Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European [revised version 2015-04-17]

revised version 2015-04-17

TRANSITIVITY DIRECTION IN PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN

ROLAND A. POOTH COLOGNE, GERMANY & LEIDEN, THE NETHERLANDS

Abstract: This paper is part of work in progress. It is part three of a cluster of pa-

pers entitled Voice, Direction, Case, and Alignment in Proto-Indo-European (PIE). It provides an internal reconstruction of the PIE transitivity DIRECTION1 system. It will be argued that PIE exhibitted DIRECT vs. INVERSE vs. INTRANSITIVE direction forms, that is, a direct/inverse system.

Keywords: Reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European morphology and syntax; voice and direction; syntactic transitivity; direct/inverse system.

1. Introduction. There are a few Proto-Indo-European grammatical categories that are maintained in Ancient Greek and Vedic but were aban-doned or modified in other IE languages, for instance, the optative or OPTATIVE-IRREALIS mood which is maintained in Ancient Greek and Vedic, but is not continued in the Anatolian branch and has been modified to a general subjunctive from PIE to Latin and Proto-Germanic, cf. Vedic 3st sg. imperfective, that is, “present stem” opt. act.2 syāt (pl. syúr) = Old Latin subj. act. siēt (pl. sient)3 < PIE sg. *ʔsiɛʔt, pl. *ʔsiʔɛnt, *ʔsiʔɛrs, *ʔsiʔɛr (→ Vulgar Post-PIE *ʔsiʔr(s) > Vedic syúr, etc.), etc.4 On the other hand, how-ever, a thorough IE comparative investigation also reveals remnants of morphosyntactic distinctions that are not continued as such in any IE lan-guage. These grammatical categories which are unknown from IE languages must have been abandoned or functionally modified by the time the proto-language developed into a Vulgar Post-PIE variant or dialect cluster.5 By additional application of the method of internal reconstruction we are able to identify parallel, but relatively independent innovations of all Vulgar Post-PIE dialects. These parallel innovations most presumably occurred immediately after the unitary PIE ancestor broke up.

1.1. The PIE 1st pl. inclusive category. An illustrative example is pro-vided by the PIE 1st person plural INCLUSIVE category ‘we, that is, you and me’, e.g. PIE *ɠwmuɔ(s) ‘we, you and me, went together’. It is continued

1 For the term DIRECTION cf. Wolfart & Carroll 1981: 68, DeLancey 1981, Thompson

1989: 21, Klaiman 1992. 2 I use the conventional abbreviations and glosses: act. = active, etc., see below:

glosses. 3 Cf. Weiss 2009: 416. 4 For the representation of PIE word forms cf. Pooth 2015 (ms.). 5 For the notion of a Vulgar Post-PIE variant cluster cf. Pooth 2015 (ms.).

ROLAND A. POOTH 2

only modified as a 1st person DUAL INCLUSIVE category in Early Vedic (RV, AV), e.g. Vedic ganvahi (TPgwmuédhh2)6 ‘we two, you (sg.) and me, go (up) together’ (attested in RV 8.69.7b). Much later, it is reflected as a 1st person DUAL inclusive plus exclusive category in Old Church Slavonic and Gothic (cf. Pooth 2011). Such a well-known7 grammaticalization path can be illus-trated as follows.

FIGURE 1. THE GRAMMATICALIZATION OF THE 1ST DUAL FORMS

PIE Early Vedic OCS, Gothic 1st PL INCLUSIVE → 1st DUAL INCLUSIVE → 1st DUAL *ɠwmuɔ(s) 8 ganvahi (middle) ‘we, you & me, came ‘we two, you & me, ...’ ‘we two ...’ hither, went there’

By application of the method of internal reconstruction it is thus pos-

sible to identify a Vulgar Post-PIE functional narrowing the inherited PIE 1st person plural inclusive category to dual number.

1.2. The PIE progressive aspect. Another illustrative example of a PIE grammatical category that was functionally modified most probably im-mediately after PIE broke up―and that is not maintained in its original function in any IE language is provided by the PIE PROGRESSIVE aspect. Its PIE marker was the suffix *-i. In PIE, this suffix was attachable to many non-progressive verb forms in word final position, e.g. *gwɛnm-i ‘I am slay-ing s.o./him/her/it’, *gwnmɛs-i ‘we (excl.) are dito’, etc. 9 It is inferential that from PIE to Vulgar Post-PIE all progressive forms developed into IMPERFECTIVE aspect and PRESENT tense10 forms11 (cf. Pooth 2009a). It is an important implication of this inference that the Vulgar Post-PIE imperfec-tive present category was then, but not before, marked by fusional port-manteau suffixes―and that *-mi, *-si, *-ti, *-mes(i), *-ues(i) *-ten(i), -énti,

6 Abbreviations: EF = equation formula; TP = phonological Transponatum (form

which is generated by simple backprojection of IE sound laws). 7 The development from 1st person pl. INCLUSIVE to 1st person DUAL has been decribed

by Dixon 2010, II: 194 for some Australian languages. 8 This form was a 1st pl incl. DETRANSITIVE (DTR) (“protomiddle”) form, cf. Pooth

2015 (ms.). 9 This suffix has always been called “particle of the hic et nunc”, but it is neither as-

sured that it was a particle, nor is “hic et nunc” an adequate functional term, because it is implausible that it was a pure tense suffix; for the argumentation cf. Pooth 2009a.

10 Cf. Pooth 2009a. Note that the development of progressive forms to imperfective present forms is very common crosslinguistically, cf. Bybee, Perkins & Pagliuca 1994.

11 These progressive forms further were pleonastically extended by productive im-perfective present endings in Vulgar Post-IE yielding post-PIE imperfective and present tense stems in *-i-, *-oi-, *-ei-, *-éi o/e-, *-(H)i ó/é-, e.g. PIE *duɢɔi > Vulgar Post-PIE *dɦugɦói → *dɦugɦ-óitoi ~ *dɦugɦ-óiti (cf. Pooth 2015 (ms.)).

Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European

3

etc. (> Vedic -mi, -si, -ti, -mas(i), etc.) are indeed functional and morpho-tactical innovations that are younger than PIE. It is important to recognize that these new fusional portmanteau suffixes cannot be dated to the PIE proper parent language any longer. The reprojection of the Vedic and Greek so-called “primary endings” onto PIE is most probably simply an anachronistic mistake. The parallel, but independent post-PIE development can be illustrated as follows:12

FIGURE 2. THE GRAMMATICALIZATION OF THE IMPERFECTIVE PRESENT FORMS

PIE Vulgar Post-PIE Hittite PROGRESSIVE → IMPERFECTIVE (PRESENT) → PRESENT *gwɛn-t-i *gwɦén-ti kueen-zi ↘ Vedic IMPERFECTIVE PRESENT (vs. PERFECTIVE)13 hán-ti (vs. aor. vádhīt)14 I will return to the emergence of the “primary endings” and “secondary

endings” more detailed below.

1.3. The PIE collective number. Another example of a PIE category that was obviously modified in post-PIE times is provided by the PIE so-called COLLECTIVE number category, e.g. PIE *uɛɗɔr ~ *uɛɗɔrχ ‘water(s)’ (> Vulgar Post-PIE *uédo:(r)) besides PIE *uɔɗr ‘water’ (> Hittite waatar, etc.). Although this number category is not maintained in any IE language, it is among the categories that Indo-European comparative philologers have now agreed upon. The PIE collective number forms, that is, the ones of the *uɛɗɔr ~*uɛɗɔrχ type are continued either as IE neuter singular forms or as IE neuter plural forms, cf. Gk. nom.-acc. sg. n. τό ὕδωR, ὕδατος ‘water’ (← Vulgar Post-PIE *uédo:(r), abl.-gen. *udnós), but Hittite nom.-acc. pl. widaar ~ witaar ~ wedaar ‘waters’ ( *uédo:(r) ~ *uedó:(r)) vs. sg. waatar ‘wa-ter’. Thus going back to a single (unitary) PIE number form the IE out-comes actually belong to different IE number categories.

12 Claiming that the IE distinction of “primary” imperfective present vs. “secondary”

(“aorist”, etc.) endings goes back to the protolanguage is highly unlikely. This is, for instance, also the view of Beekes 1995.

13 In my view, the development of the PERFECTIVE (“aorist”) category was a rather independent innovation of the so-called “Inner IE” parts of the Vulgar Post-PIE variant or dialect continuum or cluster. It is a severe mistake to backproject any IE so-called “characterized” aorist stem onto PIE, i.e., any aorist stem other than the root aorist stem. I think that even “root aorist stems” must not be seen as proper PERFECTIVE stems in PIE; cf. Pooth 2015 (ms.).

14 Cf. García Ramón 1998 who correctly noticed the suppletion of Vedic pres. hánti vs. aor. vádhīt. The lack of corresponding suppletive pairs, however, speaks in favour of parallel, but independent root suppletions in Ancient Greek vs. Vedic.

ROLAND A. POOTH 4

A further remark: It has been assumed that *uɛɗɔr ~*uɛɗɔrχ originally was a singular form that was taken for a new plural form from PIE to Hit-tite. However, it must have had a plural-like meaning. I draw the inference that the *uɛɗɔr ~*uɛɗɔrχ collective type originally was a transnumeral category that had both a GENERIC reading ‘water (as a type)’ and a COLLECTIVE reading ‘(group of) water(s)’ (cf. Pooth 2015 (ms.)).

Summing up, I hereby suggest that within a proper linguistic recon-struction of the PIE common ancestor, it must be our task and duty to re-veal the semantic nature of all these lost or functionally modified grammati-cal categories. Additionally, we should find a reasonable motive for why these categories were given up or modified when the protolanguage devel-oped into a bundle of Vulgar Post-PIE variants. Finally, I would like to make this point even stronger, because it is not at all reasonable to a priori doubt the existence of PIE grammatical distinctions that were different from the ones reflected by the IE languages. Assuming that grammatical categories do not change their functional nature is contradicted by crosslinguistic diachronic evidence and does not make any sense at all within a proper linguistic reconstruction.

2. Comparative settings. But let us first make use of the comparative method before starting to analyze the PIE word forms properly. It is a comparative fact that the IE correpondences and word or morpheme equa-tions point to minimally three different PIE 3rd person finite verb forms, both for singular and plural number. These 3rd person forms are provision-ally termed D for the ones that show a segment *-t-, S for the ones with a segment *-s-, SD for the ones with *-st-, and Z (zero) for the ones without any of these segments:

FIGURE 3. IE EQUATION FORMULAS AND TRANSPONATA

3SG EFACTIVE EFMIDDLE example IE forms Z EF-Ø- (2SG) EF-o- TPgwɦnó YAv. ni-γne D EF-t- EF-to- EFgwɦntó S EF-s- EF-so- (2SG) EFgwɦnsó(i) (2SG)a SD EF-st- EF-sto- TPgénh1sto Vedic (á)jániṣṭa

3PL Z EF-ér/-r EF-ro- TPgusró Vedic ajuṣran b D EF-ént-/-nt- EF-(o)nto- TPdɦugɦntó S EF-érs/-rs TPkwikwéitrs OAv. cikōitǝrǝš c

Additional notes to this Figure: Abbreviations: EF = equation formula; TP =

phonological transponatum (= a form which is generated by backprojection of IE sound laws).

a Cf. Gk. -(σ)ο (ἐφέρου ‘you were carried’< *ephere-so) = Latin 2nd sg. mid. -re (~ ris ~ rus), etc. :: Vedic -se = Gothic -za, etc.


5

b Cf. Vedic -ran, -ram go back to Proto-Indo-Iranian *-ra (< *-ro) extended by *n or *m in respective paradigmatic analogy to the 3rd pl. act. ending *-an < PIE *-ont or the 2nd/3rd du. act. ending *-tām, *-tam, etc.

c Cf. Jasanoff 2003: 40, fn. 32; the k of Old Avestan cikōitǝrǝš may be analogical or may point to a Vulgar Post-PIE variant TPkwikwóitrs.

2.1. The alveolar morpheme *-t-. Usually, the morpheme *-t- is taken for a regular fusional PIE 3rd sg. “ending”. Thus, many 3rd person sg. forms were marked by a alveolar morpheme *-t-, e.g. *gwɛnt(-i) > Vedic hán, hánti, etc. A morph or segment *-t-, however, is also found in the 3rd person sg. “middle” ending *-to- (> Vedic -ta = Greek -το = Hittite -ta, etc.). Therefore, *-to- can be split up into two separate morphs, *-t- and *ɔ, respectively, cf. Pooth 2004a, 2009b, 2015 (ms.). The 3rd person plural forms displaying *-nt- vs. *-nto- also show such a segment *-t-. Therefore, these “endings” are also separable into *-n- + *-t- and *ɔ, respectively.

FIGURE 4. PIE FORMS EXHIBITING *-t- (given in bold type)

3SG 3PL AGT *gwɛnt *gwnɛnt DTR *gwntɔ *gwnntɔ, *ʔsɔnt → Vulgar Post-PIE *ʔsónt ~*ʔsónto AGT *stɛːut *stɛunt DTR *stɛutɔ *stɛuɔnt → Vulgar Post-PIE *stéuonto ~ *stéunto a

Additional notes to this Figure: a In my view, the PIE 3rd plural detransitive form (marked by the discontinuous

detransitive marker *ɔ, e.g. *bɛrɔnt) was simply reinterpreted as “neoactive” form with an ending *-ont from PIE to Vulgar Post-PIE, cf. Pooth 2011, 2014 (chapters 7-8). A new Vulgar Post-PIE pleonastic 3rd pl. middle ending *-onto (> Hittite -anta = Vedic -anta, etc.) developed from *-ont + *-o in analogy to *-nto.

In addition, the morph *-t- is part of the Vulgar Post-PIE 2nd person pl. “endings” *-te(n) ~ *-tes, etc., e.g. *gwntɛn(-i), etc. It is further part of the Vulgar Post-PIE 2nd middle “endings” sg. *-tχa (or the like), pl. *-tχa(n)15.

FIGURE 5. MORE PIE FORMS EXHIBITING *-t-

2SG 2PL 2COL AGT *gwntɛ(n) DTR *gwntχá *gwntχá(n) (→ Vedic 2nd pl. act. -tha ~-thanā) DTR *uɔiɗtχa

DTR *gwntáχ → “neoactive” *-tā(m)16

15 Cf. Pooth 2011, 2015 (ms.). 16 The 2nd pl. middle ending *-(s)dhue/o(m) is lacking in the “NW” IE branches

which makes this ending a perfect candidate for a Vulgar Post-PIE “Center” to “SE” dialectal creation, cf. Pooth 2011; for the term “neoactive” cf. Jasanoff 2003.

ROLAND A. POOTH 6

2.2. The sibilant morpheme *-s-. Other 3rd person finite verb forms were marked by a sibilant morpheme *-s-. It is internally evident that the addition of *-t- to *-s- yielding *-st- was a pre-IE suffix pleonasm, similar to the one that affected the old so-called “dental-less ending” of the 3rd sg. middle, cf. Hitt. -at = Vedic 3rd sg. aor. inj. mid. -at < *-ot ← *-o- + *-t-. A primary status as inflectional portmanteau ending of this morpheme *-s- (and *-st-) is evident in Hittite, cf. 3rd sg. pret. ind. act. endings -s, -st(a) (and 2nd pl. -sten, -steni). The same status holds true for Proto-Tocharian and Toch. A and B, cf. Toch. B pret. act. 1st sg. -āwa-/-awa/-wa, 2nd sg. -āsta/-asta, 3rd sg. -a/-sa, 2nd pl. -ās(o)/-as/-so, cf. Malzahn 2010: 38-44, 192.17

There is further internal and external evidence. There must have been an archaic 3rd person singular ending *-s in pre-Vedic serving as the basis for the emergence of the so-called “precative” optative aorist, cf. 3rd sg. aor. opt. act. bhū-yās (RV) (vs. bhū-yā-t (AV)). As a matter of fact, this pre-Vedic “secondary ending” of the 3rd sg. *-s (or *-st) thus clearly corresponds to and constitutes an equation of Hittite -s, -st(a).18 It should have been the very same sibilant morpheme *-s-19 that developed into a sigmatic stem suffix from Vulgar Post-PIE to Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Greek and some other IE languages independently from each other, maybe as an areal contact phenomenon. Many IE languages other than Proto-Anatolian and Proto-Germanic reflect a morphological reanalysis of the first part of *-st- as a new sigmatic stem suffix (→ *-s-t) (cf. Watkins 1962).

It is thus possible to reconstruct *-so- ~ *-sto- via internal reconstruction in the 3rd person singular “protomiddle” voice forms, e.g. Vulgar Post-PIE *stéuso ~ *stéusto > Vedic (á)stóṣṭa, etc. Originally, the ending *-so- (> Proto-Indo-Iranian 2nd sg. pres. ind. mid. *-sai, Proto-Greek *-soi, etc.) was not a PIE 2nd person form, but a PIE 3rd person form (cf. Pooth 2015 (ms.)); but it was reinterpreted as a Vulgar Post-PIE 2nd person middle “ending” from PIE to Vulgar Post-PIE due to the new analogy proportion 2nd sg. *-si :: 3rd *-ti = *X :: 3rd *-to(i).

The corresponding sigmatic 3rd person plural forms were marked by *-rs (*-rs), cf. Old Avestan 3rd pl. cikōit-ǝrǝš, etc. The 3rd person plural optative, e.g. Vedic syúr goes back to *ʔs-iʔ-rs (or *ʔs-iʔ-r). This later form *ʔs-iʔ-rs must have been preceded by PIE *ʔsiʔɛrs. This form was structured parallel to the one with the alveolar morpheme *ʔsiʔɛnt > Old Latin sient. The end-ing *-rs is found with e-grade (*-eːr) reflected as Hittite 3rd pl. pret. act. -iir ~ -eir ~ -eer < *-eːr. This is an outcome of PIE *_ɛrs via “Szemerényi’s law”

17 Assuming that the *-s- was lost in the 1st person and 3rd person pl. forms in Proto-

Tocharian and Proto-Anatolian is implausible. 18 This correspondence can be taken for an external comparative proof that *-s (or

*-st) occurred in PIE 3rd sg. forms. 19 There is no sign of any other more plausible source for the sigmatic stem.


7

(cf. Jasanoff 2003). It is still continued as the first part of Old Latin -ēre and -ērunt (< *-eːr extended by *-i and *-ont, respectively20). *-rs is finally separable into two agglutinated morphemes *-r- (PLURAL) + *-s (category S): cf. the following Figure:

FIGURE 6. SOME PIE FORMS AND A TRANSPONATUM EXHIBITING *-s-

3SG(/2SG) 3PL AGT *qlɛps *qlpɛrs a cf. Latin clepsit DTR *budsɔ cf. Vedic 1st sg. ábhutsi AGT *qlɛːps *qlɛprs cf. Latin clēpit 21 DTR *stɛusɔ b DTR TPsóikwsi cd Additional notes to this Figure: a The Hittite 3rd plural preterite indicative active kue(e)nn-er shows paradig-

matically levelled full e-grade of the root. The ending -er ( ~ -iir ~ -eir ~ -eer) goes back to Vulgar Post-PIE *-eːr (< PIE *_ɛrs).

b Cf. Vedic (á)stóṣṭa. Cf. also *qlɛptɔ → Vulgar Post-PIE *klḗptor(i) (with ana-logical lengthened grade) > Toch. A klyepträ ‘touches’.

c Cf. Toch. A -ṣ < *-si ―cf. Vedic (ŚB) °seci (< *sóikwi) :: Toch. A 3rd sg. subj. V sekaṣ (TPsóikwHsi) (← *sóikwsi, *-a- < *-H- was generalized as a stem suffix in Proto-Tocharian, cf. Jasanoff 2003, chapter 6-7, §93ff.; Malzahn 2010: 274-316 with further references).

d In my view, the Vedic 2nd sg. imperative middle ending -sva most probably goes back to a corresponding sigmatic 2nd sg. form with a suffix *-u, e.g. *sɛikwsχu. It was extended by *-a → *-sua within (or before) Proto-Indo-Iranian.

2.3. The zero morpheme. A third 3rd person finite verb form was the so-called “dental-less stative” form (but “stative” is a term which is seman-tically inappropriate and should not be used anymore; cf. Pooth 2000, 2015 (ms.)). It was marked by a zero morpheme to left to the *ɔ in the middle voice, cf. Young Avestan ni-γne ‘is knocked down’, Vedic stáve ‘is praised’, etc.

The plural forms, e.g. *ɠusrɔ (from *ɠVus- ‘taste, choose; please; find pleasure in’) were marked by *-ro without any sibilant or alveolar mor-pheme. The corresponding 3rd person active plural forms were marked by the *-r (*-r) with no further extension, cf. Old Avestan -ǝrǝ. The form *-er with e-grade is still found as the first part of Old Latin 3rd person pl. perf. ind. -erunt < *-er extended by *-ont/*-nt.22

20 Cf. Weiss 2009: 393. 21 Cf. Pike 2009. Latin thus shows reflects of both the “acrostatic” *qlɛːp-t (with al-

veolar morpheme) and the “amphikinetic” *qlɛp-s (with *-s(t)). 22 It is not necessary to reconstruct *-is-ont in this particular case (pace Weiss 2009:

393). Jasanoff 2003: 33, fn. 11 claims that -erunt should go back to *-iront (cf. -imus,

ROLAND A. POOTH 8

The 3rd person singular forms of the *uóide(i) type and a zero marked 3rd person singular form *gónʔ(i) of a “pre-passive-aorist inflectional type” also belonged to this category Z:

FIGURE 7. PIE FORMS EXHIBITING ZERO

3SG 3PL AGT *gwnɛr DTR *duɢɔ *duɢrɔ cf. Vedic 3rd sg. duhé, pl. duhré AGT *mɛlχr a DTR *kɛiɔ(i) cf. Vedic 3rd sg. śáye DTR *uɔiɗɛ(i) *mɛlχɔr b DTR *ɠɔnʔ(i) c cf. Vedic 3rd sg. jani, ájani

AGT *ɗi-ɗʕɛr cf. Old Latin dederunt

... DTR *ɗɛ-ɗʕɔ d Additional notes to this figure: a This form originally belonged to the *stɛːut(i) (or so-called “Narten”) type.

The agentive forms of the PIE “Narten” type merged with the PIE *uɔiɗɛ(i) type yielding a Vulgar Post-PIE new imperfective (including habitual) mixed paradigm *uóid-ei, *uóid-e ~ *uḗid-s(t) (cf. Jasanoff 2003; Pooth 2015 (ms.)).

b I think that *mɛlχɔr ‘they (always) grind’ was the original 3rd plural form of the *mɔlχɛ(i) type. This form must have been modified to Vulgar Post-PIE *melχŕ(s) ~ *molχŕ(s) with paradigmatically levelled o-grade. Some pl. form such as, e.g., *uid-ŕ(s) also had zero-grade in analogy to the other unreduplicated 3rd pl. forms *gwɦn-éːr, *gwɦn-ént, etc.―for the analogical spread of the zero-grade in the 3rd pl. forms cf. Vedic stuvánti ← *stéunti. Kloekhorst 2012 thinks that Hittite con-firms that the zero-grade was original in this type, but Jasanoff 2003: §27 is cor-rect by claiming that there is independent evidence for an e-grade in the corre-sponding reduplicated type, cf. Vedic ádīdhayur, avivyacur, where the guṇa ablaut must be archaic. Thus, there is Vedic evidence for Vulgar Post-PIE 3rd sg. *ueui ókwe :: pl. *ueui ekwŕ(s) besides *ueuidŕ(s). As just mentioned, I think that the *uóide(i) type merged with the “Narten type” *stḗu-s(t) :: *stḗu-t in Vulgar PIE. Within such a “mixed paradigm” we can expect the given IE ablaut variants. Note that Hittite -ar can go back to both *-r and *-or.

c The PIE *ɠɔnʔ(i) type merged with the aorist-like part of the *ɠusɔ/*duɢɔ(i) type in Vulgar Post-PIE yielding another mixed paradigm which is reflected as Vedic middle root aorist. Vedic abudhran/abudhram goes back to *budrɔ. I assume that forms of this shape originally belonged to the *duɢɔ(i) type and were struc-tured in parallel with *duɢntɔ(i) (with *-r-Ø- instead of *-n-t-). I think that the old 3rd pl. form belonging to *ɠɔnʔ(i) was *ɠnʔɔr. Its structure matches the one of *ʔsɔnt(i) (but with *-r-Ø- instead of *-n-t-). But it is even more intricate that 3rd pl. forms of this type were also allomorphs of the type that once corresponded to the “amphikinetic” agentive-active forms, cf. 3rd pl. agt. *ʔsɛnt(i) :: 3rd pl. “protomid-dle” *ʔsɔnt(i). I will have to return to this matter elsewhere.

etc.), but it is more plausible to explain the “union vowel” -i- as analogical to the pre-sent (cf. 1st pl. pres. ind. act. agimus, capimus, cf. Weiss 2009: 393).


9

d This form was pleonastically extended by the productive 3rd sg. ending *-to(i) in Vulgar Post-PIE yielding *dédʕoto(i) → *dédʕeto(i) > Vedic dáda-te.

3. How to analyze these three morphs? 3.1. Three morphs for just two IE functional distinctions? As a given

result of the application of the comparative method to the sum of IE word forms, the IE equation formulas and transponates very clearly point to-wards three different segments, morphs, or morphemes *-t-, *-s-, *-Ø-. The most plausible and easiest explanation, however, is definitively not to leave the two ending sets “primary” vs. “secondary” the way they are found in Greek and Vedic. Not touching any IE functional distinctions would en-force us to functionally reduce the three morphs *-t-, *-s-, *-Ø- to just two morphological categories, simply because Greek and Vedic both distinguish two opponent sets of portmanteau suffixes, that is, “primary” imperfective present endings (e.g. Vedic -anti ~ -ati etc.) versus “secondary” non-imperfective and non-present ones. Such a reduction would cause many troublesome ad hoc explanations.

Therefore, the most plausible and easiest explanation is to infer that these three morphemes once indicated three different verbal categories, because their number is three―and not two. These verbal categories may have been given up from PIE to Vulgar Post-PIE. These categories are thus pro-visionally termed categories D, S, and Z.

3.2. Assigning three functions to D, S, and Z. A proper identification of the morphosyntactic functions of these three lost verbal categories of PIE, of course, cannot be done on the basis of IE correspondences and the comparative method, because these three categories D, S, and Z have van-ished without a functional trace.

Remark: I do have to admit that a reconstruction of verbal categories that are not in the canon of the IE verbal categories is not provable and cannot be falsified by comparative means. However, it has to be recog-nized that any lack of comparative proof is simply due to the use of a rather inadequate method for a particular purpose. In this particular case, any lack of comparative falsification is just due to the problem that the comparative method does not provide us with any tool for any insights concerning verbal categories that have vanished from PIE to post-PIE. Comparative philologers have to accept that this is the very blind spot of the comparative method and, therefore, that IE comparison and the com-parative method is seriously blind as for the reconstruction of morphosyn-tactic categories and syntactic constructions that cannot be equated, be-cause they have vanished or were morphosyntactically modified from PIE to post-PIE. However, it is true and cannot be denied that the application

ROLAND A. POOTH 10

of the comparative method actually results in a formal distinction of three different morphs or segments―not just two.

Assigning a functional value to these three segments, however, must not be done by application of the comparative method any longer. It must be done via inductive reasoning on a background of general linguistic dia-chronic typological knowledge and findings. Of course it is evident that, within a certain period, these three segments were integrated into the bundle of Vulgar Post-PIE so-called “secondary endings”, that is, perfective or preterite (and optative) inflectional endings. But I hereby suggest that the development of such specified “endings” was only a chain shift which followed the emergence of the “primary” imperfective present forms and endings from PIE PROGRESSIVE aspect forms:

FIGURE 8. THE ORIGIN OF THE IE PRIMARY VS. SECONDARY ENDINGS

initial shift PIE Vulgar Post-PIE PROGRESSIVE → IMPERFECTIVE PRESENT *-m-i *-mi *-s-i *-si *-t-i *-ti *-n-t-i *-nti *-ɛ_n-t-i *-énti etc.

chain/subsequent shift PIE Vulgar Post-PIE post-PIE NON-PROG “secondary” → perfective/preterite, etc., *-m *-m that is, secondary functions23 *-s *-s ~ *-st (not including optative24) *-t *-t *-r-s *-rs etc.

The present-day comparative reconstruction of morphosyntactic func-

tions and grammatical categories is seriously problematic. Any conclusion which is solely based on the comparative method can only remain a tenta-tive and provisional result, simply because morphosyntactic functions and grammatical categories that have vanished completely or were modified parallelly within a post-PIE variant cluster simply cannot be compared. (But

23 These “secondary” functions (e.g. the coding of perfective aspect, past tense, etc.)

must not be reprojected as such onto the protolanguage. The distinction between “pri-mary” vs. “secondary” endings is a Vulgar Post-PIE to post-PIE innovation (which is still visible in the case of Vedic krthás with irregular primary ending, cf. Pooth 2011: 478, fn. 12).

24 The optative-irrealis mood does not belong to these post-PIE secondary functions. Optative-irrealis forms simply lacked the progressive suffix *-i in PIE.


11

this does not mean that they did not exist.) This is a very serious problem of present-day comparative philology. It has already been outlined more detailed elsewhere (Pooth manuscript b). However, even if the comparative method is less adequate and useful for the linguistic reconstruction of morphotaxis, morphology, syntax, and lexical and grammatical categories this does not entail that a proper linguistic reconstruction remains impos-sible, because we can use other methods of reasoning. It is also true that as for morphosyntactic functions and grammatical categories, a correct, that is, a plausible and potentially real and typologically realistic decriptive analy-sis and reconstruction can be established by inductive and deductive rea-soning with a background of crosslinguistic morphosyntactic diachronic typological knowledge. Such a linguistic reconstruction uses all the multi-ple linguistic methods which have been supplied so far. This linguistic re-construction is “post-mono-comparative” (Pooth 2015 (ms.)) and its rea-soning runs as follows:

1. FIRST OBSERVATION (BASED ON EXTERNAL COMPARATIVE AND INTERNAL PIE EVIDENCE): There is a relevant formal similarity strengthening the conclu-sion that these three lost categories were verbal DEICTIC-DIRECTIONAL cate-gories. The two morphs *-t- and *-s- are comparable to the deictic morphs *t- vs. *s- which are found in the PIE demonstrative pronoun system, cf. PIE *sɔ > Vedic sá, and *tɔ- > Vedic tá-, etc.

2. SECOND OBSERVATION (BASED ON DIACHRONIC TYPOLOGY): There is a rele-vant grammaticalization path which is of major relevance here. It has be-come an established insight that “erstwhile deictic-directional markers” constitute a “natural diachronic pathway for the grammaticalization of semantic inverse systems” (Givón 2001 I: 166).

3.3. A possible deduction. Therefore, we are in a fruitful position to draw the following conclusion via deductive reasoning:

1. THE GIVEN INTERNAL EVIDENCE: It is internally evident that the three morphs *-t-, *-s-, *-Ø- look exactly like deictic-directional markers. To be fair, it is not absolutely assured that they were, but at least it is absolutely sure that they exactly look like deictic-directional markers. Such a formal identity should be sufficiant internal evidence.

2. THE RULE: A GRAMMATICALIZATION PATH: It is a diachronic “rule” that “erstwhile deictic-directional markers” constitute a “natural diachronic pathway for the grammaticalization of semantic inverse systems”, cf. Givón 2001 I: 166.

3. THE CONCLUSION: It is very plausible to identify these three lost cate-gories with verbal deictic-directional grammatical categories belonging to the domain of transitivity direction.

I do have to admit that this line of reasoning is only similar to a classical deduction. There is general law or rule, that is, a grammticalization path,

ROLAND A. POOTH 12

and there are given facts, that is, the given internal evidence. Of course this deduction does not exclude other possibilities, simply because the rule is not exceptionless. However, it is important to recognize that it makes other possibilities less plausible.

1. First, it is rather implausible to suggest that these three lost catego-ries once were aspect categories, because there is little that speaks in fa-vour of such a suggestion. *-t- is found in endings of both the IE imperfec-tive and perfective aspect. I admit that *-s- shows a tendency towards marking of perfective aspect in IE. But what about the Vulgar Post-PIE 2nd person singular imperfective present indicative ending *-si then? Should we keep on separating these two endings morphologically or not? Ques-tions like this are difficult to answer without ad hoc assumptions.

2. Second, it is definitively less plausible to suggest that these markers once were “inflectional portmanteau endings” like their IE outcomes. In that case we would not be able to give a diachronic justification for the given variation.

3. We could set up categories like the “stative” to describe forms like *gwnɔ ‘s.o. is slewn’, *stɛuɔ. But this term is descriptively wrong. The exis-tence of a “stative” is even contradicted by the IE comparative evidence and there is nothing that speaks in favour of it, cf. Pooth 2000.

4. Original specific marking of tense distinctions is excluded, too. The Vedic “injunctive” is a tense-neutral category and PIE *gwɛnt could be used both with present and past tense reference, cf. Pooth 2009a. In addition, PIE had a non-obligatory past tense prefix (“augment”) *(ʔ)ɛ- to particu-larly specify or emphasize past tense reference.

5. These ending were not just person markers. It is impossible to explain why the very same marker *-s- coded both the 2nd and the 3rd person forms. The same holds true for *-t- which occurred both in forms of the 2nd and the 3rd person.

6. Furthermore, they were definitively not just number markers. If one suggested this, one would not be capable of explaining why the same seg-ments, that is, *-t-, *-s-, and zero occur both in singular and plural forms.

Conclusion: Thus, original marking of person, number, voice, tense, as-pect, and mood distinctions is ruled out. These markers must have been markers of a different and unknown domain. This domain is here identified as a verbal deictic-directional domain. Thus, only the domain of TRANSITIVITY DIRECTION remains plausible.

Therefore, on the primary basis of the comparative method, but secon-darily extended by crosslinguistic diachronic typological knowledge, we are able to plausibly reconstruct three different PIE verb forms of the 2nd person and 3rd person singular, plural, and collective number, respectively. The PIE 2nd person and 3rd person singular and plural forms are given in the following Figure 9. The PIE verb is *gw_n- ‘slay, kill, beat, hunt’.


13

FIGURE 9. suffix DETRANSITIVE voice 3SG 2SG D = DIRECT TRANSITIVE (DIR) *-t- *gwntɔ *gwntχá a S = INVERSE TRANSITIVE (INV) *-s- *gwnsɔ *gwnsχá a Z = INTRANSITIVE (ITR) *-Ø- *gwnɔ *gwnχá b

AGENTIVE voice 3SG/2SG 2PL D = DIRECT TRANSITIVE (DIR) *-t- *gwɛnt *gwntɛ(n) S = INVERSE TRANSITIVE (INV) *-s- *gwɛrs *gwnsɛ(n) Z = INTRANSITIVE (ITR) *-Ø- *gwɛn c *gwnɛ(n) b FIGURE 9. (continued) suffix DETRANSITIVE voice 3PL 2PL D = DIRECT TRANSITIVE (DIR) *-t- *gwnntɔ *gwntχá(n) a S = INVERSE TRANSITIVE (INV) *-s- *gwnsχá(n) a Z = INTRANSITIVE (ITR) *-Ø- *gwnrɔ *gwnχá(n) b

AGENTIVE voice 3PL D = DIRECT TRANSITIVE (DIR) *-t- *gwnɛnt S = INVERSE TRANSITIVE (INV) *-s- *gwnɛrs Z = INTRANSITIVE (ITR) *-Ø- *gwnɛr Additional notes to this figure: a Parallel to the 3rd/2nd collective forms in *-táχ(-m) (→ Proto-Indo-Iranian

3rd/2nd dual active *-tām), the 2nd pl. detransitive forms were reanalyzed as belong-ing to the neoactive voice category form PIE to Vulgar Post-PIE. Note that *-sχa is directly reflected as Proto-Tocharian 2nd pl. *-sa (cf. similarly Malzahn 2010, s.v.). *-tχa is reflected as Vedic 2nd pl. pres. ind. act. -tha, cf. Pooth 2011.

b The 2nd pl. intransitive *-χá of the detransitive voice merged with the agen-tive *-ɛ ―as reflected by Vedic 2nd pl. perf. ind. act. -á, e.g. vid-á.

c The 2nd sg. intransitive form was also used in imperative function.

I am happy to give some credit to the “Leiden School” at this point, be-cause F. H. H. Kortlandt was on the right track by suggesting that *-to- goes back to a “transitive middle” marker, cf. Beekes 1995, 2011 (see the chapter on the “middle endings”). However, Kortlandt’s suggestion was rather briefly noted and still has a preliminary and provisional status. He has not provided explicit arguments for this view yet. But nevertheless, I hereby kindly admit that he deserves the merit, at least, to be the first one to somehow envision that the original functional distinction (between Vul-

ROLAND A. POOTH 14

gar Post-PIE *-to- and *-o-) once belonged to the domain of transitivity (al-though Kortlandt never referred to it as a direct/inverse system).

3.4. A good question. I am indebted to Guillaume Jacques p.c. for ask-ing me the following question: “Why do you reconstruct *-s- as inverse marker and not *-t-?”

The following internal evidence provides good reasons for doing so. The argumentation runs as follows: The suffix *-s- was also used as a SOURCE marker in ablative-genitive case forms (e.g. *ɗɛm-s ‘family’s, of the family’, etc.). The *-t- obviously had a deictic proximative place and goal meaning, e.g. *tɔɗ *ɗɔm ‘(to) this house (close to addressee and speaker)’. I thus draw the inference that *-s- coded a direction towards the topical partici-pant originating from the second and non-topical one as the SOURCE of the causation, whereas the *-t- coded causation towards a GOAL, that is, direc-tion from the topical participant to the non-topical one. The following ex-amples can serve to illustrate what is implied here:

(1) a. *gwɛn-t slay:NONDURATIVE:AGENTIVE:SG-DIRECT\3 lit. ‘agentive slaying (of topic) to/at him/her/it’

b. *gwɛn-s slay:NONDURATIVE:AGENTIVE:SG-INVERSE\3

lit. ‘agentive slaying (of topic) (hither) from him/her/it’

Inferences like this one, of course, must be based on possible diachronic sources of direct and inverse markers. It has been proposed by many other researchers before that word forms indicating a “cislocative” direction (‘hither’) towards the speaker (or towards the most topical or topical par-ticipant) are a possible source of inverse markers. To illustrate this gram-maticalization path, let me just quote Jacques & Antonov 2014: 325ff. with further references (example numbers are mine):

The term ‘cislocative’ is used to refer to markers expressing a motion towards the speaker, both directional (‘verb hither’) and associated mo-tion (‘come to verb’) ones. The inverse marker in Nez Percé (Sahaptian) used in local scenarios with second person acting on first person has grammaticalized from an earlier cislocative marker, reconstructed for Proto-Sahaptian as *-im (Rude 1997, 122).

[2] héexn-e see-PST I saw you.

[3] héxn-ím-e see-CIS-PST You saw me. [PST = PAST, CIS = cislocative]


15

Interestingly, this marker has also grammaticalized into the ergative case suffix which appears on the non-SAP agent in mixed scenarios in cases where one would expect inverse marking on the verb (Rude 1997, 121-2).

[4] hi-héxn-e háama-nm 3S/A→SAP-see-PST man-ERG The man saw me/you. (NEZ PERCÉ)

[...] In still other languages, we observe a formal similarity between some inverse or direct markers and various types of third person mark-ers including agent, patient, or possessive affixes. The clearest case is the inverse prefix found in Sino-Tibetan (Rgyalrongic and Kiranti) languages. As first noticed by DeLancey (1981b), the Situ Rgyalrong third person possessive prefix wə- is formally identical to the inverse marker. This is also true of other Rgyalrong languages and of some Kiranti languages that have an inverse marker, such as Bantawa [...]. The similarity be-tween the two sets of prefixes is striking and suggests a grammaticaliza-tion from a third person marker into an inverse marker. While the exact pathway remains unclear and thus requires further investigation, it is possible that non-finite verb forms carrying a third person possessive prefix were reanalyzed as finite ones. In the case of Sino-Tibetan lan-guages, this scenario probably occurred in the ancestor of both Rgyal-rongic and Kiranti languages [...].

The mentioned bi-directional “poly-grammaticalization” in Nez Percé,

that is, from “cislocative” both to inverse direction and ergative case mark-ing looks very similar to what is found in PIE, simply because in PIE the ergative (or agent case) suffix *-s (e.g. PIE *χnɛr-s > VPIE *χnéː(r)) and the ablative-genitive SOURCE suffix *-s (e.g. PIE *ɗɛm-s) are formally identical to the inverse marker *-s-. This typological parallel strengthens the conclu-sion that *-s- was a cislocative-similar inverse marker and *-t- the corre-sponding direct marker.

An additional argument may be the following one. It is perhaps more plausible to infer that the PROGRESSIVE DIRECT forms (e.g. *gwɛnti)―and not the inverse forms were later generalized as a Vulgar Post-PIE 3rd person singular imperfective present forms.

4. Typological implications 4.1 Reconstructing PIE syntax. It is crosslinguistic typological com-

mon knowledge that direct forms are generally used to indicate that the participant causing a change of state in another participant, that is, the causer (abbreviated CR) is in TOPIC function or high on a grammaticalized animacy or topicality hierarchy. On the other hand, inverse forms are often used to indicate that the causing participant is non-topical or lower on that hierarchy (cf. Givón 2001 I: 166; Jacques 2010; Jacques & Antonov

ROLAND A. POOTH 16

2014).25 Therefore, it is a typological implication of the finding that PIE had a direct/inverse system that it further displayed a person or animacy and topicality hierarchy:

1st > 2nd > 3rd

Here, ‘>’ indicates ‘higher in general topicality’. Since it further is in-ternally evident that PIE displayed grammatical core, that is, ergative (agent case) vs. absolutive case marking, the grammaticalized topicality hierarchy was not used to distinguish semantic participant roles of 3rd per-son referents. With 3rd person referents the direct marking served to indi-cate that the causing participant was in topic or proximate (TOP, PROX) function and that the transitivity direction was from the topical or proxi-mative referent to a second non-topical or obviative referent (OBV). The inverse transitive marking served to code the opposite direction. The fol-lowing two reconstructed Proto-Indo-European clauses/sentences can illus-trate this difference. I use the abbreviations CR for causer and CE for causee (that is, patient, theme or the like):

(5) *χnɛr-s *mɛdu *ɗáʕ-t man-ERG honey.ABS give/take/receive:NDUR:AGT:SG-DIR\3 TOP OBV CR → CE lit. ‘man gave honey to someone/him/her/it’

(6) *mɛdu *χnɛr-s *ɗáʕ-s honey-ABS man-ERG dito:NONDURATIVE:AGENTIVE:SG-INV\3 TOP OBV CE ← CR lit. ‘as for the honey: the man gave it to someone/him/her/it’

A typolological comparandum of a language combining ergative vs. abso-lutive case marking with direct vs. inverse marking is provided by Japhug Rgyalrong (cf. Jacques 2010: 135, his example):

(7) a. ʁdɤrʑi kɯ ɬamu pɯ-a-mto Rdorje ERG Lhamo.ABS AOR-3SG>3-see (DIR) ‘as for Rdorje, he saw Lhamo’

b. ɬamu ʁdɤrʑi kɯ pɯ-wɣ-mto Lhamo.ABS Rdorje ERG AOR-INV-see:3>3SG

‘as for Lhamo, Rdorje saw him’

25 But note that languages with direct vs. invese systems considerably vary in the

use of these forms, cf. Thompson 1989, Zúñiga 2006, Jacques 2010.


17

A similar, but not identical system with direct/inverse distinction is found in Koyukon (Athabascan, Alaska, USA; these are examples (3, 4, 56, 48) of Thompson 1989: 2, 3, 10, 11):

(8) a. John yi-nee-ł-’aanh

yi-THM-CL(ł)-see26 ‘John is looking at him/her’

b. John bi-nee-ł-’aanh bi-THM-CL(ł)-see ‘as for him/her, John is looking at him/her’

c. ts’i-nee-ł-’aanh INDEF/1PL-CL(ł)-see ‘s.o./we/he/she is looking at him/her/it’

d. nee-l-’aanh THM-CL(li)-see ‘s.o. is watching him/her; she/he is being watched’

4.2. Reconstructing PIE switch reference. Crosslinguistically, di-

rect/inverse systems are often used to encode switch-reference (cf. Thomp-son 1989: 13). It is thus inferential that PIE also made use of it to code switched referents:

(9) *χnɛr-s *mɛdu *ɗʕ-t_ɔ man-ERG honey.ABS give/take/receice-DIR_NDUR:DTR:3SG *páʕ-t *=kwɛ swallow:NDUR:AGT:SG-DIR\SG and/with/alike ‘man took honey and he swallowed it’

(10) *χnɛr-s *mɛdu *ɗáʕ-t man-ERG honey.ABS give/take/receive:NDUR:AGT.SG-DIR\3 *páʕ-s *=kwɛ swallow:NDUR:AGT:SG-INV\3 and/with/alike ‘man gave honey to s.o. and that person swallowed it’

4.3. More implications. It is further inferential by means of the me-thod of internal reconstruction combined with typological implications that PIE had a personal pronoun system including orthotonic (stressed) topical or proximative (TOP, PROX) vs. non-topical or obviative (OBV, NTOP) and oblique forms in addition to accusative or object clitics (cf. Pooth 2015 (ms.)). I have provided an internal reconstruction of the PIE

26 Thompson 1989 uses THM for “thematic prefix”, CL for “classifyer” (one of these

“classifyers” is identified with middle voice marking).

ROLAND A. POOTH 18

personal pronoun system elsewhere (cf. Pooth manuscript c). It is thus an implicational inference from crosslinguistic typology that in combination with a non-agentive 1st person speech-act-participant the 3rd or 2nd person inverse transitive form had to be used, no matter if the 3rd or 2nd person was topical or not:

(11) a. *tú(ː) *ʔmɛ *ɗuɛis-s 2SG.TOP 1SG.OBV hate/insult:NDUR:DIR:SG-INV\2 ‘you insulted me’

b. *tú(ː) *=mɛ *ɗuɛis-s 2SG.TOP 1SG.ACC hate/insult:NDUR:DIR:SG-INV\2 ‘you insulted me (clitic)’

c. *ʔɛ(m)=ɠ(ɛ) *tuɛ *ɗuɛis-s 1SG.TOP=FOC 2SG.OBV hate/insult:NDUR:DIR:SG-INV\2 ‘it was me, you (OBV) insulted me’

d. *ʔɛ(m)=ɠ(ɛ) *tuɛ *ɗuɛis-m 1SG.TOP=FOC 2SG.OBV hate/insult-1AGENTIVE\SG ‘it was me, I insulted you (OBV)’

e. *ʔɛ(m)=ɠ(ɛ) *=tɛ *ɗuɛis-m 1SG.TOP=FOC 2SG.ACC hate/insult-1AGENTIVE\SG ‘it was me, I insulted you (clitic)’

I finally draw the inference that 3rd person inverse optative-irrealis forms had to be used when the speaker, that is, the 1st person speech-act-participant was emotionally involved in the event.

(12) a. *χnɛr *buχ-iɛʔ-s man.ABS grow-OPT:SG-INV\3 ‘I wish he would grow a man, if only he grew a man’

b. *χnɛr *buχiɛʔ-t man.ABS grow-OPT:SG-DIR\3 ‘(if this or that happened) he would turn into a man’

5. Appendix. The appendix of the former version of this paper has been erased from this revised version. The addendum of the former version in-cluded a brief introduction into my new templatic morphotactic and morpho-logical analysis of the PIE verbal system. The addendum has been erased, because it is not necessary for the present purpose. For an outline of my new templatic morphotactic and morphological analysis of the PIE verbal sys-tem I can now generally refer to my manuscript A typological overview of Proto-Indo-European (Pooth 2015 (ms.)).

5.1. Paradigm grids. The following two Grids 1-2 provode an overview of the transitive forms of a given PIE verbal inflectional type or binyan. For


19

more information cf. Pooth 2015 (ms.). The PIE verb is *g_n- ‘slay, kill, beat, hunt’ (> Vedic han-, etc.):

GRID 1. THE PIE NONDURATIVE AGENTIVE TRANSITIVE FORMS >1 >2 >3TOP >3NTOP 1SG> gwɛnm 1PL.EXCL> gwnmɛ(s) 1PL.INCL>

gwnuɛ(s) 2SG> gwɛns gwɛnt 2PL> gwnsɛ(n)

gwntɛ(n)

3SG.TOP> gwɛns gwɛnt 3PL.TOP> gwnɛrs

gwnɛnt

3SG.NTOP> gwɛns 3PL.NTOP> gwnɛrs

GRID 2. THE PIE NONDURATIVE DETRANSITIVE TRANSITIVE FORMS >1 >2 >3TOP >3NTOP 1SG> gwnχá 1PL.EXCL> gwnmɔ(s) 1PL.INCL> gwnuɔ(s) 1COL.EXCL> gwnmɔ(χ) 1COL.INCL> gwnuɔ(χ) 2SG> gwnsχá gwntχá 2PL> gwnsχá(n) gwntχá(n) 2COL> gwnsáχ gwntáχ 3SG.TOP> gwnsɔ gwntɔ 3PL.TOP> ? gwnntɔ 3COL.TOP> gwnsáχ gwntáχ 3SG.NTOP> gwnsɔ 3PL.NTOP> ? 3COL.NTOP> gwnsáχ

GLOSSES

I principally follow the Leipzig Glossing Rules and use the conventional gram-matical glossing: ABS = absolutive, ACC = accusative, AGT = agentive-active voice, COL = collective (group-like sociative-associative plural) number, DTR = detransi-tive voice, ERG = ergative (agent case), NDUR = nondurative (semelfactive, termi-native, telic) “aorist-like” aspect, PL = plural, PROG = progressive aspect, SG = singular, TOP = topical referent, NTOP = non-topical, anti-topical (or obviative) referent;

> indicates ‘... developed into ... by sound law’ but also symbolizes the transi-tivity or causation direction (causer > causee) (cf. Grids 1-2 above).

I further use the underline _ to indicate a morpheme boundary between the skeletal consonant frame (e.g. *gw_n-t-) and the transfix or transfixal vowel melody (e.g. *_ɛ_), cf. Pooth 2001, 2004a, 2009b, 2015 (ms.).

ROLAND A. POOTH 20

REFERENCES

Akmajian, A. & S. Anderson 1970: “On the use of the person in Navajo, or Navajo made harder”, International Journal of American Linguistics 36 (1), 1-8.

Bauer, B. L. M. 2009: “Residues as an aid in Internal Reconstruction”, Internal Re-construction in Indo-European. Methods, Results, and Problems. Ed. by J. E. Rasmussen & T. Olander. Copenhagen, 17-31.

Beekes, R. S. P. 1995: Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Amsterdam & Phila-delphia.

— 2011: Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Second edition. Revised and cor-rected by Michiel de Vaan. Amsterdam & Philadelphia.

Brugmann, K. 1916: Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. 2nd ed. Strassburg.

Bybee, J., R. Perkins & W. Pagliuca 1994: The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago & London.

Clackson, J. 2007: Indo-European Linguistics: an Introduction. Cambridge. Dahlstrom, A. 1986: Plains Cree Morphosyntax. Ph.D. dissertation. University of

California, Berkeley. DeLancey, S. 1981: “The category of direction in Tibeto-Burman”, Linguistics of the

Tibeto- Burman Area 6 (1), 83-101. Dixon, R. M. W. 1977: A Grammar of Yidiɲ. Cambridge. — 1979: Ergativity. Cambridge. — 2000: “A typology of causative: form, syntax and meaning”, Changing Valency.

Ed. by R. M. W. Dixon & A. Y. Aikhenvald. Cambridge, 30-83. — 2010, 2012: Basic Linguistc Theory. Vol. I & II 2010, Vol. III 2012. Oxford. Donohue, M. & S. Wichmann 2008 (eds.): The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Ox-

ford. Dowty, D. 1991: “Thematic proto-roles and argument selection”, Language 67,

547-619. Drinka, B. 1999: “Alignment in Early Proto-Indo-European”, Language Change and

Typological Variation. In Honor of Winfred P. Lehmann on the Occasion of his 83rd Birthday. Ed. by C. F. Justus & E. C. Polomé. Washington DC, Vol. II, 464-500.

Eichner, H. 1972: “Die Etymologie von heth. mēḫur“, Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 31, 53-107.

— 1985: “Das Problem des Ansatzes eines urindogermanischen Numerus ‘Kollek-tiv’ (‘Komprehensiv’)”, Grammatische Kategorien, Funktion und Geschichte: Ak-ten der VII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin 20.-25. Feb-ruar 1983. Ed. by B. Schlerath & V. Rittner. Wiesbaden, 134-169.

Fortson IV, B. W. 2004: Indo-European Language and Culture. Oxford & Malden MA. Fox, Anthony 1995: Linguistic Reconstruction. Oxford. García Ramón, J. L. 1998: “Indogermanisch *guhen- ‘(wiederholt) schlagen, töten”,

Mír Curad. Studies in Honor of Calvert Watkins. Ed. by Jay H. Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert and Lisi Oliver. Innsbruck, 139-54.

Geldner RV = K. F. Geldner 1923ff. Der Rig-Veda. Göttingen. Nachdruck 2003, Cambridge, Ma. & London.

Givón, T. 2001: Syntax. Volume I & II. Amsterdam. Hale, K. 1985: “On Nonconfigurational Structures”, Harvard Studies in Korean Lin-

guistics. Proceedings of the 1985 Harvard Workshop on Korean Linguistics (Har-vard WOKL-1985), July 12-13, 1985. Ed. by Susumu Kuno, John Whitman, Ik-Hwan Lee, Young-Se Kang. Seoul, 62-70.

Haspelmath, M. & A. D. Slims 22010: Understanding Morphology. Second Edition. London.

Heine, B. & T. Kuteva 2002: World Lexicon of Grammaticalization. Cambridge. Hoffmann, K. 1970: “Das Kategoriensystem des indogermanischen Verbums”,

Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 28, 19-41.


21

Hoffner, H. A. Jr. & H. C. Melchert 2008: A Grammar of the Hittite Language. Wi-nona Lake.

Hopper, P. J. & S. A. Thompson 1980: “Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse”, Language 56 (2), 251-299.

Jacques, G. 2010: “The inverse in Japhug Rgyalrong”, Language and Linguistics 11 (1), 127-57.

Jacques, G. & A. Antonov 2014: “Direct/inverse systems”, Language and Linguistics Compass 8/7, 301-318.

Jasanoff, J. H. 1979: “The position of the ḫi-conjugation”, Hethitisch und Indoger-manisch. Hrsg. von Ernst Neu und Wolfgang Meid. Innsbruck, 79-90.

— 1998: “The thematic conjugation revisited”, Mír Curad. Studies in Honor of Cal-vert Watkins. Ed. by Jay H. Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert and Lisi Oliver. Inns-bruck, 301-16.

— 2003: Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford & New York. Kemmer, S. 1993: The Middle Voice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia. Klaiman, M. H. 1992: “Inverse Languages”, Lingua 88, 227-61. Klimov, G. A. 1974: “On the character of language of active typology”, Linguistics

131, 11–25. — 1977: Tipologija jazykov aktivnogo stroja. Moscow. Kloekhorst, A. 2008: Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden. — 2012: “Hittite “ā/e”-ablauting Verbs”, The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings of the

Conference of the Society for Ind-European Studies, Los Angeles 13-16 September 2010. Ed. by H. Craig Melchert. Wiesbaden, 151-160.

Kortlandt, F. 1981: “1st sg. middle *-H2”, Indogermanische Forschungen 86, 123-136.

— 1983: “Proto-Indo-European verbal syntax”, Journal of Indo-European Studies 11, 307-324.

Kümmel, M. J. 2012: “Typology and reconstruction. The consonants and vowels of Proto-Indo-European”, The Sound of Indo-European. Phonetics, Phonemics, and Morphophonemics. Ed. by B. Nielsen Whitehead, T. Olander, B. A. Olsen & J. E. Rasmussen. Kopenhagen, 291-329.

Kuryłowicz, J. 1932: “Les désinences moyennes de l’indo-européen et du hettite”, Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de Paris 33, 1-4.

Kurzová, H. 1986: “Typologie und die Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Mor-phosyntax”, Folia Linguistica 20, 49-86.

Lakoff, G. 1987: Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago.

Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson 1980: Metaphors We Live by. Chicago. Lazzeroni, R. 1990: “La diatesi come categoria linguistica: studio sul medio in-

doeuropeo”, Studi e Saggi Linguistici 30, 1-22. — 1993: “Arcaismi e innovazioni nella flessione verbale vedica: le forme dello

stativo”, Studi e Saggi Linguistici 33, 11-23. Ledgeway, A. 2012: From Latin to Romance. Morphosyntactic Typology and Change.

Oxford. Lehmann, W. P. 1974: Proto-Indo-European Syntax. Austin. — 1995: Residues of pre-Indo-European Active Structure and their Implications for the

Relationships among the Dialects. Innsbruck. — 2002: Pre-Indo-European. Washington DC. Letuchiy, A. 2009: “Towards a typology of labile verbs: Lability vs. derivation”,

New Challenges in Typology. Transcending the Borders and Refining the Distinc-tions. Ed. by A. Arkhipov & P. Epps. Berlin, 223-244.

LIV = Rix et al. 2001. Lubotsky, A. 1997: A Rgvedic Word Concordance. 2 Volumes. Cambridge, MA. Luraghi, S. 1987: “Reconstructing PIE as an Ergative language. A Test”, Journal of

Indo-European Studies 15 (3-4), 359-379.

ROLAND A. POOTH 22

— 2001a: “Syncretism and classification of semantic roles”, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54 (1), 35-51.

— 2001b: “Some remarks on Instrument, Comitative, and Agent in Indo-European”, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54 (4), 385-401.

Maldonado, R. Z. (1994): “Inverse alignment in Huastec”, Función [Revista seminal del Departamento de Estudios en Lenguas Indigenas, Universidad de Guada-lajara] 15-16, 27-81.

Mallory, J. P. & D. Q. Adams 1997 (eds.): Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. London.

Malzahn, M. 2010: The Tocharian Verbal System. Leiden & Boston. Matasović, R. 2000: “Uses and misuses of typology in Indo-European linguistics”,

125 Jahre Indogermanistik in Graz. Ed by M. Ofitsch & C. Zinko. Graz, 327-339.

— 2011 (ms.): “Clause alignment in Proto-Indo-European”, manuscript, http:// mudrac.ffzg.unizg.hr/~rmatasov/ClauseAlignmentInPIE.pdf.

McCarthy, J. 1979: Formal Problems in Semitic Phonology and Morphology. Doctoral dissertation, MIT. Cambridge, MA.

— 1981: “A Prosodic Theory of Nonconcatenative Morphology”, Linguistic Inquiry 12, 373-418.

Meillet, A. 1931: “Caractère secondaire du type thématique indo-européen”, Bulle-tin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 32 (2) (numéro 96), 194-203.

— 1937: Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Paris. Melchert, H. C. 2012 (ed.): The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings of the Conference of

the Society for Indo-European Studies, Los Angeles 13-16 September 2010. Wiesbaden.

Neu, E. 1968: Das hethitische Mediopasiv und seine indogermanischen Grundlagen. Wiesbaden.

NIL = Wodtko et al. 2008. Pike, M. 2009: “The Indo-European long vowel preterites: new Latin evidence”,

Internal Reconstruction in Indo-European. Ed. by J. E. Rasmussen & T. Olander. Copenhagen, 205-212.

Pooth, R. A. 2000: “Stativ vs. Medium im Vedischen und Avestischen”, Historische Sprachforschung 113, 88-116.

— 2001: “Studien zur frühurindogermanischen Morphologie I. ‘Stativ’, ‘Medium’ und ‘Perfekt’”, Historische Sprachforschung 114, 220-258.

— 2004a: “Ablaut und autosegmentale Morphologie: Theorie der urindoger-manischen Wurzelflexion”, Indogermanistik - Germanistik - Linguistik. Ed by. M. Kozianka, R. Lühr & S. Zeilfelder. Hamburg, 401-471.

— 2004b: “Zur Genese der späturidg. thematischen Konjugation aus frühuridg. Medialformen”, Indogermanische Forschungen 109, 31-60.

— 2009a: “Der urindogermanische Progressiv”, Protolanguage and Prehistory. Akten der XII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft ... in Krakau. Ed. by R. Lühr & S. Ziegler. Wiesbaden, 381-406.

— 2009b: “Proto-Indo-European Ablaut and Root Inflection”, Internal Reconstruc-tion in Indo-European. Ed. by J. E. Rasmussen & T. Olander. Copenhagen, 229-254.

— 2011: “Die 2. und 3. Person Dual und das Medium”, Indogermanistik und Lin-guistik im Dialog. Akten der XIII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft ... in Salzburg. Ed. by T. Krisch & T. Lindner. Wiesbaden, 473-83.

— 2012: “Zum Aufkommen transitiver Verben in frühen Vedischen am Beispiel 1r”, The Indo-European Verb. Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Ind-European Studies, Los Angeles 13-16 September 2010. Ed. by H. Craig Mel-chert. Wiesbaden, 267-84.

― 2014 (PhD thesis): Die Diathesen Aktiv vs. Medium und die Verbsemantik im Vedischen der Rgveda-Saṃhitā. Proefschrift Universiteit Leiden. Download-able.


23

― 2015 (ms.): “A typological overview of Proto-Indo-European”, downloadable from my profile at www.academia.edu (or available on request).

― manuscript a: “Voice, Transitivity Direction, Case, and Alignment in Proto-Indo-European. II. The Proto-Indo-European Voice System”, downloadable from my profile at www.academia.edu (or available on request).

— manuscript b: “Ein Problem der Methode der komparativen Rekonstruktion von Morphemen, Morphemgrenzen und morphosyntaktischen Kategorien”, downloadable from my profile at www.academia.edu (or available on re-quest).

Ringe, D. 2006: From Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford. Rix et al. 2001 = LIV = Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben. Unter der Leitung

von H. Rix ..., 2. erw. und verbesserte Auflage. Wiesbaden 2001. Rude, N. 1997: “On the history of nominal case in Sahaptian”, International Journal

of American Linguistics 63, 113-43. Rumsey, A. 1987: “The Chimera of Proto-Indo-European Ergativity”, Lingua 71,

297-318. Sasse, H.-J. 1978: “Subjekt und Ergativität: Zur pragmatischen Grundlage primärer

grammatischer Relationen”, Folia Linguistica XII/3-4, 219-252. — 1982: “Subjektprominenz”, Fakten und Theorien. Beiträge zur romanischen und

allgemeinen Sprachwissenschaft. Festschrift für Helmut Stimm zum 65. Geburt-stag. Ed by S. Heinz & U. Wandruszka. Tübingen, 267-286.

— 1993: “Syntactic Categories and Subcategories”, Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 9.1. Syntax. Ed. by H. Steger & H. E. Wiegand. Berlin & New York, 646-686.

— 1991a: “Aspect and Aktionsart: a reconciliation”, Belgian Journal of Linguistics 6, 31-45 [= Perspectives on Aspect and Aktionsart. Ed. by C. Vetters & W. Vandeweghe].

— 1991b (ed.): Aspektsysteme. Arbeitspapier Nr. 14 (Neue Folge). Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. Universität zu Köln.

Schindler, J. 1972: “L’apophonie des noms-racine indo-européens”, Bulletin de la Societé de linguistique de Paris 67 (1), 31-38.

Schmalstieg, W. 1981: “Ergativity in Indo-European”, Bono Homini Donum. Studies in Memory of J. A. Kerns. Ed. by Y. L. Arbeitman & A. Bomhard. Amsterdam, 242-258.

Schmidt, K. H. 1979: “Reconstructing Active and Ergative Stages of Pre-Indo-European”, Ergativity. Towards a theory of grammatical relations. Ed. by F. Plank. London, 333-345.

— 1980: “Zur Typologie des Vorindogermanischen”, Linguistic Reconstruction and Indo-European Syntax. Proceedings of the Colloquium of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft (Pavia 1979). Ed. by P. Ramat. Amsterdam, 91-112.

Stang, C. S. 1932: “Perfektum und Medium”, Norsk Tidskrift for Språgwedenskap 6, 29-39.

— 1942: Das slavische und baltische Verbum. Oslo. Taylor, John R. 11989, 32003: Linguistic Categorization. Prototypes in Linguistic The-

ory. 3rd editon 2003. Oxford. Thompson, C. L. 1987: An Introduction to Athabascan languages. Yukon-Koyukuk

School District. — 1989: “Pronouns and Voice in Koyukon Athapascan: A text-based study”, Inter-

national Journal of American Linguistics 55 (1), 1-24. — 1996: “The Na-Dene middle voice: An impersonal source of the D-Element”,

International Journal of American Linguistics 62 (4), 351-378. Thompson, L. C. & M. T. Thompson 1969: “Metathesis as a grammatical device”,

International Journal of American Linguistics 35, 213-219. Tichy, E. 12000, 22004, 32009: Indogermanistisches Grundwissen für Studierende

sprachwissenschaftlicher Disziplinen. 2. und 3. überarb. Aufl. Bremen.

ROLAND A. POOTH 24

Vaillant, A. 1936: “L’ergatif indo-européen”, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 37, 93-108.

Watkins, C. 1962: Indo-European Origins of the Celtic Verb I. The Sigmatic Aorist. Dublin.

— 1969: Indogermanische Grammatik III/1. Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalf-lexion. Heidelberg.

Weiss, M. 2009: Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor & New York.

Wodtko et al. 2008 = NIL = Wodtko, D. S., B. Irslinger, C. Schneider 2008: Nomina im indogermanischen Lexikon. Heidelberg.

Wolfart, H. C. 1978: “How many obviatives: Sense and reference in a Cree verbal paradigm”, Linguistic studies of native Canada. Ed. by E.-D. Cook & J. Kaye Vancouver, 255-272.

Wolfart, H. C. & J. F. Carroll 21981: Meet Cree: A practical guide to the Cree language. 2nd, revised ed. (1st ed. 1973). Edmonton.

Zúñiga, F. 2006: Deixis and Alignment. Inverse Systems in Indigenous Languages of the Americas. Amsterdam & Philadelphia.

Roland A. Pooth [revised version 2015-04-17, Merheimer Str. 117 the former version is outdated] D-50733 Köln-Nippes Deutschland [email protected]

Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European [revised version 2015-04-17]

Documents

Transcript of Transitivity Direction in Proto-Indo-European [revised version 2015-04-17]