist is defective and it is basically limited to third person singular formswith the ending -i (see Kuumlmmel 1996 14 for the formation of the stem) and pluralin -ramran23 (Kuumlmmel 1996 15ndash16) The reason for discussing this formhere is thatthe most likely etymology connects the ending with a nominal suffix that alsooccurs in adjectives such as Ancient Greek troacutephis lsquogrownrsquo Kuumlmmel (1996 15)defines such adjectives as lsquoresultativersquo

33 Old Irish

As already remarked in Section 22 Old Irish displays a distinction between thedeponent and the passive inflection both in the present and in the preterite Whilethe passive present is a direct outcome of the PIE middle the preterite passive is anew formation that deserves special attention According to Thurneysen (1998437) ldquoin Irish and Britannic the stem of the passive preterite corresponds to theIndo-European verbal adjective in -to- -tā- which was once used as in Italic (Latcaptus -a -um est) to supply this tense-form But in Irish the forms are felt entirelyas verbs compounds take the verbal not the substantival stressrdquo (see furtherCowgill 1983 104 McCone 2005 231ndash236 Watkins 1969 16)

According to McCone the situation is slightly different from the Latin one asthe passive participles never gave rise to a periphrastic formation proper becausethe copula was consistently omitted The predicative passive participle being inorigin a nominal form could only express a number distinction of singular versusplural in the third person cf the forms dobreth lsquoshewas carriedrsquo versus dobrethalsquothey were carriedrsquo In order to express distinctions in person as well infixedpronouns were attached to the participle do-mbreth lsquoI was carriedrsquo do-tbreth

23 The ending -ramran also occurs in the third plural imperfect of the stativemiddle diathesiswhichmay speak for a historical relationship between this ending and themiddle endings in -r cfKuumlmmel (1996 20)

356 Luraghi et al

lsquoyou were carriedrsquo thereby giving rise to a full-fledged inflectional paradigm inthe preterite24 Notably the infixed pronoun is the object pronoun in Old Irishthus the passive originated out of an impersonal form as remarked in Watkins(1969 15)

34 Middle Armenian

While Classical Armenian does not consistently differentiate active and passivemorphology (cf Sections 46 and 53) roughly from the tenth CE onward MiddleArmenian attests to a passive formed with the suffix -v- which can be attached topresent and aorist stems (Karst 1901 292ndash298) cf the presents asem lsquoI sayrsquo as-v-ilsquois saidrsquo ǝndunim lsquoI acceptrsquo ǝndun-v-i lsquois acceptedrsquo banam lsquoI openrsquo ban-v-i lsquoisopenedrsquo tlsquoołum lsquoI allowrsquo tlsquooł-v-i lsquois allowedrsquo and aorists such as baclsquo-v-aw lsquowasopenedrsquo Karst (1901) takes -v- to be identical to the morpheme usimv formingpresent stems eg gel-u- lsquoto turnrsquo (cf Lat vol-v-ō) to which the medio-passivemarker -i- as in ber-i-m lsquoI am carriedrsquo was added In the sequence -vi- v wasthen reanalysed as a passive morpheme Alternatively one may assume that thisformation developed out of the aorist allomorph tu- (PIE deh3-) of tam lsquoto giversquofound eg in 1SG AOR ACT etu lsquoI gaversquo and in 3SG AOR PASS tvaw lsquowas givenrsquo (markedwiththe medio-passive stem -a- and ending -w) beside 3SG AOR ACT e-t lsquogaversquo lt edeh3t)towhich a newpresent tvi- lsquobe givenrsquowas formed The opposition PRS t-a- (ACTPASS) t-v-i- then served as the model for the expansion of -v- as passive marker

35 Discussion

In Sections 31ndash33 we have discussed the use of dedicated passive morphemeswhich have been co-opted as passivemarkers but had in origin different functionsThe Ancient Greek and the Indo-Iranian passives are similar as they both feature asuffix that was derivational in origin and became a distinctive marker of thepassive stem Differences concern the connection with specific tensesaspects theaorist in Greek and the present in Indo-Iranian and partly the choice of inflectionalendings which are invariably active in Ancient Greek while they are almostinvariably middle in Indo-Aryan In this respect Iranian languages attest to an in-between situation as they feature both middle (Old Avestan) and active endings

24 Remarkably once the PIE verbal adjectives became integrated into the verbal paradigm aspreterite passive forms a new passive participle was created by adding the suffix -yoā- to thepreterite passive stem (Thurneysen 1998 441ndash443)


(Old Persian with Younger Avestan showing both active and middle forms) Thelatter two languages might reflect the original Indo-Iranian situation hencepointing to a closer parallel with Greek In fact the Greek and the Indo-Iranianformations might be even more strictly related if one accepts the etymology thatconnects both the Greek -th-ē- - ē- and the Indo-Iranian -ia- suffixes with the PIEstative suffix -eh₁--h₁- of stative verbs As we will argue in Section 53 the samesuffix might possibly lie at the base of conjugation class alternation in ClassicalArmenian

Themuch later Irish suffix had a different origin and represents the outcome ofa grammaticalization process whereby a nominal form of the verb a participlewas reanalyzed as a finite verb form and acquired agreement markers throughthe addition of prefixed personal pronouns The Irish passive started out as aperiphrastic formation similar to those that we discuss in Section 4 (even thoughopinions differ as to whether it ever contained an auxiliary see Section 33)Then the participle was generalized as past passive form until this stage thedevelopment is similar to the development that we will illustrate for Indo-Aryan inSection 43 The addition of pronominal prefixes then turned the nominal verb forminto a full-fledged finite verb form

Finally theMiddle Armenian suffix -v- exemplifies still anothermorphologicalprocess that is the re-segmentation of a suffix that originally had a differentfunction and was then reanalyzed as marker of the passive and extended as suchto verbs to which it did not belong originally

If we turn now to the question of the stability of these morphological passivesover time even some brief remarks allow us to point out interesting developmentsIn general morphological passives surveyed in this section remained stable forlong time spans and their obsolescence is connected with wider processes ofrestructuring in the verbal systems In Ancient Greek the -th-ē-- ē- suffix extendedto the future in which a new passive appeared already in Homer with two oc-currences (see Allan 2003 181) and extended in Classical Greek Contrary to theaorist the passive future features middle endings Both formations were wellintegrated into the verbal paradigms in the Koine in the wake of the Hellenisticera (after the fourth century BCE) passive aorist forms increasingly replacedmiddle aorist forms (see Horrocks 2010 103) During the Middle Ages the passiveand middle aorist merged with the perfect (Horrocks 2010 302ndash303) and newpassive endings emerged based on the -k perfect but still preserving the -th-passive suffix As a result in Modern Greek the perfective passive has a dedicatedset of endings different from the active endings and also features a different stemwith a -tht- suffix (Holton et al 1997 146ndash159 Schwyzer 1953 764) The syntheticfuture was increasingly replaced by periphrastic forms with various auxiliariesNotably according to Horrocks (2010 117) the Koine favored avoidance of the

358 Luraghi et al

passive futurewhichwas replaced by a periphrasiswithmellō lsquobe about torsquoplus thepassive aorist hence attesting to the productivity of the latter form until acomparatively late stage in the history of Greek

The Indo-Aryan present passive also survived in the Middle Indo-AryanPrakrits (see Bubenik 1998 118ndash121) with the suffix -ya- having changed to -ijja-(kijjai lsquois donersquo corresponding to Sanskrit kriyate) with the active endings thatwere sometimes also found in Classical Sanskrit at a late stage (Burrow 1955 355)Various phonological changes partly reshaped the complex suffix plus endingresulting in a higher morphological integration of the two morphs which are inseveral cases no longer analyzable as such see for example hammanti lsquothey arekilledrsquo from han- lsquokillrsquo (the Sanskrit -ya- passive is han-ya-nte) Only from thetwelfth century CE onward did the new analytical passive with the auxiliary jānālsquogorsquo characteristic of the New Indo-Aryan languages start to consistently replacethe old synthetic passive (Bubenik 1998 125ndash126)

The Irish and the Armenian morphological passives described in Sections 33and 34 are much later and at least for Armenian an earlier stage is well docu-mented and will be discussed in Section 46 We still decided to include them inorder to showmore possible sources of passive markers Concerning their stabilityover time they show a different picture In Irish reflexes of the old passive are stillto be found today but only one form survives the so-called autonomous formwith no number distinctions and no personal affixes According to Stenson (2020127ndash128) ldquo[t]his is an impersonal form used when the subject of a verb is unknownor unimportantrdquo and while historically originating from a passive ldquoin contem-porary Irish [it] differ[s] in several ways from passive forms of English and manyother languagesrdquo Conversely the Middle Armenian passive roughly contempo-rary to the Old Irish one extended to all verbal paradigms and still remains inModern Eastern Armenian in which we find for example tesnel lsquoto seersquo versustesnvel lsquoto be seenrsquo kardal lsquoreadrsquo versus kardaclsquo-v-el lsquobe readrsquo grel lsquowritersquo versusgr-v-el lsquobe writtenrsquo (see Dum-Tragut 2009 175ndash177)

4 Participles and periphrastic constructions

Ancient IE languages attest to nominal forms of the verb participles and verbaladjectives that may have a passive orientation when based on transitive verbsthat is they may profile the event encoded by the base verb from the perspectiveof the Patient or P-participant Notably though the details of the morphologicalshape and the semantics of these morphemes differ in the IE languages most ofthese forms eg -nt- participles -to- -no- and -lo- verbal adjectives can betraced back to PIE (see Adrados et al 2016 369ndash375 Beekes 2011 279ndash280


Fortson 2010 108ndash109 Meier-Bruumlgger 2010 317ndash320 421) It must be stressedthat in the system of the proto-language these were derivational deverbalmorphemes ie they were not obligatory and were not integrated in verbalinflectional paradigms as is also shown by their partly idiosyncratic semanticsAccordingly the -nt- and the -to- suffixes were used to derive verbal adjectivesfrom verb bases and were originally indifferent to voice distinctions (Melchert2017 Szemerenyi 1996)

In IE languages in which the inherited medio-passive morphology was usedto encode passive voice only to a limited extent P-oriented nominal forms of theverb could variously fill this gap by giving rise to periphrastic formations whenused predicatively in combination with auxiliary verbs such as lsquobersquo (this patterncan possibly be projected back to PIE already cf Drinka 2009 Kuumlmmel 202031)25 In the remainder of this section we survey the use of periphrastic passiveconstructions in Hittite Latin Slavic Indo-Aryan Germanic and Armenian inwhich the use of such forms was quite systematic Notably given the resultativesemantics of certain participial forms it is unsurprising that they couldsporadically be used in passive function in other languages as well For instancein Ancient Greek the medio-passive perfect participle combined with the copulaeimiacute could also have a passive interpretation (cf Bentein 2016 107ndash110 125ndash130on participles and the encoding of the passive voice in Greek see also Napoli 2017with further references) In other IE languages participles with passive meaningare also attested in Tocharian (Krause and Thomas 1960 156ndash158 Malzahn 2010232) Old Irish (Thurneysen 1998 441ndash443) and Albanian (Rusakov 2016 584)26

In Armenian one finds a participle in -eal which as is common for non-finiteforms of the Armenian verb is syntactically labile (Sections 46 and 53) and canbe used in a periphrastic construction with the verb lsquobersquo in passive function(Jensen 1959 114 Schmitt 1981 152ndash153)

25 For a typology of periphrastic or auxiliary-verb constructions see Anderson (2006) On passiveparticiples in cross-linguistic perspective see further Haspelmath (1994)26 The situation of Tocharian is admittedly more complex Tocharian attests to different parti-cipial formations In the present one finds both lsquoactiversquo participles in -ntildeca (TochB)-nt (TochA)and lsquomiddlersquo participles in -mane (TochB) -maumlm (TochA) but the two are semantically equiv-alent and lsquomiddlersquo participles never have a passive reading (Pinault 2008 616ndash618 on -nt- par-ticiples see also Fellner 2014 with references) In the preterite a single participial formation in -u isattested (Krause and Thomas 1960 156ndash157 see Saito 2006 for a thorough treatment) which issyntactically indifferent to diathesis (Pinault 2008 616 Saito 2006 64ndash68) and can also have apassive interpretation in specific contexts

360 Luraghi et al

41 Hittite

As we have already observed in Section 22 in Old Hittite the inherited medio-passive voicewas employed as a passivemarker to corresponding active verbs onlyin a limited number of cases with most oppositional middle verbs being anti-causative in function (cf Hoffner and Melchert 2008 302ndash305 Luraghi 2012 Neu1968 109ndash115) It is only in New Hittite that the passive function of the middlebecomes more common (cf Inglese 2020 221)

Since Old Hittite a construction involving predicative participles with the verbeš- lsquobersquowas used to express the passive of active transitive verbs Hittite displays asingle participial formation in -ant- cognate with -nt- participles of other IElanguages (Frotscher 2013 Kloekhorst 2008) attested both for the ḫi- and for themi-inflecting verbs (Frotscher 2013 153) The meaning of the participle partlydepends on transitivity and for intransitive verbs also on lexical aspect of the baseverb (see Inglese and Luraghi 2020 for discussion with further references)

Leaving intransitive verbs aside the participle of transitive verbs in Hittitedisplays passive orientation and indicates a state (mostly ensuing from a change-of-state event) from the perspective of the P-participant27When used predicativelywith the verb eš- lsquobersquo the participle and the verb can be described as forming acomplex passive periphrastic construction (Inglese and Luraghi 2020 note that inthe present tense the verb lsquobersquo is most often omitted as in [13] cf Cotticelli-Kurras1991)28 The Hittite periphrastic passive construction is shown in example (13) inwhich the passive interpretation of the construction is further confirmed by theoccurrence of the agent phrase šiunit lsquoby the god(s)rsquo (Frotscher 2013 288ndash290Hoffner and Melchert 2008 304)

(13) GIŠTUKULḪIA-iš=wa=tta šiunit piyantešweaponNOMPL=QUOT=2SGDAT godINS givePTCPNOMPLlsquoThe weapons are given to you by the Godsrsquo(KBo 226+ i 25 OHNS)

27 Lexical aspect plays a limited role in this picture as participles of both telic and atelic transitiveverbs are usually P-oriented and thus passive as shown by comparison between kuen-lsquokillrsquo gt kunant- lsquokilledrsquo and šākk- lsquoknowrsquo gt šākkant- lsquoknownrsquo but sporadically also lsquoknowingrsquo (seefurther Dardano 2014)28 TheHittite periphrastic passive partly overlappedwith so-called lsquostativersquoperiphrases involvinga participle and the verb eš- and in some cases is only the context that allows disambiguationbetween a stative or a passive eventive reading (Hoffner and Melchert 2008 304 Inglese andLuraghi 2020 with references) The same difficulties arise in the interpretation of potential ex-amples of periphrastic passives in Luwian (seeGiusfredi 2020 136ndash138) This polysemy is typical ofperiphrastic passives built on resultativestative participles (cf Abraham2006Haspelmath 1990)


It should be remarked that in Hittite the periphrastic passive and the passive use ofthe inflectionalmiddle essentially overlap in their distribution as they can be usedboth in all tenses (present and preterite) and moods (indicative and imperative)Both constructions can also apply to the same verb so that it is extremelydifficult to detect a functional difference between the two strategies (see Inglese2020 157ndash159) Compare the passive middle tarnattari lsquowill be releasedrsquo in (14a)which is functionally equivalent to the periphrastic passive tarnan ešdu lsquolet it bepermittedrsquo (14b) both passives of active tarna- lsquorelease allowrsquo29

(14) a EGIR-an=at=kan tarnattariback=3SGNOMN=PTC releasePRSMP3SGlsquo(If there is no male heir) it [ie the property] will be releasedrsquo(KBo 410 obv 11 NHNS)

b nu=war=at=mu=kan parā tarnan ešduCONN=QUOT=3SGNOMN=1SGDAT=PTC forth releasePTCPNOMN beIMP3SGlsquo(On this tablet these words are not to be found) so let it be permittedfor mersquo(KUB 261+ iv 51 NHNS)

42 Latin

Aswe remarked in Section 25 the use of the inherited PIEmedio-passive to encodepassive function in Latin was restricted to forms of the infectum The perfectumfeatures a periphrasis based on the past participle in -tus from the PIE verbaladjective suffix -to- (Fortson 2010 109 Weiss 2009 437ndash443) and the verb sumlsquobersquo30 The tense-based split between synthetic and analytic passive constructionsis regular and pervasive throughout the verbal system of Latin (cf Palmer 1954among others see Embick 2000 for a formal account) an innovation shared bySabellian languages (cf Clackson and Horrocks 2007 26)

29 Due to the nature of the Hittite corpus it is difficult to find fully equivalent middle andperiphrastic forms in passive function with the same verb In the case of tarna- in (14) imperativeforms of the synthetic middle are not attested but occurrence of middle forms of this verb are ingeneral very few so this might be a coincidence (notably imperative middles are well attested forother verbs eg lattaru lsquolet it be releasedrsquo) A full-scale contrastive study on the distribution ofsynthetic and periphrastic passives in Hittite texts is needed to fully clarify this point but it clearlylies outside the scope of this paper30 Similarly to what discussed for Hittite (note 28) beside the dynamic passive reading theconstruction with the perfect participle plus the verb lsquobersquo could also have a resultative-stative or astative interpretation (cf Cennamo 2006 315)

362 Luraghi et al

As an example compare the passive forms of amo lsquoloversquo in examples (8) and(15) In (8) the present morphological form amantur lsquoare lovedrsquo is used Bycontrast in (15) the passive of amo in the perfectum is expressed by the periphrasticconstruction amata sum lsquoI was lovedrsquo

(15) nihilo ego quam nunc tu amata sumnothing 1SGNOM than now 2SGNOM lovePPPF bePRS1SGlsquoNo less than you are now was I once belovedrsquo(Pl Mos 13)

Remarkably the same distribution characterizes deponent verbs (which showmiddle morphology) which build their perfectum inflection with a periphrasticconstruction eg loquitur lsquo(s)he speaksrsquo but locutus est lsquohe spokersquo orior lsquoI stand uprsquo ortus sum lsquoI stood uprsquo As the examples show deponent verbs are not necessarilytransitive this means that the past participle in such cases cannot be said to haveactive meaning In fact all intransitive verbs may have so-called lsquoimpersonalrsquo pas-sives such as present itur lsquoone goes there is goingrsquo pugnatur lsquoone fights there isfightingrsquo perfect itum est lsquoone wentrsquo pugnatum est lsquothere was fightingrsquo hence thepossibility for a verb to have a past participle does not depend on transitivity

Interestingly the Latin periphrastic passives remained confined to a sub-set ofthe inflectional paradigm As a result the Latin system featured a systematic splitbetween synthetic forms in the infectum and analytic forms in the perfectum InRomance languages the periphrastic passive eventually gained ground andreplaced the synthetic Latin passive throughout the paradigm a process which hadpossibly already started in Late Latin (Cennamo 2006 2020 Pinkster 2015 257)

43 Indo-Aryan

Besides the wealth of participles based on the different aspectual stemsIndo-Iranian languages also feature the so-called past passive participle (PPP) averbal adjective which is S-oriented with intransitive verbs and P-oriented withtransitive verbs Like similar verbal adjectives or past participle cross-linguistically(see Haspelmath 1994) the Indo-Iranian PPP indicates a state of the subject withintransitive verbs as with gata- lsquogonersquo from gam- lsquogorsquo in (16)

(16) puacutenas tān yajntildeiacuteyā devā nayantu yaacutetaagain DEMACCPL sacredNOMPL godNOMPL leadIMP3PL whereā-gatāḥPREV-goPPPNOMPLlsquoLet the godsworthy of sacrifice lead those back againwhence they camersquo(RV 10 85 31)


The PPP of transitive verbs is P-oriented krta- lsquomadersquo from kr- lsquomakersquo hata- lsquokilledrsquofrom han- lsquokillrsquo While with intransitive verbs the participle agrees with the subjectas shown in (16) with transitive verbs it agrees with the P participant which thenfunctions as subject of a passive construction as in (17)

(17) tataacutem me aacutepas taacuted ustretchPPPNOMN 1SGGEN work(N)NOM DEMACCN PTC

tāyate puacutenaḥstretchPRSPASS3SG againlsquoMy [ritual] work has been performed and it is being performed againrsquo(RV 11101)

The PPP which is formed from the zero or reduced grade of the stem with the suffix-ta or less frequently -na (the latter suffix is no longer productive in Iranian)could also occur with the verb lsquobersquo (as- or bhu-) as in (18)

(18) yuktaacutes te astu daacuteksinahyokePPPNOM 2SGGEN beIMP3SG rightNOMlsquoLet your right (horse) be yokedrsquo(RV 1815)

Etymologically the PPP is cognate of the Latin -to- past participle (Section 42) andof the Slavic -(e)n--t- past passive participle (Section 45) and goes back to the PIE-to-no verbal adjective Contrary to Latin and Slavic however in Indo-Iranianthe PPP did not become fully integrated as a participle in the verbal paradigms Asobserved by Lowe (2015 16) the PPP is better regarded as a verbal adjective asopposed to participles that he views as adjectival verb forms even though alreadyin Vedic the PPP could function as a verb as in (17) in which the PPP tatam lsquo(washas been) performedrsquo is parallel the finite verb form tayate lsquowill be performedrsquoLowe (2015 257) also shows that the PPP could share the distribution of lsquorealrsquoparticiples as in (19) and (20)

(19) ā roacutedasī aprnā jāyamānahprev worldACCDU fillIMPF2SG be_bornPTCPPRSMPNOMSGlsquoYou filled the two world-halves when you were bornrsquo(RV 362)

(20) jātaacute aprno bhaacutevanāni roacutedasībe_bornPPPNOM fillIMPF2SG creatureACCPL worldACCDUlsquoWhen youwere born youfilled the livingworld (and) the twoworld-halvesrsquo(RV 3310)

364 Luraghi et al

While in Early Vedic verbal use of the PPP remains limited it started extendingalready in Vedic prose and then kept extending thereafter Similarly another non-finite form the so-called gerundive or future passive participle also becameincreasingly used over time In Early Vedic it can be formed with a number ofsuffixes including -āyya (limited to the RV) -enya -ya -tva which likewisedisappear after the Vedic period and -tavya -anīa not attested in the Rig Vedawhich are the only gerundive suffixes that remain in post-Vedic Sanskrit Anexample is (21)

(21) yaacute eka iacuted dhaacutevyah carsanīnāmRELNOM oneNOM PTC invokeGERVNOM mortalGENPLlsquo(He) who alone must be invoked by mortalsrsquo(RV 6221)

This form shares the morphosyntactic behavior of the PPP and is S-oriented withintransitive verbs and P-oriented with transitive verbs (see Hock 1986)

The extension of these two constructions eventually led to the rise of a splitergative system that characterizes part of the modern Indo-Aryan languages andwhose development can be observed inMiddle-Aryan (see Bubenik 1989 Stronsky2011) The development is especially clear already in post-Vedic Sanskrit in whichthe -ta participle tended to replace finite tenses starting with the aorist both forintransitive and for transitive verbs hence resulting in an over-extension of thepassive construction which was later reanalyzed as ergative

44 Germanic

Germanic languages attest to different strategies for the encoding of the passivevoice As we have already remarked in Section 22 Gothic is the only Germaniclanguage to have inherited finite forms of the verb going back to the PIE middlewith passive function Most Germanic languages have completely lost the PIEmiddle inflection and express the passive through periphrastic constructionsinvolving the past (passive) participle and various auxiliaries (cf Ramat 1981 155)Moreover North-Germanic languages have created a new passive inflectionthrough grammaticalization of the Proto-Germanic reflexive pronoun sik (cfHilpert 2011 see also Cennamo et al 2015 704ndash707)

Similarly to Latin Gothic displays a tense-based split concerning the encodingof the passive voice As we illustrated in Section 22 the inherited middle remainsand is limited to passive function in the present and in the optative Elsewhere thepassive is expressed through the combination of the past participle and past forms


of either wisan lsquobersquo or waiacuterthornan lsquobecomersquo as in examples (22a) and (22b)31 Thatthese forms are passive in function is further confirmed by the occurrence of theagent phrase fram Iōhannē lsquoby Johnrsquo in (22a) Notably Gothic behaves differentlyfrom Latin where periphrastic passive forms in the perfectum select present finiteforms of sum lsquobersquo

(22) a qam Iēsus jah daacuteupithorns wascomePST3SG JNOM and baptizePTCPPSTNOM bePST3SGfram Iōhannēfrom JDATlsquoJesus came and was baptized by Johnrsquo(Mark 19)

b sabbatō in mans warthorn gaskapanssabbathNOM in manGEN becomePST3SG makePTCPPSTNOMlsquoThe sabbath was created for manrsquo(Mark 227)

The choice of different auxiliary verbs is possibly linked to different aspectualnuances Periphrastic passives built with wisan lsquobersquo are often interpreted asexpressing a state (Zustandspassive in the German grammatical tradition)whereas forms built withwaiacuterthornan lsquobecomersquo are associatedwith an eventive passive(Vorgangpassive) reading (see Jones 2009 Ch 9 Krause 1968 221) In support ofthis aspectual distinction one can observe that wisan-passives usually translateGreek perfect passives whereas waiacuterthornan-passives are used to translate the Greekaorist passive (Lehmann 1994 36) This difference which is however alreadypartly blurred in Wulfilarsquos translation of the Bible (Krause 1968 221) follows fromthe different lexicalmeaning of the auxiliaries and this is suggestive of a relativelyhigh degree of semantic compositionality of these constructions In fact somescholars take this as evidence of a low degree of grammaticalization and para-digmatic integration of periphrastic passive forms in Gothic (Lehmann 1994 36)Similar observations can be broadened to other early Germanic languages suchas Old English and Old High German (see Mailhammer and Smirnova 2013 andreferences therein) suggesting that the grammaticalization of periphrastic passiveconstructions in Germanic languages was only at its onset in the earlier textualsources

31 Gothic participles are inherited from PIE (Krause 1968 229) Strong verbs form their participlewith a suffix -ana- (partly -ina-) which continues PIE -ono- Conversely the participle of weakverbs historically derives from PIE verbal adjectives in -to- In Gothic the suffix shows up in threevariants -ta- -da- and -thorna- (cf Braune 2004 76ndash77) On the inflection of the participle see alsoBraune (2004 122ndash123)

366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic

Already at the time of the first written sources Slavic languages show no traceof the PIE morphological middle which is likewise unattested in the closelyrelated andmuch later documented Baltic languages (cf eg Stang 1942 224 1966405) In Old Church Slavic (OCS) the passive was encoded by a periphrasticformation containing the verb lsquobersquo and the past passive participle in -t- -n- or -en-The participle is cognate with the Indo-Iranian so-called past perfect participlein -ta- or -na- that has been discussed in Section 43 and with the Latin pastparticiple in -to- (Section 42) Contrary to the Latin participle which can alsobe formed from intransitive verbs and which even had active meaning withintransitive deponent verbs the OCS past passive participle is only formed fromtransitive verbs hence it always only functions as passive The OCS passive isexemplified in (23) with the passive participle viděnъ lsquoseenrsquo featuring the suffix -nand (24) with the passive participle vьzęto lsquotakenrsquo formed with the suffix -t

(23) oni že slyšavъše ěko živъDEMNOMPL PTC hearPTCPPSTNOMPL that aliveNOMestъ i viděnъ bystъ ejǫbePRS3SG and seePTCPPSTPASSNOM beAOR3SG DEMINSSGFne jęsę věryNEG takeAOR3PL faithGENlsquoAnd they having heard that he was alive and had been seen by her didnot believersquo(Mark 1611)

(24) a otъ ne imǫštaago i ežebut from NEG havePTCPPRSGEN and RELACCašte mьnitъ sę imyever believePRS3SG REFL havePTCPPRSNOMvьzęto bǫdetъ otъ negotake_awayPTCPPSTPASSNOM beFUT3SG from DEMGENlsquoBut from him who has not shall be taken away even that which hethinks he hasrsquo(Matt 2529)

Inmuch the sameway as several other Indo-European languages of Europe Slaviclanguages developed a reflexive middle which in OCS features the reflexive par-ticle sę (cf Malicka-Kleparska 2016) Occasionally the reflexivemiddle could havepassive function (Lunt 2001 161) as in (25)


(25) gore že člověku tomu imьže synъ člověčьskъwoe PTC manDAT DEMDAT RELINS sonNOM man(POSSADJ)NOMprědastъ sębetrayPRS3SG REFL

lsquoBut woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayedrsquo(Matt 2624)

46 Armenian

Classical Armenian has a periphrastic construction in the perfect and pluperfectformed with the participle in -eal32 and the present and imperfect tense of thecopula em lsquoI amrsquo The participle in these constructions functions only partially likethe participles in Hittite Latin Germanic and Indo-Aryan discussed in Sections41ndash44 Indeed the Armenian participle is S-oriented with intransitive verbs (aseg in gam lsquocomersquo x[NOM] ekeal ē (suppletive) lsquox has comersquo) and P-oriented withtransitive verbs In the latter case the construction has a passive reading in theabsence of an A argument as eg in tesanem lsquoseersquo x[NOM] teseal ē lsquox has beenseenrsquo cf the pluperfect of hatanem lsquoto cutrsquo in example (26)

(26) hateal ēr klsquoown y-ačlsquoaclsquo imoclsquocutPTCP beIMPF3SG sleepNOM from-eyeABLPL myABLPLlsquoSleep departed [ldquowas cut offrdquo] from my eyesrsquo(Gen 3140)

In contrast to this transitive perfects have genitive subjects (Koumllligan 2013) asshown in example (27)

(27) zayn owrowklsquo teseal iclsquoēDEMACC anyoneGEN seePTCP beSBJVPRS3SGlsquo(Can one say that) anyone has seen itrsquo(Eznik sect124)

Notably the genitive NP has been shown to have subject properties such ascoreferential deletion and control of reflexive pronouns (Koumllligan 2013 75ndash77)

32 The participle inflects as an o-stem (eg gen sg bereloy) which makes a connection with PIE-lo- likely this suffix is used with participial function in the Slavic periphrastic perfect and as agerundive in TocharianB -lle A -l lt -lio- since the participle is usually derived from the aorist stemof the verb eg prs hatanem lsquoI cutrsquo AOR hat-i PTCP hat-eal the element -ea- may be related to theproductive aorist stem formation in -eacrsquo- eg gorcem lsquoI workrsquo gorc-eacrsquo lsquo(s)he workedrsquo See alsoKoumllligan (2013 83ndash84)

368 Luraghi et al

This has been taken as evidence for split alignment rather than passive (seeBubenik 1997 75ndash79 Scala 2009 for the passive interpretation see Benveniste1952 Meillet 1936 who consider the genitive NP a possessive agent)

Occasionally periphrastic constructions involving various auxiliariesoccur in cases in which the morphology does not differentiate voice In the firstplace with verbs that do not encode activepassive alternation throughei-alternation in present stems (see Section 53) one sporadically finds aperiphrasis involving a verbal adjective and auxiliaries such as linim lsquobe becomersquoor kam lsquostand be becomersquo as shown for the verb koxe- lsquotrample under footrsquo in (28)and (29)

(28) zi mi aṙ otn koxiclsquoen znosathat NEG under foot trampleSBJVPRS3PL 3PLACClsquoLest they trample them under (their) footrsquo(Matt 76)

(29) srbutlsquoiwnn kayr koxan yordwoclsquonholinessNOMDEF standIMPF3SG trampled from_sonABLPLDEFaylazgeaclsquoforeignGENPLlsquoThe sanctuary was trodden down by the sons of foreignersrsquo(1 Macc 345)

Non-finite forms do feature voice distinctions for example the infinitive paštelmeans both lsquoto serversquo and lsquoto be servedrsquo (see Section 53) In (30) the ambiguity isresolved by using the periphrasis paštōn aṙnul lsquoto receive service = to be servedrsquoversus paštel lsquoto serversquo

(30) očlsquo ekn paštōn aṙnul ayl paštelNEG comeAOR3SG service takeINF but serveINFlsquo(The son ofman) has not come in order to beministered unto but in orderto ministerrsquo(Matt 2028 cf the Greek version with a passive infinitive ouk ēlthendiakonēthēnai [serveAORINFPASS] allagrave diakonēsai)

The imperfect has only one set of endings for both active and passive construc-tions in the case of lsem lsquohearrsquo impf lsei lsquoI heardrsquo etc the synthetic form ismostlyused in active clauses while the anticausativepassive is formedwith a periphrasisconsisting of the verbal adjective lseli lsquoaudible to be heardrsquo and the auxiliary verblinim lsquoto be(come)rsquo


47 Discussion

The rise of periphrastic passive constructions described in Sections 41ndash45 (theArmenian formation deserves some considerations of its own see below) consti-tutes evidence for the increasing grammaticalization of the active ndash passive voiceopposition in IE languages being achieved through originally non-inflectionalmeans These developments are largely similar with some important distinctionsas to the original degree of integration of the nominal forms involved into theverbal system Indeed in Hittite Latin and Germanic the participles that occur inperiphrastic passive constructions though obviously nominal in origin are well-integrated into the verbal system at least in the sense that there are no other suchforms that function as participles in other constructions On the other hand theIndo-Aryan PPP though morphologically similar to its counterparts was not inte-grated into the verbal paradigm which comprised a variety of other participlesboth active andmiddle for all aspectual stems The Slavic participles in turn showan even higher degree of grammaticalization in passive function as they can bemade only of transitive verbs On the contrary the past participles of all otherlanguages reviewed here (including the Indo-Aryan PPP) could be made both oftransitive and of intransitive verbs hence qualifying as passive participles only tothe extent to which the base verb was transitive

Turning now to the development of periphrastic constructions mostlanguages attest to an expansion of such constructions at the expenses of theinflectionalmedio-passive In Latin the replacement of themedio-passive throughthe periphrastic form is ongoing as the synthetic forms only appeared in tensesbased on the present stem In the passage from Latin to Romance the replacementwas fully accomplished (see Cennamo 2020) inmuch the sameway as itmust havehappened in Germanic languages Indeed in Gothic too the inflectional passivewas limited to the present tense The onset of this development with the inflec-tionalmedio-passive increasingly limited to passive function and only occurring inthe present was also shared by Celtic However as we have seen in Section 33 theanalytic construction representing the past passive was reanalyzed as a newsynthetic form In Indo-Aryan the PPP was also increasingly used in the past but itextended in a different way as it replaced all past tenses while the presentremained stable with the Middle Indo Aryan -ijja- passive as an outcome of theSanskrit -ya- passive (but with active endings) see Bubenik (1998 116ndash124) Laterthe replacement of all past tenses by the PPP was fully accomplished and broughtabout a tense-based split-alignment system

Apart from Slavic in which no trace of the PIE medio-passive is preservedHittite constitutes a notable exception as the periphrastic passive though limitedto the past and the present imperative does not seem to have replaced possiblepassive usage of the synthetic medio-passive as shown in examples (14andashb) Even

370 Luraghi et al

thoughHittite written sources only cover a time span of five centuries in the secondmillennium BCE this distribution might reflect an older situation than the oneshown by other Indo-European languages We return to this point in Section 61here it still needs to be remarked that in all languages discussed thus far parti-ciples in periphrastic constructions derive from the -to-no verbal noun except inHittite whose only participle shows the suffix -ant- which elsewhere indicates anongoing state of the subject (present participle)

Armenian uses synthetic morphology only to a limited extent to distinguishactive and passive forms such as in the present stem the vowel change -e--i- andin the aorist themedio-passive stem in -a- and a corresponding set of endings (butcf cn-a-w lsquowas bornrsquo and lsquogave birthrsquo discussed below in Section 53) A peri-phrastic construction occurs in the perfect which is formed with the copula andthe participle in -eal Here voice distinction may be viewed as being encoded bythe case of the A argument which when inflected in the genitive triggers an activereading while it triggers a passive reading in the nominative (eg nora[GEN] teseal ēlsquoshe has seen [something]rsquo vs na[NOM] teseal ē lsquoshe has been seenrsquo) In theclassical language lexical periphrases are used occasionally to avoid morpho-logically ambiguous forms as in (30) Contrary to developments seen in manyother languages discussed above (eg Latin and Germanic) Middle Armeniandeveloped a new synthetic passive as we argued in Section 34

5 Minor strategies

Beside the morphosyntactic means of encoding the passive voice discussedin Sections 2ndash4 ancient IE languages attest to other strategies which couldoccasionally be employed to encode the passive function Notably these are formsfor which a passive reading is available only in specific contexts and thereforenever became a conventionalized meaning systematically associated to suchconstructions As an example we discuss the use of lexical passives (Section 51)the use of resultativestative forms of the verb eg the perfect (Section 52) andstem class alternation and lability (Section 53)

51 Lexical passives

Lexical passives are reported for someancient languages Formally this strategy offorming the passive voice can be described as a case of suppletion (cf Luraghi2012 10)


Neu (1968 110) following Friedrich (1960) gives the following pairs of lexicalpassives in Hittite iya- lsquomakersquo versus kiš- lsquobecomersquo kuen- lsquokillrsquo versus ak- lsquodiersquo dai-lsquoplacersquo versus ki- lsquoliersquo šer dai- lsquoplace uponrsquo versus šer tiya- lsquobe placed uponrsquo (seealso Hoffner and Melchert 2008 305) As an example in which the passive readingis certain Neu quotes the verb ak- lsquodiebe killedrsquo in (31) which serves as a passivefor kuen- lsquokillrsquo (with the pair lsquodiekillrsquo suppletion is a typologically widespreadpattern cf Haspelmath 1993 106) and the verb ki- lsquoliebe oppressedrsquo A passivereading of ki- is particularly clear in example (32) in which it occurs with the agentphrase IŠTU LUacuteKUacuteR lsquoby the enemyrsquo

(31) lukkati=ma INA E dLAMA MAacuteŠGAL akiin_the_morning=PTC in house protective_god buck diePRS3SGlsquoThe following morning in the house of the protective god a buck iskilledrsquo(KBo 51130 + iii 6 NS)

(32) nu mān IŠTU LUacuteKUacuteR katta kittariCONN when by enemy down liePRSMP3SGlsquoWhen the region is being oppressed by the enemyrsquo(KUB 2523 i 12 NHNS)

In Homeric Greek it is rather the occurrence of agent phrases that triggers apassive reading of some morphologically active verbs33 such as piacuteptein lsquofallrsquo andthnḗiskein lsquodiersquo which can function as lexical passives of kteiacutenō lsquokillrsquo as shown in(33) and (34) (see George 2005 16ndash18 Luraghi 2010a 63)

(33) polloigrave huphrsquo Hektoros androphoacutenoio thnḗiskontesmanyNOMPL under HGEN man_slayingGEN diePTCPPRSNOMPLpiacuteptōsifallSBJVPRS3PLlsquoMany will fall killed by man-slaying Hectorrsquo(Il 1242ndash243)

(34) e thḗn min maacutela elpeto thumogravesPTC surely 3SGACC much hopeIMPFMP3SG soulNOMhekaacutestou khersigraven huprsquo Aiacuteantos thaneeineachGEN handDAT under AGEN dieINFPRSlsquoFor sure theheart of eachhoped thathehadbeenkilledby thehandofAiasrsquo(Il 15289)

33 Note that these verbs normally have active meaning as we remarked above passive readingdepends on the occurrence of an agent phrase

372 Luraghi et al

In Classical Armenian gan harkanem lsquoto beatrsquo consists of the noun ganlsquobeatingrsquo and the verb harkanem lsquoto strikersquo The whole phrase may take a directobject as in (35)

(35) gan harin znabeating strikeAOR3PL ACC3SGlsquoThey beat himrsquo(Mark 123)

The corresponding passive is formedwith ǝmpem lsquoto drinkrsquo (suppletive aorist arb-)ie literally lsquoto drink a beatingrsquo (cf Benveniste 1964 35 see also example [30] onArm pašton aṙnul lsquotake servicersquo as passive of paštel lsquoto serversquo) as in (36) in thecontext of the master of the house returning and beating his servant for not havingobeyed his orders

(36) arbclsquoe gan bazumdrinkSBJVAOR3SG beating(ACC) manylsquoHe [the servant] will be beaten a lotrsquo(Luke 1247 Gk darḗsetai pollaacutes)

52 Perfects and statives

As already pointed out in Section 4 participles with resultative semantics couldeasily be reinterpreted as encoding passive function owing to their S-orientationSimilarly active intransitive PIE perfects had a resultativemeaning they indicateda state resulting from a change of state Occasionally this could lead to a passiveinterpretation when the perfect indicated a state of the subject as in Greekpepoitha lsquobe confidentrsquo lsquobe convincedrsquo Let us consider example (37)

(37) ei drsquo aacutege toi kephalei kataneuacutesomai oacutephraif PTC come_on 2SGDAT headDAT nodFUTMID1SG so_thatpepoiacutethēisconvinceSBJVPRF2SGlsquoSee then I will bend my head so that you might be convincedrsquo(Il 1524)

In (37) the form pepoiacutethēis lsquoconvincedrsquo is active In fact the perfect did not have amiddle voice in PIE and its development took place to different extents in some ofthe Indo-European languages To put it with Kuumlmmel (2020) ldquothe perfect wasoriginally only ldquoactiverdquo (non-middle) and could not form amiddle Often an activeperfect belonged to a verb otherwise inflecting as amiddle cf Vedicmriyaacutete lsquodiesrsquo mamāra lsquohas died is deadrsquohellip Greek giacutegnetai lsquois born becomesrsquo gegone lsquois born


existsrsquordquo The perfect was in origin S-oriented in other words it indicated a changeof state that led to the achievement of a state of the subject hence the passivemeaning in (37) Similar occurrences are available form Indo-Aryan Both inGreek and in Indo-Aryan middle morphology emerged at a later stage parallel tothe shift of the perfect from S- to P-orientation (see Kuumlmmel 2020 Luraghi et al2005 59ndash61) Notably however the passive meaning of the perfect is most oftenonly inferable from the context and remainedmarginal as shown by the fact that itdoes not normally occur with agent phrases A possible exception shown in (38)features the verb thnḗiskein lsquodiersquo

(38) Kharoiaacutedou gagraver ḗdē toucirc AthēnaiacuteōnChGEN PTC PTC ARTGEN AthenianGENPLstratēgoucirc tethnēkoacutetos hupograve Surakosiacuteōn polemōigeneralGEN slainPTCPPRFGEN by SyracusanGENPL battleDATlsquoAfter Charoeades the Athenian general had been slain in battle bythe Syracusansrsquo(Thuc 3902)

As we remarked in Section 51 the verb thnḗiskein lsquodiersquo is active and can function aslexical passive of kteiacutenō lsquokillrsquo only if the passive meaning is triggered by the occur-rence of an agent phrase this explains the exceptional occurrence with a perfect

Indo-Iranian also has a dedicated stative mostly attested in the third personsingular andplural As argued inKuumlmmel (1996) the existence of the stative has longnot been acknowledged as clear parallels in other Indo-European languages aremissing Since the stative features the endings of the perfect with the present stem itwas long believed that these forms had so to speak intruded into the present Similarto the perfect the stative was S-oriented and in some occurrences the passivemeaning is clearly highlighted by the co-occurrence of an agent phrase as in (39)

(39) divaacute stave duhitā goacutetamebhiḥheavenGEN praiseSTAT3SG daughterNOM GotamaINSPLlsquoThe daughter of Heaven ishas been praised by the Gotamasrsquo(RV 1927)

53 Conjugation class alternation and lability the case ofArmenian

Armenian shows a radically restructured verbal systemas compared to PIE It featurestwobasic stems thepresent and the aoristwhichboth serve as basis for the formationof the indicative and subjunctive moods In addition an imperfect is based on thepresent stem and the system features also a distinct inflection for the imperative that

374 Luraghi et al

can be further distinguished in present (for negative commands) aorist (for positivecommands) and lsquoexhortativersquo with a special set of endings (2SG -ǰir 2PL -ǰiklsquo)

Classical Armenian shows a mixed system of morphological passivesmarked by inflectional endings in the aorist and a relatively productive strategy ofstem-class alternation in the present tense present stems are formed with thevowel suffixes e i a u or complex suffixes ending in one of these vowels eg -člsquoi--ane- -nu- etc eg erkn-člsquoi- lsquoto fearrsquo anclsquo-ane- lsquoto passrsquo aṙ-nu- lsquoto takersquo34

Conjugation class alternation between stems in e and in i is used for active versuspassive readings eg čanačlsquoem lsquoI knowrsquo versus čanačlsquoim lsquoI am knownrsquo as in (40)(see Godel 1975 47)

(40) čanačlsquoem zimsn ew čanačlsquoim yimoclsquonknowPRS1SG ACCmyACCPLDEF and knowPRSMP1SG by_myGENPLDEFlsquo(I am the good shepherd) I know my own and I am known by my ownrsquo(John 1014)

Present stems in a and u may be labile mostly expressing active and reflexive oranticausative meanings eg luana- lsquoto wash (sth)wash oneselfbe washedrsquobaṙna- lsquoto lift upto be taken away disappearrsquo hełu- lsquoto pour (sth)to flow outrsquoetc Unambiguous passive constructions with overtly expressed agent usuallymarked as PP with iy- + noun in the ablative case seem to be preferred in cases ofambiguous verbal morphology

In some morphological categories a formal distinction between activeand passive is generally missing eg in the imperfect and the subjunctive ofu-presents while in others an existing morphological alternation is non-functional eg in the present subjunctive of i-presents cf nsticlsquoe--i- lsquoto sit(down)rsquo Active-passive lability is tolerated in some cases eg 3SG AOR cnaw lsquogavebirth towas bornrsquo cf ex (46)ndash(47) below but periphrastic constructions andalternative stem formationsmay be used to differentiate diathesis eg INF paštel lsquotoservebe servedrsquo paštōn aṙnul lsquoto receive service=be servedrsquo see example (30)above (Section 46) and dizane- lsquoheap up assemble (tr)rsquo dizana- lsquoassemble(intr)rsquo Furthermore the ei-alternation is not available for all verbs some verbsmany of them intransitive are restricted to the i-class (lsquodeponentsrsquo) eg ankanim lsquoIfallrsquo plsquoaxčlsquoim lsquoI fleersquo hayim lsquoI lookrsquo unim lsquoI haversquo and so on35

34 There is only one verb with a stem in -o- goy lsquothere is existsrsquo35 The transitive-causative counterpart of non-alternating i-verbs may in some instances beformed with the causative suffix -uclsquoane- eg nstim lsquoto sit (down)rsquo nstuclsquoane- lsquomake sitrsquomeṙanimlsquodiersquo meṙuclsquoane- lsquokillrsquo usani- lsquolearnrsquo usuclsquoane- lsquoteachrsquo etc Conversely not all transitive e-pre-sents have a corresponding passiveanticausative i-stem (see examples [28]ndash[29] in Section 46)


Concerning its origin the suffix -i- is assumed to continue PIE -(i)ieo-possibly connected with the suffix of stative verbs (-eh₁--h₁-yeo- see Harđarson1998 332ndash334 and the discussion in Sections 31 and 32) similar to the Indo-Iranian suffix of -ya- stems and to the Ancient Greek -ē- passive aorists as in nstim lsquoIsit (down)rsquo Gk hezomai lsquosit (down)rsquo lt sed-ieo- Armmeṙanim lsquoI diersquo Sktmriyatelsquodiesrsquo Lat morior lsquodiersquo (see Meillet 1936 107 the phonological development inArmenian is for example 1SG -iie-mai gt -iiiacutemai gt -im 3PL -iie-ntoi gt -iiiacute-ndoi gt -in)Another possible etymology takes the suffix as having originated from amiddle 1SG-e-mai gt -im for older -o-mai (cf Gk -o-mai Klingenschmitt 1982 10ndash11) andthen to have spread to the whole paradigm

The ei-alternation marking voice opposition also occurs in the presentsubjunctive formed with the suffix (active) -iclsquoe- (medio-passive) -iclsquoi- of bothe- and a-verbs cf bericlsquoem lsquoI will carryrsquo bericlsquoim lsquoI will be carriedrsquo luanayclsquoemlsquoI will wash (tr)rsquo luanayclsquoim lsquoI will washmyselfbewashedrsquo Compare (41) and (42)

(41) zotsn luanayclsquoēACCfootACCPLDEF washSBJVPRS3SGlsquoHe should wash his feetrsquo(John 1310)

(42) amenayn or očlsquo anclsquoaniclsquoē ǝnd hureverything REL NEG passSBJVPRS3SG by fireluanayclsquoi ǰrovwashSBJVPRSMP3SG waterINSlsquoWhatever cannot stand the fire shall be washed with waterrsquo(Num 3123)

In contrast to the subjunctive indicative presents in adonotmark voice oppositionand presents in u mark it neither in the indicative nor the subjunctive eg aṙnu-lsquotakersquo and tlsquoołu- lsquoto leaversquo Such verb forms are then labile and voice must beunderstood from the context as shown in (43)

(43) mi-n aṙnuclsquou ew miws-n tlsquoołuclsquouone-DEF takeSBJVPRS3SG and other-DEF leaveSBJVPRS3SGlsquo(Two men will be in the field) one will be taken and the other leftrsquo(Matt 2440 Gk heicircs paralambaacutenetai kaigrave heicircs aphiacuteetai cf the synopticparallel in Luke 1735 quoted in ex [1])

Lability is quite pervasive across Armenian verbal tenses In the imperfect voicedistinctions are not overtlymarked as shown in (44) in which a passive reading ofthe formmkrtein lsquothey baptizedtheywere baptizedrsquo is supported by the occurrenceof the agent phrase i nmanē lsquoby himrsquo versus the active reading in (45)

376 Luraghi et al

(44) mkrtein i nmanēbaptizeIMPF3PL by 3SGABLlsquoThey were baptized by himrsquo(Matt 36)

(45) mkrtēr ibrew hazars erkusbaptizeIMPF3SG about thousandACCPL twoACCPLlsquoHe baptized about two thousand peoplersquo(Bowzandaran Patmowtlsquoiwnklsquo 33)

In the infinitive the ei-alternation is neutralized A single form in -el occurs bothfor presents in e and for presents in i (an infinitive in -il developed in post-classicaltimes roughly from the seventh c onward) Accordingly both ldquodeponent verbsrdquo in-i- have an INF in -el eg nstim lsquoI sit (down)rsquo INF nstel lsquoto sit (down)rsquo and e-verbs andverbs with ei alternation cf bžškei- lsquohealbe healedrsquo

Finally Armenian has a participle in -oclsquo with future time reference which isused both in active and passive constructions (on the participle in -eal see Section46)

In contrast to the presents aorist stems mostly mark diathesis opposition byinflectional endings see for example berem lsquocarryAORACT1SG beri lsquoI carriedrsquo versuspassive beray lsquoI was carriedrsquo except for the 1PL IND ACT=MED-PASS -aklsquo as in lsquoberaklsquo lsquowecarriedwe were carriedrsquo and the 1PL and 2PL SBJV ACT=MED-PASS -clsquo-uklsquo and -ǰ-iklsquo Themedio-passive aorist subjunctive of stems in -eay and of some stems in -ay has amixed paradigm with medio-passive 1SG -(e)ayclsquo but active 2SG3SG3PL -iclsquoes -iclsquoē-iclsquoen as in kerayclsquo lsquoI will eatrsquo 2SG kericlsquoes lsquoyouwill eatrsquo (Jensen 1959 99) Howeverin some verbs the samemedio-passive forms are labile and can encode both activeand passive meaning as in cnani- lsquogive birthrsquo and lsquobe bornrsquo Compare examples(46) and (47) with the same verb form the third person singular aorist cnaw

(46) cnaw z-ordin iwr z-andranikbearAORMP3SG ACC-sonDEF her ACC-first_bornlsquoShe gave birth to her first-born sonrsquo(Luke 27)

(47) cnaw jez aysōr PlsquorkičlsquobearAORMP3SG 2PLDAT today saviorNOMlsquoToday the Savior was born for yoursquo(Luke 211)

Labile and oppositional forms may exist side by side in aorist paradigms Inparticular in the case of the verb cnani- the subjunctive can be inflected both as an


e- and as an i-stem hence the opposition active cnclsquoe- lsquowould give birthrsquo to passivecnclsquoi- lsquowould be bornrsquo (Jensen 1959 112)

As in the present stem aorists with non-active marking but active meaning(lsquodeponentsrsquo) may use periphrases for the passive as already discussed in Section46 Remarkably however there is no general grammaticalized periphrasis

54 Discussion

As we already pointed out in Section 5 minor strategies discussed here aredisparate Still lexical passives labile verbs and statives functioning as passive allhave in common the fact that passive interpretation is made possible by theoccurrence of an agent phrase They can be considered instances of passiveswithout passive morphology and contradict Haspelmathrsquos (1990) claim that suchoccurrences do not exist (see further the discussion in Section 63) A different caseis constituted by perfects whose possible passive interpretation arises from theirbeing S-oriented resultatives In this way perfects add a change-of-state impli-cation with respect to statives which are equally S-oriented and for this reasoncontextual reading of perfects as passive does not depend on the occurrence of anagent phrase

We included conjugation class alternation of Classical Armenian amongminorstrategies (Section 54) even though it likely involves the same suffix asmorphological passives inAncient Greek and in Indo-Iranian (Sections 31 and 32)because in Armenian this strategy is less systematic than in the latter languagesHowever conjugation class change can be viewed as a type of derivation hence inline with the morphological nature of suffixation in Greek and Indo-Iranian

6 Conclusion

In the preceding sections we surveyed different ways to encode the passive inancient Indo-European languages Among competing strategies themost frequentones are the inflectional middle inherited from PIE and periphrastic constructionsinvolving patient-oriented resultative participles most often with the suffix -to--no- Accordingly in this final section we start by discussing the distribution ofthese two strategies (Section 61) before moving on to derivation and other minorstrategies (Section 62) We conclude with a typological evaluation of the data weanalyzed in comparison with cross-linguistic evidence as to the frequency ofdifferent strategies (Section 63)

378 Luraghi et al

61 The inflectional medio-passive versus periphrasticpassives

The middle voice extended to the encoding of the passive in all languages thatpreserve at least traces of it in practice only the Slavic and Baltic languageswhich are attested later than most other IE languages lost the inflectional middlecompletely and offer no evidence for its usage in passive function However evenlanguages known from much earlier times differ as to the extent to which themiddle voice could encode the passive function This extension was especiallywide in Ancient Greek the only language that does not make use of periphrasticconstructions In Latin too the extent to which the middle could function as apassive was comparatively high remarkably however Latin shows a tense-baseddistribution of inflectional (middle) versus periphrastic strategies which also hasreflexes in Germanic In Indo-Aryan the extent to which the middle voice couldencode the passive function was limited due to the extension of the derivationalstrategy in the present tense and of the PPP which ended up replacing all pasttenses

Except for Greek in which periphrastic constructions do not occur the otherlanguages mentioned thus far attest to a tense-based split This split is fullyparadigmaticized in Latin and in Gothic in these languages specific tensesdisplay either strategy but not both in addition the past participle that occurs inthe periphrastic forms is integrated into the verbal paradigms as shown inSections 42 and 44 Things are somewhat different in Indo-Aryan as the so-calledPPP is not part of the verbal paradigm as we have argued in Section 43 indeedIndo-Aryan features separate participles for all tenses which are different from thePPP However the extent to which the middle could function as a passive in tensesnot based on the present stemwas limited and the use of the PPP was clearly on therise from Early Vedic onwards

Hittite offers a slightly different picture both the inflectional middle andperiphrastic forms are already attested at the OHOS stage with periphrastic formsbeing more frequent In later texts both strategies co-exist side by side and insome occurrences they seem to share the same distribution as argued in Section41 Clearly it is difficult to compare Hittite which is attested for a time-span ofaboutfive centurieswith Indo-Aryan documented for threemillennia Still Hittiteseems to show a situation in which there was no clear distinction between the twostrategies and does not support the conclusion that the passive use of the middlewas anolder strategy andperiphrastic forms a later one In fact such a theory gainsclear support only from Greek Notably Greek has reflexes of the -to- verbal ad-jectivewhich occurs in periphrastic constructions inmost other languages but this


verbal adjective besides not being integrated into the verbal paradigm also tookup a modal meaning similar to the meaning of the Latin gerundive and indicatesobligation (Luraghi 2016 17ndash23)36 Based on the evidence from other languagesone might even reverse the traditional view by which the passive was primarilyencoded by the middle voice in ancient IE languages with periphrastic formsconstituting a later strategy and conclude that both strategies competed from anearly stage on Languages then followed different paths of development with thenotable exception of Greek in which periphrastic forms never took on

Periphrastic constructions also exist in Armenian Among these theconstruction that contains the verb lsquobersquo and the participle in -eal features genitivesubjects and might also be suggestive of a split alignment system Otherconstructions mentioned in Section 46 are sporadic yet their interest lies in thevariety of auxiliary verbs they display

62 Morphological passives inflection and derivation

Several derivational strategies could supply a passive counterpart of transitiveverbs and display an ongoing process of integration in the verbal paradigm ofvarious IE languages Among these the occurrence of dedicated passive suffixes isbest exemplified in the Ancient Greek -ē--thē- aorist (Section 31) and in the Indo-Aryan -ya-presents (Section 32) The latter morpheme likely also served as startingpoint for the Armenian -i--e- class alternation (Section 53) and if one accepts thereconstruction that connects it to the suffix of stative verbs -eh1--h1-yeo- dis-cussed in Section 32 they are also etymologically parallel to the Ancient Greeksuffix of passive aorists These suffixes are commonly described as statives orintrasitivizing but in fact their functionwas valency reduction In these languagesmorphological suffixes for the passive voice eventually integrated into the verbalparadigms though to different extents and also depending on language-specificmorphophonological developments Note that it is unsurprising that this devel-opment is common to Indo-Aryan Greek and Armenian which notoriously sharea number of common morphological traits especially in the verbal system andpossibly form a sub-group on their own (cf Fortson 2010 203)

Old Irish (Section 33) and Middle Armenian (Section 34) also feature newmorphological passives of different origins The Old Irish passive was based on averbal adjectiveparticiple also occurring in passive periphrastic formations inseveral other Indo-European languages (see Section 4) The peculiarity of Old Irish

36 In Greek this function is also encoded by another verbal adjective in -teos whose originremains controversial (see Tronci 2014 Willi 2009 2018 22)

380 Luraghi et al

was that rather than being usedwith an auxiliary this participle was first analyzedas an independent verb form and then through the addition of pronominal pre-fixes as an inflected form This new passive did not enjoy a long life however asthe prefixes were dropped and even number agreement was lost Nowadays theso-called absolute form remains uninflected as an impersonal As a source forpassivemorphemes theOld Irish passive shows adouble possibility including thereanalysis of a nominal form as an inflectional one through the addition ofpersonal affixes Conversely the Middle Armenian new passive originated fromthe segmentation of a morphologically medio-passive form which gave rise to anew suffix that extended to all verbal paradigms Finally conjugation class changein Armenian (Section 53) can be viewed as a special case of suffixation involvingdifferent suffixes for either the active or the passive voice

63 The origin of Indo-European passive morphology intypological perspective

Focusing now on the origin of passive morphology passive morphemes displayedby Ancient Indo-European languages originate out of a variety of sources andprocesses These include the paradigmaticization of inflectional voice endings(middle voice most Indo-European languages to different extents) the gramma-ticalization of intransitivizing derivational suffixes (Ancient Greek Indo-AryanArmenian) the resegmentation of medio-passive forms resulting in new passiveaffixes (Middle Armenian) the expansion of reflexive markers into the passivedomain (eg Balto-Slavic modern Germanic and Romance languages Albanian)and very frequently the creation of periphrastic forms involving P-oriented pastparticiples or verbal nouns (Hittite Latin Indo-Aryan Germanic Balto-Slavicand to a limited extent Armenian)

Concerning intransitivizing affixes Haspelmath (1990 52) writes ldquoOriginallythey serve to mark the inactive meaning of a verb stem After their expansion theycan be more or less freely affixed to noninactive stems and thus serve to inactivizethese stems It is this meaning that makes them suitable for use in passiveconstructionsrdquo Haspelmath (1990 51) considers the use of such morphemes toform dedicated passives as ldquothe lexical expansion of initially idiosyncratic deri-vational morphemesrdquo As for periphrastic constructions those observed in thispaper mostly contain the verb lsquobersquo or lsquobecomersquo as auxiliaries that is ldquointransitiveinactive auxiliariesrdquo in the terminology adopted by Haspelmath (1990 38 seeCennamo 2020 for periphrastic passives built with different auxiliaries in Romancelanguages) Among the languages in which a verbal noun indicates the passive


Old Irish stands out as it does so without the addition of an auxiliary37 MoreoverOld Irish also shows a peculiar grammaticalization process whereby personalaffixes added to the participle give rise to new inflected passive forms

The only IE branch in which there are no traces of inherited middle forms isBalto-Slavic In this branch beside the use of periphrastic formswith the participlein passive function one can also observe the onset of the development of anew reflexive middle which is also a feature of the vast majority of other Indo-European languages of Europe and can occasionally extend to the encoding of thepassive function (Section 45 andHaspelmath 1990 42ndash46 on the passive use of thereflexive middle in Slavic Romance and Germanic languages Section 22 onAlbanian)While this development falls outside the scope of the present paper it isstill worth mentioning as it provides evidence for another source of passivemorphemes that is reflexive pronouns or reflexive affixes Note that in the Slavicexample in (25) the clitic se is still analyzable as a pronoun but in later de-velopments of the same type of construction attested in Modern Scandinavianlanguages its status is closer to that of a bound morpheme (see Haspelmath 199029ndash30 who considers the reflexive suffix in Icelandic and Danish as an lsquoextrafixrsquo)

Contrary to Haspelmathrsquos (1990 27) claim that ldquoin general passive construc-tions without passive morphology do not existrdquo we also showed that ClassicalArmenian does in fact showapassive constructionwith nomorphologicalmarkingas it makes use of extensive lability (Section 53) Note that passive lability is ingeneral very rare in the worldrsquos languages and has been systematically reportedonly for some languages of Africa (see Creissels 2014 Letuchiy 2009 227) Simi-larly other minor strategies such as lexical passives (Section 51) or occasionalpassive interpretation of statives and perfectsresultatives (Section 52) might alsobe analyzed as passives without dedicated morphology which unlike lability inArmenian remain limited In much the same way as lability however the lattertwo strategies are also context dependent as they involve specific forms that needsome contextual cues in order to be taken as encoding passives

Zuacutentildeiga and Kittilauml (2019 188ndash189) do not add much to Haspelmathrsquos dataThey list a limited number of what they call uncoded strategies from CentralAlaskan Yupik which however does not seem to allow for the co-occurrence of anagent and form some Austronesian languages Among the latter Manggaraifeatures an agent phrase marked as oblique and is similar to the Armenian

37 Remarkably this does not mean that other languages obligatorily require an auxiliary inperiphrastic forms involving a participle In Hittite for example the auxiliary never occurs in thepresent indicative (Section 41 and example [13]) In Indo-Aryan the auxiliary is frequently omittedeven at the stage of Early Vedic (see example [17]) and it virtually never occur in Classical SanskritHowever only in Old Irish an auxiliary never occurs in this type of construction

382 Luraghi et al

occurrences with passive lability while in Palursquoe passive reading appears to bedependent on word order38

When framed with cross-linguistic evidence from non-IE languages some ofthe IE data strike the observer as being quite infrequent if not unique In hissurvey Haspelmath found that 31 languages out of 80 contained in his samplehave a passive39 and attest to 39 different morphological strategies Among thesean inflectional strategy consisting of a set of passive endings (differential subjectperson markers in Haspelmathrsquos terminology) is only attested in two languages ofthe sample Latin and Modern Greek This distribution complies with the generaltendencywhereby languages favor derivational strategies for the encoding of voiceand valency changing operations (Bybee 1985 29ndash32) and also with the relativelyrare overlap of voice and personmarking (see Auderset 2015) Specifically passiveinflectional morphology is seldom found outside IE languages (see eg Kharia[Munda Peterson 2011] and Motuna [South-Bouganville Onishi 1994])Conversely in our surveywe have shown that not only domost IE languages attestto the passive use of themiddle endings but new personal affixes developing fromclitic pronouns also indicate a tendency to the renewal of passive inflectionalmorphology in Irish

Periphrastic forms consisting of a participle and an auxiliary aremore frequentthan passive inflectional endings in Haspelmathrsquos sample but again those thatcontain the copula lsquobersquo are limited to IE languages as had already been observedby Dryer (1982 see further Haspelmath 1990 38ndash42) On the other hand deriva-tional strategies cover the majority of languages Haspelmath (1990 28) lists 25cases of ldquoadditional stem affixrdquo in languages of different genetic and areal affili-ation including Afro-Asiatic Andean-Equatorial Australian AustroasiaticAustronesian Indo-Pacific Niger-Kordofanian Penutian Uralo-Altaic and Inuit(isolate)40 In addition he also mentions one instance of ldquoalternate stem affixrdquofrom Kefa an Afro-Asiatic language (Haspelmath 1990 31) similar to conjugationchange in Armenian which we considered another derivational strategy (Section53) Interestingly though being well attested in IE languages derivational stra-tegies are typically limited to a part of the verbal paradigm such as the aorist and

38 Zuacutentildeiga and Kittilauml (2019 189) also include among uncoded passive alternations the so-calledldquomiddle alternationrdquo of the type of English I cut the meat The meat cuts easily This type ofconstruction however falls outside our definition of passive39 The percentage of languages that have a passive in this sample is about 39 only slightlylower than the percentage found in the much bigger sample analyzed by Siewierska (2013) about43 (162 languages with a passive construction vs 211 without)40 Haspelmath also includesModern Greek among languages that feature derivational strategieson account of the occurrence of the -tht- suffix before the passive endings in perfective stems (seeSection 35) We return to this formation further on in this section


future in Ancient Greek or the present in Indo-Aryan As we have argued in Section35 both formations enjoyed a long stability over timeWhen changes in the verbalsystem caused a substantial restructuration derivational strategies weredismissed in Indo-Aryan in which periphrastic formations gained ground(Section 35) In Modern Greek a dental suffix that goes back to the ancient passiveaorist still occurs in the perfective passive which contrary to the Ancient Greekaorist passive also features dedicated passive endings different from the activeones (Section 35)

Summing up our findings IE languages offer evidence for a rich and variedinventory of passive constructions Remarkably in IE languages alone one findsmost of the cross-linguistically available types of construction for the encoding ofthe passive derive from a pool of diversified historical sources (see Haspelmath1990 Zuacutentildeiga and Kittilauml 2019 91ndash94 224ndash226) While some of these types ofconstructions are quite common in theworldrsquos languages eg derivational affixesreflexive passives and auxiliary verb constructions others have often beenregarded as typological rarities ie the use of inflectional personvoice endingsconjugation class change and lability

Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank the editorial board of FoliaLinguistica Historica for accepting this paper for publication Comments andsuggestions by two anonymous reviewers have provided insightful feedback for asubstantial improvement of the authorsrsquo work Silvia Luraghi wrote this paper aspart of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University HigherSchool of Economics (HSEUniversity Moscow) and in the framework of the projectDipartimenti di Eccellenza 2018ndash2022 (Ministry of University and Research)Guglielmo Inglese would like to thank the FWO (Research Foundation ndash Flandersgrant n 12T5320 N) for financial support The paper results from joint work by theauthors Guglielmo Inglese is responsible of Sections 21 25 33 4 41 42 and 44Daniel Koumllligan is responsible of Sections 34 46 and 53 Silvia Luraghi isresponsible for the rest of the paper

References

Abraham Werner 2006 Introduction Passivization and typology Form vs function ndash A confinedsurvey into the research status quo In Werner Abraham amp Larisa Lesiouml (eds) Passivizationand typology Form and function 1ndash28 Amsterdam amp Philadelphia John Benjamins

Abraham Werner amp Larisa Leisiouml (eds) 2006 Passivization and typology Form and functionAmsterdam amp Philadelphia John Benjamins

Adams Douglas Q 2015 Tocharian B A grammar of syntax and word-formation InnsbruckInstitut fuumlr Sprachwissenschaft

384 Luraghi et al

Adrados Francisco R Alberto Bernabe amp Julia Mendoza 2016 Manual of Indo-Europeanlinguistics Vol II Nominal and verbal morphology Leuven Peeters

Alexiadou Artemis amp Edit Doron 2012 The syntactic construction of two non-active voicesPassive and middle Journal of Linguistics 48 1ndash34

Alexiadou Artemis amp Florian Schaumlfer 2013 Non-canonical passives In Artemis Alexiadou ampFlorian Schaumlfer (eds) Non-canonical passives 1ndash19 Amsterdam amp Philadelphia JohnBenjamins httpsdoiorg101075la20501ale

Alexiadou Artemis Anagnostopoulou Elena amp Florian Schaumlfer 2015 External arguments intransitivity alternations A layering approach Oxford Oxford University Press

Allan Rutger 2003 The middle voice in Ancient Greek Amsterdam GiebenAnderson Gregory D S 2006 Auxiliary verb constructions Oxford Oxford University PressAuderset Sandra 2015Voice andpersonmarkingndashA typological study Zuumlrich Universitaumlt Zuumlrich

MA thesisBeekes Robert S P 1988 A grammar of Gatha-Avestan Leiden BrillBeekes Robert S P 2011 Comparative Indo-European linguistics An introduction (edn rev by

Michiel de Vaan) Amsterdam amp Philadelphia John BenjaminsBenedetti Marina 2006 Mehr als Passiv Uumlber einige Verbalmorpheme in altindogermanischen

Sprachen International Journal of Diachronic Linguistics and Linguistic Reconstruction 391ndash110

Bentein Klaas 2016 Verbal periphrasis in Ancient Greek Have- and be-constructions OxfordOxford University Press

Benveniste Emile 1935Origines de la formation des noms en indo-europeen Paris KlincksieckBenveniste Emile 1952 La construction passive du parfait transitif Bulletin de la Societe de

Linguistique de Paris 58 52ndash62Benveniste Emile 1964 Elements parthes en Armenien Revue des Etudes Armeniennes NS 1

1ndash39Braune Wilhelm 2004 Gotische Grammatik 20th edn Berlin amp New York Mouton de GruyterBrugmann Karl 1916Grundriss der vergleichendenGrammatik der indogermanischenSprachen

zweiter Band erster Teil (zweite Bearbeitung) Strassburg TruumlbnerBubenik Vit 1989On the origins and elimination of ergativity in Indo-Aryan languages Canadian

Journal of Linguistics 34(4) 377ndash398Bubenik Vit 1997 The verbal system of Classical Armenian In John Hewson amp Vit Bubenik (eds)

Tense and aspect in Indo-European languages Theory typology diachrony 67ndash81Amsterdam amp Philadelphia John Benjamins httpsdoiorg101075cilt14508bub

Bubenik Vit 1998 A historical syntax of Late Middle Indo-Aryan (Apabhramśa) Amsterdam ampPhiladelphia John Benjamins

Burrow Thomas 1955 The Sanskrit language London Faber amp FaberBybee Joan L 1985Morphology A study of the relation betweenmeaning and form Amsterdamamp

Philadelphia John BenjaminsCarling Gerd 2003Middle-passive and causative Valency-change in the TocharianB -e-presents

without initial palatalization In Brigitte L M Bauer amp Georges-Jean Pinault (eds) Languagein time and space A Festschrift forWernerWinter on the occasion of his 80th birthday 63ndash76Berlin amp New York Mouton de Gruyter

Cennamo Michela 2006 The rise and grammaticalization paths of Latin fieri and facere aspassive auxiliaries In Werner Abraham amp Larisa Lesiouml (eds) Passivization and typologyForm and function 311ndash336 Amsterdam amp Philadelphia John Benjamins


CennamoMichela 2019 Aspects of grammaticalization and reanalysis in the voice domain in thetransition from Latin to early Italo-Romance In Lars Heltoft Ivaacuten Igartua Brian D JosephKirsten Jeppesen Kragh amp Lene Schoslashsler (eds) Perspectives on language structure andlanguage change Studies in honor of Henning Andersen 205ndash231 Amsterdam ampPhiladelphia John Benjamins

Cennamo Michela 2020 The actualization of new voice patterns in Romance In Bridget Drinka(ed) Historical linguistics 2017 Selected papers from the 23rd international conference onhistorical linguistics San Antonio Texas 21 Julyndash4 August 2017 109ndash142 Amsterdam ampPhiladelphia John Benjamins

Cennamo Michela Thoacuterhallur Eythoacutersson amp Joacutehanna Barethdal 2015 Semantic and (morpho)syntactic constraints on anticausativization Evidence from Latin and Old Norse-IcelandicLinguistics 53(4) 677ndash729

Chantraine Pierre 1953 Grammaire homerique Tome 2 Syntaxe Paris KlincksieckChantraine Pierre 1961 Morphologie historique du Grec 2nd edn Paris KlincksieckClackson James 2007 Indo-European linguistics An introduction Cambridge Cambridge

University PressClackson James amp Geoffrey Horrocks 2007 The Blackwell history of the Latin language

Chichester Wiley-BlackwellCotticelli Kurras Paola 1991 Das hethitische Verbum lsquoseinrsquo Syntaktische Untersuchungen

Heidelberg WinterCowgill Warren 1983 On the prehistory of Celtic passive and deponent inflection Eriu 34

73ndash111Creissels Denis 2006 Syntaxe generale une introduction typologique Paris HermesCreissels Denis 2014 P-lability and radical P-alignment Linguistics 52(4) 911ndash944Crellin Robert 2020 The perfect system in Ancient Greek In Robert Crellin amp Thomas Juumlgel (eds)

Perfects in Indo-European languages and beyond 435ndash482 Amsterdam amp PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins

Dardano Paola 2014 Das hethitische Partizip ndash eine Frage der Diathese In Piotr Taracha ampMagdalena Kapeluś (eds) Proceedings of the eighth international congress of Hittitology(Warsaw 5ndash9 September 2011) 236ndash262 Warszawa Agade

Delbruumlck Berthold 1897 Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen 3 TeileStraszligburg Truumlbner

Dryer Matthew 1982 In defense of a universal passive Linguistic Analysis 10(1) 53ndash60Drinka Bridget 2009 The -to- -no- construction of Indo-European Verbal adjective or past

passive participle In Vit Bubenik John Hewson amp Sarah Rose (eds) Grammatical change inIndo-European languages 141ndash158 Amsterdam amp Philadelphia John Benjamins

Dum-Tragut Jasmine 2009 Armenian Modern Eastern Armenian Amsterdam amp PhiladelphiaJohn Benjamins

Embick David 2000 Features syntax and categories in Latin perfect Linguistic Inquiry 31(2)185ndash230

Fellner Hannes A 2014 Tocharian special agents The -nt participles Tocharian and Indo-European Studies 15 53ndash67

Fellner Hannes amp Laura Grestenberger 2017 Passive-aggressive in Indo-European Paperpresented at the 36th East Coast Indo-European Conference 2ndash4 June Cornell University

Flobert Pierre 1975 Les verbes deponents latins Des origines agrave Charlemagne Paris Les BellesLettres

386 Luraghi et al

Fortson Benjamin W 2010 Indo-European language and culture An introduction 2nd ednChichester Wiley-Blackwell

Friedrich Johannes 1960 Hethitisches Elementarbuch 1 Teil Kurzgefaszligte Grammatik 2nd ednHeidelberg Winter

Frotscher Michael 2013 Das hethitische -ant-Partizip und seine indogermanischen GrundlagenSemantik Morphologie Syntax Verona Universitagrave degli Studi di Verona dissertation

George Coulter 2005 Expressions of agency in Ancient Greek Cambridge Cambridge UniversityPress

Gianollo Chiara 2010 I verbi deponenti latini e lrsquounitagrave della flessione in -r In Incontri Triestini diFilologia Classica VIII 2008ndash2009 23ndash49 Trieste Edizioni Universitagrave di Trieste

Gianollo Chiara 2014 Labile verbs in Late Latin Linguistics 52(4) 945ndash1002Giusfredi Federico 2020 A study in the syntax of the Luwian language Heidelberg WinterGodel Robert 1975 An introduction to the study of Classical Armenian Wiesbaden ReichertGrestenberger Laura 2016 Reconstructing Proto-Indo-European deponents Journal of Indo-

European Linguistics 4 98ndash149Grestenberger Laura 2021 Two types of passive Voice morphology and lsquolow passivesrsquo in Vedic

Sanskrit and ancient Greek In Kleanthes K Grohmann Akemi Matsuya ampEva-Maria Remberger (eds) Passives cross-linguistically 210ndash245 Leiden Brill

Harđarson Joacuten A 1998 Mit dem Suffix -eh1- bzw -(e)h1-ieo- gebildete Verbalstaumlmme imIndogermanischen InWolfgangMeid (ed)Sprache undKultur der Indogermanen 323ndash339Innsbruck Institut fuumlr Sprachwissenschaft

Haspelmath Martin 1990 The grammaticization of passive morphology Studies in Language14(1) 25ndash72

Haspelmath Martin 1993 More on the typology of the inchoativecausative verb alternations InComrie Bernard amp Maria Polinsky (eds) Causatives and transitivity 87ndash120 Amsterdam ampPhiladelphia John Benjamins

Haspelmath Martin 1994 Passive participles across languages In Barbara A Fox ampPaul J Hopper (eds) Voice Form and function 151ndash178 Amsterdam amp Philadelphia JohnBenjamins

Hettrich Heinrich 1990 Der Agens in passivischen Saumltzen altindogermanischer SprachenGoumlttingen Vandenhoeck amp Ruprecht

Hilpert Martin 2011 Grammaticalization in Germanic languages In Bernd Heine amp Heiko Narrog(eds) The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization 708ndash718 Oxford Oxford UniversityPress

Hock Hans Henrich 1986 P-oriented constructions in Sanskrit In Bhadriraju KrishnamurtiColin PMasicaampAnjani KumarSinha (eds)South Asian languages Structure convergenceand diglossia 15ndash26 Delhi Motilal Banarsidass

Hoffner Harry A Jr amp Craig HMelchert 2008A grammar of theHittite language Part I Referencegrammar Winona Lake Indiana Eisenbrauns

Holton David Peter Mackridge amp Irene Philippaki-Warburton 1997 Greek A comprehensivegrammar of the modern language London amp New York Routledge

Horrocks Geoffrey 2010 Greek A history of the language and its speakers 2nd edn ChichesterWiley-Blackwell

Inglese Guglielmo 2020 The Hittite middle voice Synchrony diachrony typology Leiden BrillInglese Guglielmo 2021 Anticausativization and basic valency orientation in Latin In

Silvia Luraghi amp Elisa Roma (eds) Valency over time 133ndash168 Berlin amp New YorkMouton deGruyter


Inglese Guglielmo amp Silvia Luraghi 2020 The Hittite periphrastic perfect In Robert Crellin ampThomas Juumlgel (eds)Perfects in Indo-European languages andbeyond 378ndash410 Amsterdamamp Philadelphia John Benjamins

Jamison Stephanie 1979 Remarks on the expression of agency with the passive in Vedic andIndo-European Zeitschrift fuumlr Vergleichende Sprachforschung 93 196ndash219

Jamison Stephanie amp Joel P Brereton 2014 The Rigveda Oxford Oxford University PressJasanoff Jay H 2003 Hittite and the Indo-European verb Oxford Oxford University PressJasanoff Jay H 2004 lsquoStativersquo -ē- revisited Die Sprache 43 127ndash170Jensen Hans 1959 Altarmenische Grammatik Heidelberg WinterJones Howard 2009 Aktionsart in the Old High German passive Hamburg Buske VerlagKalulli Dalina 2006 Passive as a feature-suppression operation In Werner Abraham amp

Larisa Lesiouml (eds) Passivization and typology Form and function 442ndash460 Amsterdam ampPhiladelphia John Benjamins

Kapović Mate (ed) 2016 The Indo-European language 2nd edn Londonamp New York RoutledgeKarst Josef 1901 Historische Grammatik des Kilikisch-Armenischen Straszligburg TruumlbnerKeenan Edward L ampMatthewS Dryer 2007 Passive in theworldrsquos languages In Timothy Shopen

(ed) Clause structure language typology and syntactic description vol 1 301ndash348Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Kellens Jean 1984 Le verbe avestique Wiesbaden ReichertKemmer Suzanne 1993 The middle voice Amsterdam amp Philadelphia John BenjaminsKleyner Svetlana 2019 Changed in translation Greek actives become Gothic passives

Transactions of the Philological Society 117(1) 112ndash131Klingenschmitt Gert 1982 Das altarmenische Verbum Wiesbaden ReichertKloekhorst Alwin 2008 Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon Leiden amp Boston

BrillKoumllligan Daniel 2013 Non-canonical subjectmarking Genitive subjects in Classical Armenian In

Ilja A Seržant amp Leonid Kulikov (eds) The diachronic typology of non-canonical subjects73ndash90 Amsterdam amp Philadelphia John Benjamins

Kortlandt Frederik 1981 1st sg middle -H2 Indogermanische Forschungen 86 123ndash136Krause Wolfgang 1968 Handbuch des Gotischen 3rd edn Munchen CH Becklsquosche

VerlagsbuchhandlungKrause Wolfgang amp Thomas Werner 1960 Tocharisches Elemebtarbuch Heidelberg WinterKulikov Leonid 2006 Passive and middle in Indo-European Reconstructing the early Vedic

passive paradigm InWerner AbrahamampLarisa Lesiouml (eds) Passivization and typology Formand function 62ndash81 Amsterdam amp Philadelphia John Benjamins

Kulikov Leonid 2012 The Vedic -ya-presents Passives and intransitivity in Old Indo-AryanAmsterdam Rodopi

Kulikov Leonid 2013 Middle and reflexive In Silvia Luraghi amp Claudia Parodi (eds) TheBloomsbury companion to syntax 261ndash280 London Bloomsbury

Kulikov Leonid amp Nikolaos Lavidas 2013 Reconstructive passive and voice in Proto-Indo-European Journal of Historical Linguistics 3(1) 98ndash121

Kuumlmmel Martin 1996 Stativ und Passivaorist im Indoiranischen Goumlttingen Vandenhoeck ampRuprecht

KuumlmmelMartin 2020 The development of the perfect within the IE verbal system An overview InRobert Crellin amp Thomas Juumlgel (eds) Perfects in Indo-European languages and beyond15ndash48 Amsterdam amp Philadelphia John Benjamins

388 Luraghi et al

Lazzeroni Romano 2004 Inaccusativitagrave indoeuropea e alternanza causativa vedica ArchivioGlottologico Italiano 89 1ndash26

LehmannWinifred P 1994 Gothic and the reconstruction of Proto-Germanic In Ekkehard KoumlnigampJohan van der Auwera (eds) The Germanic languages 19ndash37 London amp New YorkRoutledge

Letuchiy Alexander 2009 Towards a typology of labile verbs Lability vs derivation InPatience Epps amp Alexandre Arkhipov (eds) New challenges in typology Transcending theborders and refining the distinctions 223ndash244 Berlin amp New York Mouton de Gruyter

LIV2 = Rix Helmut 2001 Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben die Wurzeln und ihrePrimaumlrstammbildungen 2nd edn Wiesbaden Reichert

Lowe John J 2015 Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit The syntax and semantics of adjectival verbforms Oxford Oxford University Press

Lunt Horace 2001Old Church Slavonic grammar 7th edn Berlin ampNewYorkMouton deGruyterLuraghi Silvia 1986 On the distribution of the instrumental and agentive markers for human and

non-human agents of passive verbs in some Indo-European languages IndogermanischeForschungen 91 48ndash66

Luraghi Silvia 1990 Old Hittite sentence structure London amp New York RoutledgeLuraghi Silvia 2010a The extension of the transitive construction in Ancient Greek Acta

Linguistica Hafniensia 42(1) 60ndash74Luraghi Silvia 2010b Adverbial phrases In Philip Baldi amp Pierluigi Cuzzolin (eds) A new

historical syntax of Latin 19ndash107 Berlin amp New York Mouton de GruyterLuraghi Silvia 2012 Basic valency orientation and the middle voice in Hittite Studies in

Language 36(1) 1ndash32Luraghi Silvia 2016 The dative of agent in Indo-European languages Sprachtypologie und

Universalienforschung 69(1) 15ndash48Luraghi Silvia 2020 Experiential verbs in Homeric Greek Leiden BrillLuraghi Silvia Forthcoming Basic valency orientation in PIE In Proceedings of the 15th

Fachtagung of the IndogermanischeGesellschaft ldquoBack to the Rootndash The Structure Functionand Semantics of the PIE Rootrdquo Wien 12ndash16092016

Luraghi Silvia Pompei Anna amp Stavros Skopeteas 2005 Ancient Greek Muumlnchen amp New CastleLincom Europa

Luraghi Silvia amp Dionysios Mertyris 2021 The Greek middle voice across millennia InSilvia Luraghi amp Elisa Roma (eds)Valency over time 169ndash208 BerlinampNew YorkMouton deGruyter

Luumlhr Rosemarie 2012 Ereignistyp und Diathesenwechsel im Indogermanischen InCraig H Melchert (ed) The Indo-European verb 213ndash224 Wiesbaden Reichert

Magni Elisabetta 2010 Lrsquoevoluzione semantico-funzionale dellrsquoelemento -th- nella morfologiaverbale del greco In Ignazio Putzu Giulio Paulis Gian Franco Nieddu amp Pierluigi Cuzzolin(eds) La morfologia del greco tra tipologia e diacronia 266ndash285 Milano Franco Angeli

Mailhammer Robert amp Elena Smirnova 2013 Incipient grammaticalisation Sources of passiveconstructions in old high German and Old English In Gabriele Diewald amp Ilse Wischer (eds)Comparative studies in Early Germanic languages With a focus on verbal categories 41ndash69Amsterdam amp Philadelphia John Benjamins

Malicka-Kleparska Anna 2016 Old Church Slavonic as a language with the middle voicemorphology SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 13(2) 215ndash230

Malzahn Melanie 2010 The Tocharian verbal system Leiden Brill


McCone Kim 2005 [1994] Lrsquoirlandese antico e la sua preistoria translated in Italian by ElisaRoma Alessandria Edizioni dellrsquoOrso

Meier-Bruumlgger Michael 2010 Indogermanistische Sprassenwissenschaft 9th edn Berlin amp NewYork Mouton de Gruyter

Meillet Antoine 1900 Sur les suffixes verbaux secondaires en indo-europeen Memoires de laSociete de linguistique de Paris 11 297ndash323

Meillet Antoine 1936 Esquisse drsquoune grammaire comparee de lrsquoArmenien classique VienneImprimerie des PP Mekhitharistes

Meiser Gerhard 2009 Zur Typologie des urindogermanischen Mediums In Rosemarie Luumlhr ampSabine Ziegler (eds) Protolanguage and Prehistory Akten der XII Fachtagung derIndogermanischen Gesellschaft 318ndash334 Wiesbaden Reichert

Melchert Craig H 2016 The case of the agent in Anatolian and Indo-European In Dieter GunkelJoshua T Katz Vine Brent amp Michael Weiss (eds) Sahasram Ati Srajas Indo-Iranian andIndo-European studies in Honor of Stephanie W Jamison 239ndash249 Ann Arbor Beech StavePress

Melchert Craig H 2017 The source(s) of Indo-European participles in -eont- In Claire Le FeuvreDaniel Petit amp Georges-Jean Pinault (eds) Adjectifs verbaux et participes dans les languesindo-europeennes 217ndash220 Bremen Hempen

Melchert Craig H Forthcoming Themedio-passive in transition from old to new Hittite To appearin a forthcoming Festschrift

Napoli Maria 2017 To what extent does the Greek participle participate in the passive voicesystem In Paola Cotticelli-Kurras amp Velizar Sadovski (eds) ldquoIn Participle we predicaterdquoContributions of the comparative and historical linguistics to grammar and semantics ofparticiple 109ndash128 Wien Holzhausen

Neu Erich 1968 Das hethitische Mediopassiv und seine indogermanischen GrundlagenWiesbaden Harrassowitz

Onishi Masayuki 1994 A grammar of Motuna (Bougainville Papua New Guinea) CanberraAustralian National University dissertation

Orel Vladimir 2000 A concise historical grammar of the Albanian language Leiden BrillPalmer Leonard R 1954 The Latin language London FaberPeterson John 2011 A grammar of Kharia A South Munda language Leiden BrillPinault Georges-Jean 2008 Chrestomathie tokharienne Textes et grammaire Leuven amp Paris

PeetersPinkster Harm 2015 The Oxford Latin syntax Oxford Oxford University PressPrevot Andre 1935 Lrsquoaoriste grec en -θην Paris ChampionRamat Paolo 1981 Einfuumlhrung in das Germanische Berlin amp New York Mouton de GruyterRaktus Artūras 2020 The (non‐)existence of the middle voice in Gothic In search of a mirage

Transactions of the Philological Society 118(2) 263ndash303Risch Ernst 1974 Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache Zweite voumlllig uumlberarbeitete Auflage

Berlin amp New York Mouton de GruyterRix Hemlut 1992 Historische Grammatik des Griechischen Laut- und Formenlehre 2nd edn

Darmstadt Wissenschaftliche BuchgesellschaftRuijgh Cornelius J 2004 The stative value of the PIE verbal suffix -eh1- In John H W Penney

(ed) Indo-European perspectives Studies in honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies 48ndash64Oxford Oxford University Press

Rusakov Alexander 2016 Albanian In Mate Kapović (ed) The Indo-European language 2ndedn 552ndash608 London amp New York Routledge

390 Luraghi et al

Saito Haruyuki 2006 Das Partizipium Praumlteriti im Tocharischen Wiesbaden HarrassowitzScala Andrea 2009 A proposito di armeno ed ergativitagrave Atti del Sodalizio Glottologico Milanese

1ndash2 166ndash181Schmidt Klaus T 1974 Die Gebrauchsweisen des Mediums im Tocharischen Goumlttingen Georg-

August-Universitaumlt Goumlttingen dissertationSchmitt Ruumldiger 1981 Grammatik des Klassich-Armenischen mit sprachvergleichenden

Erlaumluterungen Innsbruck Institut fuumlr SprachwissenschaftSchwyzer Eduard 1953 Griechische Grammatik Erster Band Allgemeiner Teil Lautlehre

Wortbildung Flexion Munchen CH BeckSchwyzer Eduard amp Albert Debrunner 1959 Griechische Grammatik Zweiter Band Syntax und

syntaktische Stilistik Munchen CH BeckShibatani Masayoshi 1988 Passive and voice Amsterdam amp Philadelphia John BenjaminsSiewierska Anna 1984 The passive A comparative linguistic analysis London Croom HelmSiewierska Anna 2013 Passive constructions In Matthew S Dryer amp Martin Haspelmath (eds)

The world atlas of language structures online Leipzig Max Planck Institute for EvolutionaryAnthropology httpwalsinfochapter107 (accessed 19 September 2020)

Siewierska Anna amp Dik Bakker 2012 Passive agents Prototypical vs canonical passives InDunstan Brown Greville C Corbett amp Marina Chumakina (eds) Canonical morphology andsyntax 152ndash189 Oxford Oxford University Press

Sihler Andrew L 1995 New comparative grammar of Greek and Latin Oxford Oxford UniversityPress

Skjaeligrvoslash Prods O 2007 Avestan and old Persianmorphology In Alan S Kaye (ed)Morphologiesof Asia and Africa 853ndash940 Winona Lake Indiana Eisenbrauns

Stang Christian 1942 Das slavische und baltische Verbum Oslo Norske Videnskaps-AkademiStang Christian 1966 Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen Oslo

UniversitetsforlagetStenson Nancy 2020Modern Irish A comprehensive grammar London amp New York RoutledgeStroński Krzysztof 2011 Synchronic and diachronic aspects of ergativity in Indo-Aryan Poznań

Adam Mickiewicz University PressSzemerenyi Oswald J L 1996 Introduction to Indo-European linguistics Oxford Clarendon

PressThurneysen Rudolf 1998 [1946] A grammar of Old Irish 2nd edn translated and revised by D A

Binchy amp Osborn Bergin Dublin Dublin Institute for Advanced StudiesTronci Liana 2014 Verbal adjectives In Georgios K Giannakis (ed) Encyclopedia of Ancient

Greek language and linguistics 471ndash477 Leiden BrillWatkins Calvert 1969 On the pre-history of Celtic verb inflexion Eriu 21 1ndash22Watkins Calvert 1971 Hittite and Indo-European studies The denominative statives in -ē-

Transactions of the Philological Society 70 51ndash93Weiss Michael 2009 Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin Ann Arbor

Beech Stave PressWilli Andreas 2009 Zu Ursprung und Entwicklung der griechischen Verbaladjektive auf -τέος

Rivista di Filologia e Istruzione Classica 137 7ndash22Willi Andreas 2018 Origins of the Greek verb Cambridge Cambridge University PressZuacutentildeiga Fernando amp Seppo Kittilauml 2019 Grammatical voice Cambridge Cambridge University

Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives


53 Conjugation class alternation and lability the case of Armenian

54 Discussion

6 Conclusion

61 The inflectional medio-passive versus periphrastic passives


63 The origin of Indo-European passive morphology in typological perspective

Acknowledgements

References

ltlt ASCII85EncodePages false AllowTransparency false AutoPositionEPSFiles true AutoRotatePages None Binding Left CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20) CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-21) CalCMYKProfile (Euroscale Coated v2) sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-21) CannotEmbedFontPolicy Warning CompatibilityLevel 17 CompressObjects Tags CompressPages true ConvertImagesToIndexed true PassThroughJPEGImages false CreateJobTicket false DefaultRenderingIntent Default DetectBlends true DetectCurves 01000 ColorConversionStrategy sRGB DoThumbnails true EmbedAllFonts true EmbedOpenType false ParseICCProfilesInComments true EmbedJobOptions true DSCReportingLevel 0 EmitDSCWarnings false EndPage -1 ImageMemory 1048576 LockDistillerParams false MaxSubsetPct 1 Optimize true OPM 1 ParseDSCComments true ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true PreserveCopyPage true PreserveDICMYKValues true PreserveEPSInfo true PreserveFlatness false PreserveHalftoneInfo false PreserveOPIComments false PreserveOverprintSettings true Start SubsetFonts true TransferFunctionInfo Apply UCRandBGInfo Remove UsePrologue false ColorSettingsFile () AlwaysEmbed [ true ] NeverEmbed [ true ] AntiAliasColorImages false CropColorImages false ColorImageMinResolution 300 ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy OK DownsampleColorImages true ColorImageDownsampleType Bicubic ColorImageResolution 300 ColorImageDepth -1 ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 150000 EncodeColorImages true ColorImageFilter DCTEncode AutoFilterColorImages true ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy JPEG ColorACSImageDict ltlt QFactor 015 HSamples [1 1 1 1] VSamples [1 1 1 1] gtgt ColorImageDict ltlt QFactor 015 HSamples [1 1 1 1] VSamples [1 1 1 1] gtgt JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict ltlt TileWidth 256 TileHeight 256 Quality 10 gtgt JPEG2000ColorImageDict ltlt TileWidth 256 TileHeight 256 Quality 30 gtgt AntiAliasGrayImages false CropGrayImages false GrayImageMinResolution 300 GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy OK DownsampleGrayImages true GrayImageDownsampleType Bicubic GrayImageResolution 300 GrayImageDepth -1 GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 150000 EncodeGrayImages true GrayImageFilter DCTEncode AutoFilterGrayImages true GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy JPEG GrayACSImageDict ltlt QFactor 015 HSamples [1 1 1 1] VSamples [1 1 1 1] gtgt GrayImageDict ltlt QFactor 015 HSamples [1 1 1 1] VSamples [1 1 1 1] gtgt JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict ltlt TileWidth 256 TileHeight 256 Quality 30 gtgt JPEG2000GrayImageDict ltlt TileWidth 256 TileHeight 256 Quality 30 gtgt AntiAliasMonoImages false CropMonoImages false MonoImageMinResolution 600 MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy OK DownsampleMonoImages true MonoImageDownsampleType Bicubic MonoImageResolution 1000 MonoImageDepth -1 MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 110000 EncodeMonoImages true MonoImageFilter CCITTFaxEncode MonoImageDict ltlt K -1 gtgt AllowPSXObjects false CheckCompliance [ None ] PDFX1aCheck false PDFX3Check false PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false PDFXNoTrimBoxError false PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 000000 000000 000000 000000 ] PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 000000 000000 000000 000000 ] PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () PDFXOutputCondition () PDFXRegistryName () PDFXTrapped False CreateJDFFile false Description ltlt DEU 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 ENU () ENN () gtgt Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (10) ] OtherNamespaces [ ltlt AsReaderSpreads false CropImagesToFrames true ErrorControl WarnAndContinue FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false IncludeGuidesGrids false IncludeNonPrinting false IncludeSlug false Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (40) ] OmitPlacedBitmaps false OmitPlacedEPS false OmitPlacedPDF false SimulateOverprint Legacy gtgt ltlt AllowImageBreaks true AllowTableBreaks true ExpandPage false HonorBaseURL true HonorRolloverEffect false IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false IncludeHeaderFooter false MarginOffset [ 0 0 0 0 ] MetadataAuthor () MetadataKeywords () MetadataSubject () MetadataTitle () MetricPageSize [ 0 0 ] MetricUnit inch MobileCompatible 0 Namespace [ (Adobe) (GoLive) (80) ] OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false PageOrientation Portrait RemoveBackground false ShrinkContent true TreatColorsAs MainMonitorColors UseEmbeddedProfiles false UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true gtgt ltlt AddBleedMarks false AddColorBars false AddCropMarks false AddPageInfo false AddRegMarks false BleedOffset [ 0 0 0 0 ] ConvertColors ConvertToCMYK DestinationProfileName (ISO Coated v2 (ECI)) DestinationProfileSelector UseName Downsample16BitImages true FlattenerPreset ltlt ClipComplexRegions true ConvertStrokesToOutlines false ConvertTextToOutlines false GradientResolution 300 LineArtTextResolution 1200 PresetName ltFEFF005B0048006F006800650020004100750066006C00F600730075006E0067005Dgt PresetSelector HighResolution RasterVectorBalance 1 gtgt FormElements true GenerateStructure false IncludeBookmarks false IncludeHyperlinks false IncludeInteractive false IncludeLayers false IncludeProfiles false MarksOffset 8503940 MarksWeight 0250000 MultimediaHandling UseObjectSettings Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (20) ] PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector UseName PageMarksFile RomanDefault PreserveEditing true UntaggedCMYKHandling LeaveUntagged UntaggedRGBHandling UseDocumentProfile UseDocumentBleed false gtgt ]gtgt setdistillerparamsltlt HWResolution [600 600] PageSize [595276 841890]gtgt setpagedevice

an active and a middle voice both inflectional and with complete paradigms atleast in the present and in the aorist1 In most languages the middle voice alsoacquired the function of a passive This development is usually held to have takenplace at a late stage of PIE or possibly later in the individual languages Howeverthis is not the only way in which the ancient IE languages acquired a third voicedistinction2 as is well known Indo-Iranian and Greek also have a distinct passiveat least in some tenses while Hittite makes use of a periphrastic passive fromits earliest stages The way in which this third voice was created in individuallanguages and language families involves an interaction of inflectional andderivational processes with derivational means increasingly acquiring a place ininflectional paradigms In addition periphrastic verb forms occur at very earlystages in some language families sometimes involving only part of the paradigmas in Latin or Gothic

The interaction of inflection derivation and periphrastic formations andthe paradigmatization of forms that in origin featured different morphologicalprocesses have never to our knowledge received a unified treatment encom-passing all branches of the Indo-European language family In this paper we aimto bridge this gap and offer a comprehensive view of the rise of the passive voice inindividual languages3 We also provide some details about developments andtendencies at stages that follow those of the earliest sources While the aim of thispaper remains mainly descriptive4 by highlighting such developments we also

1 The reconstruction of themiddle paradigm in PIE is a notoriously controversial topic especiallyin its connection to the PIE perfect and the Hittite -ḫi conjugation (see Jasanoff 2003 see alsoKuumlmmel 2020 for a recent discussion) The reconstruction of the inflectional middle is furthercomplicated by the fact that individual branches do not agree in the shape of the endings Somelanguages including Hittite Italic Celtic and Tocharian make use of a distinctive component -rin the present (eg 3SG Hitt -tari Lat -tur) while languages such as Ancient Greek and Indo-Iranian show present middle endings in -j (eg 3SG Gk -tai) For the purpose of this paper weregard r- and j-middle endings as essentially equivalent The language-specific shape of themiddleendings as well as their reconstruction falls beyond the scope of this paper and will not bediscussed further here For further reference see various IE linguistics textbooks includingAdradoset al (2016) Brugmann (1916) Clackson (2007 142ndash151) Fortson (2010 93ndash95) Meier-Bruumlgger(2010) On the distribution of middle endings in IE languages see the description of individuallanguages in Fortson (2010) and Kapović (2016)2 We use the term lsquovoicersquo in reference to active middle and passive forms in accordance with thetradition adopted in Indo-European linguistics For a typological definition of verbal voice seeZuacutentildeiga and Kittilauml (2019 4)3 A recent overview of passive constructions in Ancient IE languages has been presented byFellner and Grestenberger (2017)4 A reviewer points out that our paper ldquodoes not attempt to provide explanation for many of thesedevelopmentsrdquo While we certainly do not deny the importance of finding explanations for thetrends we describe we think that this should be the task of (at least) another paper indeed a

340 Luraghi et al











2 The medio-passive





342 Luraghi et al













344 Luraghi et al











23 Ancient Greek


346 Luraghi et al











24 Latin






348 Luraghi et al

25 Indo-Aryan
















26 Discussion


350 Luraghi et al











31 Ancient Greek



352 Luraghi et al







32 Indo-Iranian





354 Luraghi et al







33 Old Irish




356 Luraghi et al


34 Middle Armenian


35 Discussion








358 Luraghi et al











360 Luraghi et al

41 Hittite










42 Latin



362 Luraghi et al





43 Indo-Aryan












364 Luraghi et al





44 Germanic









366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References

ltlt ASCII85EncodePages false AllowTransparency false AutoPositionEPSFiles true AutoRotatePages None Binding Left CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 20) CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-21) CalCMYKProfile (Euroscale Coated v2) sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-21) CannotEmbedFontPolicy Warning CompatibilityLevel 17 CompressObjects Tags CompressPages true ConvertImagesToIndexed true PassThroughJPEGImages false CreateJobTicket false DefaultRenderingIntent Default DetectBlends true DetectCurves 01000 ColorConversionStrategy sRGB DoThumbnails true EmbedAllFonts true EmbedOpenType false ParseICCProfilesInComments true EmbedJobOptions true DSCReportingLevel 0 EmitDSCWarnings false EndPage -1 ImageMemory 1048576 LockDistillerParams false MaxSubsetPct 1 Optimize true OPM 1 ParseDSCComments true ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true PreserveCopyPage true PreserveDICMYKValues true PreserveEPSInfo true PreserveFlatness false PreserveHalftoneInfo false PreserveOPIComments false PreserveOverprintSettings true StartPage 1 SubsetFonts true TransferFunctionInfo Apply UCRandBGInfo Remove UsePrologue false ColorSettingsFile () AlwaysEmbed [ true ] NeverEmbed [ true ] AntiAliasColorImages false CropColorImages false ColorImageMinResolution 300 ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy OK DownsampleColorImages true ColorImageDownsampleType Bicubic ColorImageResolution 300 ColorImageDepth -1 ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1 ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 150000 EncodeColorImages true ColorImageFilter DCTEncode AutoFilterColorImages true ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy JPEG ColorACSImageDict ltlt QFactor 015 HSamples [1 1 1 1] VSamples [1 1 1 1] gtgt ColorImageDict ltlt QFactor 015 HSamples [1 1 1 1] VSamples [1 1 1 1] gtgt JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict ltlt TileWidth 256 TileHeight 256 Quality 10 gtgt JPEG2000ColorImageDict ltlt TileWidth 256 TileHeight 256 Quality 30 gtgt AntiAliasGrayImages false CropGrayImages false GrayImageMinResolution 300 GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy OK DownsampleGrayImages true GrayImageDownsampleType Bicubic GrayImageResolution 300 GrayImageDepth -1 GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 150000 EncodeGrayImages true GrayImageFilter DCTEncode AutoFilterGrayImages true GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy JPEG GrayACSImageDict ltlt QFactor 015 HSamples [1 1 1 1] VSamples [1 1 1 1] gtgt GrayImageDict ltlt QFactor 015 HSamples [1 1 1 1] VSamples [1 1 1 1] gtgt JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict ltlt TileWidth 256 TileHeight 256 Quality 30 gtgt JPEG2000GrayImageDict ltlt TileWidth 256 TileHeight 256 Quality 30 gtgt AntiAliasMonoImages false CropMonoImages false MonoImageMinResolution 600 MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy OK DownsampleMonoImages true MonoImageDownsampleType Bicubic MonoImageResolution 1000 MonoImageDepth -1 MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 110000 EncodeMonoImages true MonoImageFilter CCITTFaxEncode MonoImageDict ltlt K -1 gtgt AllowPSXObjects false CheckCompliance [ None ] PDFX1aCheck false PDFX3Check false PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false PDFXNoTrimBoxError false PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 000000 000000 000000 000000 ] PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 000000 000000 000000 000000 ] PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () PDFXOutputCondition () PDFXRegistryName () PDFXTrapped False CreateJDFFile false Description ltlt DEU 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 ENU () ENN () gtgt Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (10) ] OtherNamespaces [ ltlt AsReaderSpreads false CropImagesToFrames true ErrorControl WarnAndContinue FlattenerIgnoreSpreadOverrides false IncludeGuidesGrids false IncludeNonPrinting false IncludeSlug false Namespace [ (Adobe) (InDesign) (40) ] OmitPlacedBitmaps false OmitPlacedEPS false OmitPlacedPDF false SimulateOverprint Legacy gtgt ltlt AllowImageBreaks true AllowTableBreaks true ExpandPage false HonorBaseURL true HonorRolloverEffect false IgnoreHTMLPageBreaks false IncludeHeaderFooter false MarginOffset [ 0 0 0 0 ] MetadataAuthor () MetadataKeywords () MetadataSubject () MetadataTitle () MetricPageSize [ 0 0 ] MetricUnit inch MobileCompatible 0 Namespace [ (Adobe) (GoLive) (80) ] OpenZoomToHTMLFontSize false PageOrientation Portrait RemoveBackground false ShrinkContent true TreatColorsAs MainMonitorColors UseEmbeddedProfiles false UseHTMLTitleAsMetadata true gtgt ltlt AddBleedMarks false AddColorBars false AddCropMarks false AddPageInfo false AddRegMarks false BleedOffset [ 0 0 0 0 ] ConvertColors ConvertToCMYK DestinationProfileName (ISO Coated v2 (ECI)) DestinationProfileSelector UseName Downsample16BitImages true FlattenerPreset ltlt ClipComplexRegions true ConvertStrokesToOutlines false ConvertTextToOutlines false GradientResolution 300 LineArtTextResolution 1200 PresetName ltFEFF005B0048006F006800650020004100750066006C00F600730075006E0067005Dgt PresetSelector HighResolution RasterVectorBalance 1 gtgt FormElements true GenerateStructure false IncludeBookmarks false IncludeHyperlinks false IncludeInteractive false IncludeLayers false IncludeProfiles false MarksOffset 8503940 MarksWeight 0250000 MultimediaHandling UseObjectSettings Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (20) ] PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector UseName PageMarksFile RomanDefault PreserveEditing true UntaggedCMYKHandling LeaveUntagged UntaggedRGBHandling UseDocumentProfile UseDocumentBleed false gtgt ]gtgt setdistillerparamsltlt HWResolution [600 600] PageSize [595276 841890]gtgt setpagedevice











2 The medio-passive





342 Luraghi et al













344 Luraghi et al











23 Ancient Greek


346 Luraghi et al











24 Latin






348 Luraghi et al

25 Indo-Aryan
















26 Discussion


350 Luraghi et al











31 Ancient Greek



352 Luraghi et al







32 Indo-Iranian





354 Luraghi et al







33 Old Irish




356 Luraghi et al


34 Middle Armenian


35 Discussion








358 Luraghi et al











360 Luraghi et al

41 Hittite










42 Latin



362 Luraghi et al





43 Indo-Aryan












364 Luraghi et al





44 Germanic









366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References














344 Luraghi et al











23 Ancient Greek


346 Luraghi et al











24 Latin






348 Luraghi et al

25 Indo-Aryan
















26 Discussion


350 Luraghi et al











31 Ancient Greek



352 Luraghi et al







32 Indo-Iranian





354 Luraghi et al







33 Old Irish




356 Luraghi et al


34 Middle Armenian


35 Discussion








358 Luraghi et al











360 Luraghi et al

41 Hittite










42 Latin



362 Luraghi et al





43 Indo-Aryan












364 Luraghi et al





44 Germanic









366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References












23 Ancient Greek


346 Luraghi et al











24 Latin






348 Luraghi et al

25 Indo-Aryan
















26 Discussion


350 Luraghi et al











31 Ancient Greek



352 Luraghi et al







32 Indo-Iranian





354 Luraghi et al







33 Old Irish




356 Luraghi et al


34 Middle Armenian


35 Discussion








358 Luraghi et al











360 Luraghi et al

41 Hittite










42 Latin



362 Luraghi et al





43 Indo-Aryan












364 Luraghi et al





44 Germanic









366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References












24 Latin






348 Luraghi et al

25 Indo-Aryan
















26 Discussion


350 Luraghi et al











31 Ancient Greek



352 Luraghi et al







32 Indo-Iranian





354 Luraghi et al







33 Old Irish




356 Luraghi et al


34 Middle Armenian


35 Discussion








358 Luraghi et al











360 Luraghi et al

41 Hittite










42 Latin



362 Luraghi et al





43 Indo-Aryan












364 Luraghi et al





44 Germanic









366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References


25 Indo-Aryan
















26 Discussion


350 Luraghi et al











31 Ancient Greek



352 Luraghi et al







32 Indo-Iranian





354 Luraghi et al







33 Old Irish




356 Luraghi et al


34 Middle Armenian


35 Discussion








358 Luraghi et al











360 Luraghi et al

41 Hittite










42 Latin



362 Luraghi et al





43 Indo-Aryan












364 Luraghi et al





44 Germanic









366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References








26 Discussion


350 Luraghi et al











31 Ancient Greek



352 Luraghi et al







32 Indo-Iranian





354 Luraghi et al







33 Old Irish




356 Luraghi et al


34 Middle Armenian


35 Discussion








358 Luraghi et al











360 Luraghi et al

41 Hittite










42 Latin



362 Luraghi et al





43 Indo-Aryan












364 Luraghi et al





44 Germanic









366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References












31 Ancient Greek



352 Luraghi et al







32 Indo-Iranian





354 Luraghi et al







33 Old Irish




356 Luraghi et al


34 Middle Armenian


35 Discussion








358 Luraghi et al











360 Luraghi et al

41 Hittite










42 Latin



362 Luraghi et al





43 Indo-Aryan












364 Luraghi et al





44 Germanic









366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References








32 Indo-Iranian





354 Luraghi et al







33 Old Irish




356 Luraghi et al


34 Middle Armenian


35 Discussion








358 Luraghi et al











360 Luraghi et al

41 Hittite










42 Latin



362 Luraghi et al





43 Indo-Aryan












364 Luraghi et al





44 Germanic









366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References








33 Old Irish




356 Luraghi et al


34 Middle Armenian


35 Discussion








358 Luraghi et al











360 Luraghi et al

41 Hittite










42 Latin



362 Luraghi et al





43 Indo-Aryan












364 Luraghi et al





44 Germanic









366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References



34 Middle Armenian


35 Discussion








358 Luraghi et al











360 Luraghi et al

41 Hittite










42 Latin



362 Luraghi et al





43 Indo-Aryan












364 Luraghi et al





44 Germanic









366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References






358 Luraghi et al











360 Luraghi et al

41 Hittite










42 Latin



362 Luraghi et al





43 Indo-Aryan












364 Luraghi et al





44 Germanic









366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References












360 Luraghi et al

41 Hittite










42 Latin



362 Luraghi et al





43 Indo-Aryan












364 Luraghi et al





44 Germanic









366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References


41 Hittite










42 Latin



362 Luraghi et al





43 Indo-Aryan












364 Luraghi et al





44 Germanic









366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References





42 Latin



362 Luraghi et al





43 Indo-Aryan












364 Luraghi et al





44 Germanic









366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References






43 Indo-Aryan












364 Luraghi et al





44 Germanic









366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References










364 Luraghi et al





44 Germanic









366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References






44 Germanic









366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References







366 Luraghi et al

45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References


45 Slavic








46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References




46 Armenian







368 Luraghi et al









47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References










47 Discussion




370 Luraghi et al



5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References




5 Minor strategies


51 Lexical passives










372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References









372 Luraghi et al

















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References


















374 Luraghi et al
















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References

















376 Luraghi et al












54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References













54 Discussion



6 Conclusion


378 Luraghi et al












380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References













380 Luraghi et al











382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References












382 Luraghi et al









References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References










References




384 Luraghi et al








































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References









































386 Luraghi et al








































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References









































388 Luraghi et al








































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References









































390 Luraghi et al




















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References





















Press


1 Introduction

2 The medio-passive



23 Ancient Greek

24 Latin

25 Indo-Aryan

26 Discussion


31 Ancient Greek

32 Indo-Iranian

33 Old Irish

34 Middle Armenian

35 Discussion


41 Hittite

42 Latin

43 Indo-Aryan

44 Germanic

45 Slavic

46 Armenian

47 Discussion

5 Minor strategies

51 Lexical passives



54 Discussion

6 Conclusion




Acknowledgements

References


The passive voice in ancient Indo-European languages

Documents

Transcript of The passive voice in ancient Indo-European languages