the indo-european verb - kroonen

The Indo-European Verb


Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Los Angeles 13–15 September 2010

Edited by H. Craig Melchert


Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Los Angeles 13–15 September 2010

Edited by H. Craig Melchert

Wiesbaden 2012Reichert Verlag

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen NationalbibliothekDie Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind

im Internet über http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar.

© 2012 Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag WiesbadenISBN: 978-3-89500-864-1

www.reichert-verlag.deDas Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt.

Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar.

Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen,Mikroverfilmungen und die Speicherung

und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen.Gedruckt auf säurefreiem Papier

(alterungsbeständig pH7 –, neutral)Printed in Germany

Table of Contents

Foreword vii

BENEDETTI, Marina: Valency Alternations with Perception Verbs in Indo-European Languages 1-6

BOZZONE, Chiara: The PIE Subjunctive: Function and Development 7-18

DAHL, Eystein: Towards an Account of the Semantics of the PIE Imperative 19-28

DAUES, Alexandra: Hittite Verbs in -šša-: Can a Function Be Recognized? 29-41

DI GIOVINE, Paolo: The Function of *o-Ablaut in the PIE Verbal System 43-50

ESKA, Joseph F.: Absolute and Conjunct, Cowgill and Apocope 51-59

GARCÍA CASTILLERO, Carlos: The Old Irish Paradigm of Clause Types 61-72

GARCÍA RAMÓN, José Luis: Aspect and Mood in Indo-European Reconstruction 73-85

HACKSTEIN, Olav: When Words Coalesce: Chunking and Morphophonemic Extension 87-104

HILL, Eugen, and Michael FROTSCHER: The Accentuation of Old Indic Reduplicated (3rd Class) Presents 105-114

HOCK, Hans Henrich: Phrasal Prosody and the Indo-European Verb 115-126

JASANOFF, Jay H.: Long-vowel Preterites in Indo-European 127-135

KIM, Ronald I.: Unus testis, unicus testis? The Ablaut of Root Aorists in Tocharian and Indo-European 137-149

KLOEKHORST, Alwin: Hittite “�/e”-ablauting Verbs 151-160

KOCHAROV, Petr: Perfect Reduplication in Late Indo-European 161-165

KÖLLIGAN, Daniel: Patterns of Suppletion in Classical Armenian: The Case of Motion Verbs 167-177

KRASUKHIN, Konstantin G.: Indo-European Conjugation: History and Pre-History 179-189

KROONEN, Guus: Reflections on the o/zero-Ablaut in the Germanic Iterative Verbs 191-200

KÜMMEL, Martin Joachim: The Inflection of the Hittite Verb Class of mema/i- 201-208

LEHNERT, Christian: Anmerkungen zum homerischen Augment 209-212

LÜHR, Rosemarie: Ereignistyp und Diathesenwechsel im Indogermanischen 213-224

MAJER, Marek: An Archaic Indo-European Verbal Form in the Slavic Generalizing Particle *-ž�do? 225-234

MALZAHN, Melanie: Archaism and Innovation in the Tocharian Verbal System: The Case of Valency and the Case for a Conspiracy Theory 235-240

OETTINGER, Norbert: Das Verhältnis von nominaler und verbaler Reduplikation im Indogermanischen und Anatolischen 241-246

PEYROT, Michaël: e-grade in Tocharian Verbal Morphology 247-256

PINAULT, Georges-Jean: Interpretation of the Tocharian Subjunctive of Class III 257-265

vi

POOTH, Roland A.: Zum Aufkommen transitiver Verben im frühen Vedischen am Beispiel 1�

267-284

RASMUSSEN, Jens E.: The Origin of the Albanian Mediopassive 285-288

REINHART, Johannes: Inheritance or Innovation in the Proto-Slavic Verb: the Ending -mo(1st Person Plural) 289-294

SCHEUNGRABER, Corinna: Nasal Suffix Verbs in Germanic and KLUGE’S Law 295-304

SOWA, Wojciech: The Phrygian Middle 305-313

DE VAAN, Michiel: Latin Deverbal Presents in -�- 315-332

VILLANUEVA SVENSSON, Miguel: The Ablaut of the Middle Root Athematic Presents in Indo-European 333-342

YOSHIDA, Kazuhiko: Notes on Cuneiform Luvian Verbs in *-ye/o- 343-351

ZIEGLER, Sabine: Zur Konzeption moderner Wörterbücher: Probleme der Philologie und der Lexikographie dargestellt anhand der uridg. Wurzeln *h1e�sh2- “antreiben”, *h2e�s-“suchen” und ihrer Fortsetzer im rigvedischen Sanskrit 353-363

Contact Information of Contributors 365-367

Reflections on the o/zero-Ablaut in the Germanic Iterative Verbs

Guus KROONEN (Copenhagen)

In a number of successive publications (Kroonen 2010; 2011a; 2011b; 2012), I have tried to collect evidence in favor of the etymological connection of the Germanic iterative verbs with the Proto-Indo-European *neh2-presents that were derived from primary aorists (cf. Osthoff 1882). This connection is of some importance, not just because it sheds light on the rise of the (from the Indo-European per-spective) rather eccentric Proto-Germanic verbal system, but also because it gives a glimpse into the complexity of the Proto-Indo-European verb. The evidence that I have been able to gather consists of the following four elements: 1) the formal similarities of the Germanic iteratives with the nominal n-stems, which points to a nasal suffix; 2) straightforward correspondences of Germanic iteratives with nasal presents in other Indo-European languages; 3) the systematic occurrence of the zero grade of the root; and 4) the durative-repetitive aspect of the iteratives being understandable from the punctiliar aspect of the aorist made presentic, i.e. durative (cf. Kroonen 2011a: 94ff).

The connection of the Germanic iterative verbs with the PIE *neh2-presents relies on both internal and external evidence. Within Germanic itself, the formal typology of the iteratives is remarkably similar to that of the n-stems, both morphological categories displaying systematic gemination of the root-final consonant. Since it is clear that the gemination in the n-stems was triggered by Kluge’s law, i.e. the rise of Proto-Germanic voiceless long stops out of a Pre-Germanic sequence of a consonant and a pretonic nasal, it is only logical to assume that the gemination in the iteratives was caused by the same law (Osthoff 1882: 298). This clearly indicates that an n-suffix must have been at work in the prehistory of the Germanic iteratives.

The parallelism between the two morphological categories is, in fact, more intricate and far-reaching. The linguistic evidence shows that the n-stems and the iteratives do not merely share a high frequency of geminate roots, but that they actually show a similar alternation of geminated and non-geminated roots. This is the background of the wide-spread cross-dialectal variation of formally dis-similar yet closely related iterative variants. Compare, for instance, the two iterative formations belonging to the strong verb ziohan ‘to pull’ < *teuhan- < PIE *déuk-e-, i.e. OHG zockn, MDu. tocken ‘to raid’, MHG zocken ‘to tear, pull’ < *tukkn- and OHG zogn ‘to pull, jerk’ < *tugn-. This root alternation, as it turns out, is understandable as the result of Kluge’s law translating the PIE alternation of a zero-grade root with a full-grade suffix into a two-way paradigmatic opposition consisting of roots ending in single and double stops (cf. Kluge 1884):

Sanskrit Greek PGermanic PIE

‘to grab’ ‘to tame’ ‘to pull’

1p. g�bh�� mi �� *tukk-mi *C_C-néh2-mi 2p. g�bh�� si �� *tukk-si *C_C-néh2-si 3p. g�bh�� ti �� *tukk-þi *C_C-néh2-ti

1p. g�bh��más �� *tug-umme *C_C-nh2-mé(s) 2p. g�bh��thá �� *tug-unde *C_C-nh2-th1é 3p. g�bh�ánti ��·�� *tug-unanþi *C_C-nh2-énti

192 Guus Kroonen� �

In dialectal Germanic, the root variation of both the n-stems and the iteratives has further been multiplied by the rise of two new, analogical root variants brought about by the generalization of a paradigmatic length opposition. In the case of the iterative verb under discussion, this concerns the additional variants MHG zochen ‘to pull, tear’, MDu. token ‘to shove’ < *tukn- and ME toggen ‘to tug’ < *tuggn-. Apparently, the original paradigm was split into two secondary paradigms in each of which the articulation of the root-final stop was leveled, thus simplifying the allomorphy to an opposition of consonant length only. The rise of this length opposition is reminiscent of the well-known morphophonological alternations in the Finno-Ugric languages that are generally referred to as consonant gradation (Kroonen 2011a: 94-97):

Paradigm 1 3sg. *tukkþi 3pl. *tugunanþi

Paradigm 2a Paradigm 2b 3sg. *tukkþi > OHG zockn *tuggþi > ME toggen 3pl. *tukunanþi > MDu. token *tugunanþi > OHG zogn

The theory that Germanic iteratives are derived from PIE *neh2-presents is supported by a substantial number of etymologically secure correspondences of Germanic iteratives with nasal presents in other IE languages, especially in Latin (Kroonen 2011a: 97-98), cf. OHG brockn ‘to crumble’ < *brukkþi and Lat. frang ‘to break’ < *bhrg-neh2-, OE liccian ‘to lick’ < *likkþi and Lat. ling ‘id.’ < *lig(h-neh2-, OE lapian, EDu. lappen, lappen, lapen ‘to lick’ < *lappþi, *labunanþi and Lat. lamb ‘id.’ < *lHÀbh-n(e)h2-, OE þaccian ‘to pat’ < *þakkþi, *þagunanþi and Lat. tang ‘to touch’ < *thµ2g-n(e)h2-. Presumably, these examples have not been recognized before because of the relative unfamiliarity of Thurneysen’s law, i.e. the nasalization and subsequent pre-nasalization of stops before n in Latin as suggested by Thurneysen (1883), cf. unda f. ‘wave’ < *ud-neh2-, fundus ‘bottom’ < *bhudh-nó- (cf. Skt. budhná- ‘id.’), mung < *muk-n(e)h2- (cf. Gr. �8�� ‘to blow one’s nose’ < *muk-ie-), pand ‘to expand’ < *pt-n(e)h2- (cf. Gr. �� ‘to spread out’).

Further important external evidence, in this context, consists of two Germanic-Baltic isoglosses, viz. ON lokka, OHG lockn, lohhn ‘to entice, stroke, caress’ < *lukkþi, *lugunanþi and Lith. luginti (lùnginti, luñginti) ‘to allure, fondle’ < *lug-n(é)h2-; and MDu. schrappen, schrapen, schraven, schrabben ‘to scratch’ < *skrappþi, *skrabunanþi and Latv. skrabinât ‘to gnaw’ < *skrobh-n(e)h2- (cf. Ru. skrestí, 1sg. skrebú ‘to scratch’). These two correspondences are informative about a number of different things. First, they seem to indicate that the iterative semantics of the *neh2-presents indeed is not a purely Germanic innovation, but must have arisen at a much older stage. This is in agreement with my hypothesis that the iterative aspect developed out of the aorist aspect when durative *neh2-presents were created to punctiliar aoristic roots in late PIE (Kroonen 2011a: 99-101). Second, the evidence offered by the two potential isoglosses is in support of the view that the Latvian -inâ- suffix arose as a conflation of the Proto-Baltic zero-grade form *-in- < *-�h2- (cf. Lith. -in-) with the full-grade form *-n�- < *-néh2- (Kortlandt 1989: 107; Schmalstieg 1992; contra Villanueva Svensson 2008). The Proto-Baltic suffix ablaut that follows from this reconstruction again offers an important parallel to the prehistoric inflection of the Germanic iteratives.1 �� 1 In view of the connection with Proto-Germanic *luk(k)n-, the variation of Lith. luginti and lunginti might be

used to back up Kortlandt’s claim (2007: 229; 2009: 74) that Thurneysen’s law was not operative in Italic alone, but actually already in Proto-Indo-European. According to Kortlandt, this process can thus be held responsible for turning the nasal suffix into the nasal infix, the element that because of the absence of any other infixes in PIE has always been the derivational odd one out. If Kortlandt’s scenario is correct, however, it seems logical to assume that infixation occurred in the singular of the nasal presents, where the full-grade nasal suffix came into direct contact with the root-final consonant, but not in the plural, where the nasal was in vocalization position. It thus appears that the dialectal difference of e.g. Skt. piB�áti ‘to adorn’ < *pi-n-k �- vs. Lat. ping ‘to paint’ < *pik �-neh2- and Skt. muñcáti ‘to release’ < *mu-n-k- vs. Lat. mung ‘to blow one’s nose’

Reflections on the o/zero-Ablaut in the Germanic Iterative Verbs 193�

A final argument in favor of linking the iterative verbs to the PIE *neh2-presents concerns the ablaut pattern. Since most of these *neh2-presents in other IE languages appear with a zero-grade of the root, something that evidently is a result of the accent shifting between the suffix and the ending in this verbal class (see, for instance, Skt. g�bh��ti and Gr. �� above), it seems hardly surprising that the vast majority of the Germanic iteratives have the same ablaut grade, cf. G stehlen ‘to steal’ < *stelan- vs. Rhnl. stollen ‘to steal, hide’ < *stl-n(e)h2-. It can even be shown that the zero grade was productive in Germanic iteratives that were apparently derived from strong verbs. Thus, the strong verb ON steka, OHG stehhan < *stekan- ‘to stick’, which developed out of the tudáti-verb / aorist present *stikan- < *stig(-e- (cf. Lat. instig ‘to prick’) by a-umlaut, received a secondary iterative G stochen ‘to poke’ < *stukn-. Since the *u-vocalism cannot possibly have developed out of PIE *i in a regular way, it is to be analyzed as having arisen as a productive zero-grade marker in this particular case.

However, in spite of the dominance of the zero grade in the root of the Germanic iteratives, the corpus of a-grade iteratives is far from negligible (see appendix), and this poses a problem that cannot be ignored. What seems to be the issue here is not so much the mere existence of a-grade iteratives, but rather the fact that they so often appear to alternate with etymologically identical zero-grade iteratives. It is conceivable that, in a number of cases, the doublets arose by the introduction of a secondary zero grade in iteratives to class 6 strong verbs, i.e. the so-called intensives. ON skaka, OE sceacen ‘to shake’ < *skakan-, for instance, is not only accompanied by the iterative ME shaggen ‘id.’ (cf. Eng. to shag), implying a Proto-Germanic paradigm *skakkþi, *skagunanþi, but also by MHG schocken ‘id.’, ME shocken, shoggen ‘id.’ < *skukkþi, *skugunanþi. Since the *u-vocalism is phonetically irregular here, it must again be a secondary zero-grade marker. Similar solutions are also at hand for e.g. Norw. drag(g)a ‘to trudge’ < *drag(g)n- vs. ME druggen, Norw. drugga, droga ‘to trudge’ < *drug(g)n- and MDu. grabben, grapen, LG grappen ‘to grab’ < *grap(p)/bbn- vs. MDu. grobben ‘to scramble, scrape’ < *grubbn-, which belong to the typically intensive strong verbs *dragan- and *graban-. It seems doubtful, however, that productive zero grades can account for all of the attested *a/zero alternations in Germanic.

Given the close semantic and formal similarities of many of the existing iterative doublets, it is difficult to ignore the possibility that, at least in some cases, the two different ablaut variants split off from a single Proto-Germanic paradigm. Numerous doublets can be mentioned here, cf. Pal. grippen ‘to grapple’ < *gribbn- vs. OE gr�pian, OHG greifn ‘to grope’ < *graippn- (to *gr�ppan- ‘to grab’); OE liccian, OHG leckn ‘to lick’ < *likkn- vs. Goth. bi-laigon ‘id.’ < *laign-; Sw. dunka ‘to hit’ < *dunkkn- vs. ON danga ‘to beat up’, Nw. dakka ‘to slam’ < *dankk/gn- (to OSw. diunga, ME dingen ‘to beat, hit’ < *dingwan-), Du. dial. drobben ‘to trot’ < *drubbn- vs. G traben, MDu. draven ‘to trot’, drabben ‘to walk to and fro’ < *drab(b)n- etc. In the case of OHG suckn ‘to drop, sag’ < *sukkþi, *sugunanþi vs. MDu. sacken, ME saggen ‘id.’ < *sakkþi, *sagunanþi, the possibility of original paradigmatic unity seems especially difficult to avoid, because there is no adjacent strong verb from which either variant could have straightforwardly been derived.2

The possibility of reconstructing ablauting iteratives is a solution that has hardly been explored yet. It did seem to have crossed Wissmann’s mind though, when he was writing his study of the Germanic n-verbs. In discussing the subcategory of the iteratives, he correctly established the fact that “die

��< *muk-neh2- may directly point to PIE paradigms *ping(néh2ti, *pik ��h2énti and *mungnéh2ti, *muk�h2énti. For the sake of argument, note that the same alternation would occur if one assumes pure metathesis of the nasal rather than nasalization of a preceding stop (cf. Rasmussen 1990; Milizia 2004). Of course, the original distri-bution could easily have become obscured by different types of generalizations in the different dialects. For instance, it must be assumed in the two aforementioned cases that the non-nasalized roots were simply given up in favor of the nasalized ones in Latin, while the two allomorphs became conflated in Sanskrit, where the nasalization became dissociated from the following consonant by the intrusion of the original consonantism from the plural. In any case, I wonder whether it may prove worthwhile to also consider explaining the wavering nasal infix in Lith. lu(n)ginti by reconstructing a Proto-Baltic doublet *lungn�ti ~ *luginti from PIE 3sg. *lungnéh2ti, 3pl. *lug�h2énti.

2 A possible candidate would be the etymologically obscure *sinkwan- (cf. Go. sigqan, ON søkkva etc. ‘to sink’), which then would have to be reconstructed as a rather far-fetched formation *sinkkwan- < *se-n-k-nu-.


Wurzelsilbe fast nur a und u (resp. o) aufweist, aber nie die e-Stufe” (1932: 46). He then goes on to explain, however, that “dieser Wechsel a : u eben nicht identisch [ist] mit dem altererbten, auf Akzent-wechsel beruhenden Ablaut, sondern er sich aus dem Bestreben der Sprecher [erklärt], verschiedene Geräusche mit den Mitteln der Sprache wiederzugeben” (ibid.). Obviously, Wissmann’s argument against reconstructing an ablauting paradigm can nowadays no longer be used. It is less evident, on the other hand, how exactly such a paradigm – if it ever existed – would have to be reconstructed.

One option that can be considered is to reconstruct the paradigm as an athematic, “hysterokinetic” *neh2-verb. This reconstruction is based upon the well-established fact that the accent – and hence the full grade – of the verbal paradigm shifted between the suffix in the singular and the ending in the plural. If an o-grade ever occurred in this paradigm, it is to be expected in the singular, i.e. one position before the stressed syllable. This follows from the fact that o-grades in PIE usually occur in pre-tonic or post-tonic syllables, a distribution that has led to the hypothesis that the o-grade arose from an unstressed e-grade in a pre-stage of PIE: cf. Gr. �� acc. ‘father’ vs. �� acc. ‘having a good father’ (cf. Beekes 1985). With this principle in mind, the paradigm underlying the PGermanic iteratives could theoretically be set up as 3sg. *CoC-néh2-ti, 3pl. *CC-nh2-énti. In practice, however, this reconstruction remains highly problematic, because the rise of such a pretonic *o requires the introduction of an analogical full grade *e from elsewhere in the paradigm, while no such full grade is at hand. More importantly, there are hardly any traces of o-grades in *neh2-verbs in the other IE languages. A number of cases can be gleaned from Baltic (e.g. the aforementioned Latvian skrabinât to Proto-Germanic *skrappþi, *skrabunanþi), but since the iteratives were highly productive in this branch as well, these may simply be independent coinages to otherwise related o-grade intensives. This renders the reconstruction of ablauting nasal presents, e.g. PIE *skrobh-néh2-, rather conjectural.

Another possible solution can be sought in the evidence for *o/zero alternations in the Hittite �i-conjugation. A Germanic iterative doublet with an especially close parallel in Hittite is Nw. dial. gurpa ‘to devour, gobble, belch’ < *gurppn- and garpa, garva ‘id.’ < *garpp/bn-, both verbs clearly being related to the �i-verb 3sg. kar�pi, 3pl. kare/ipanzi ‘to devour, consume’ < *ghróbh-ei, *gh�bh-énti.3 Now, as it seems injudicious to deny the formal and semantic parallelism between these Germanic and Hittite verbs, this lexical correspondence appears to offer an important clue about the origin of the ablaut of the iteratives. Still, the clear presence of gemination in gurpa and garpa as opposed to the lack of a nasal suffix in Hittite remains a critical obstacle to assuming a direct connection.

Alwin Kloekhorst in his Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon (2008) draws attention to a small group of n-presents belonging to the �i-conjugation, primarily �amanki, �ame/inkanzi ‘to tie; betroth’, which he reconstructs as 3sg. *h2m-on-g(h-ei, 3pl. *h2m-n-g(h-enti (cf. Gr. ��%� ‘to tie up, strangle’, Lat. ang ‘to throttle, choke’ < *h2emg (h-). With this class in mind, one could hypothesize that the Germanic iterative doublet continued a similar �i-conjugated n-present. A reconstruction *ghórbh-n-ei, *gh�bh-n-énti, for instance, would under Kluge’s law regularly acquire a root doublet *garb-/*gurpp-. It is clear, however, that the �i-conjugation cannot simply be transferred from Anatolian to Proto-Indo-European, let alone Germanic. Moreover, the �amank-/�ame/ink-class appears to continue perfects created to older nasal presents (Kortlandt 2010), not nasal presents to old perfects. As a consequence, the �amank-/�ame/ink-class must be analyzed as a purely Anatolian innovation that has nothing to do with the Germanic iteratives.

The parallelism of Nw. gurpa, garpa, garva with Hitt. kar�pi, kare/ipanzi, on the other hand, seems to be genuine, the only remaining gap to bridge being the origin of the gemination in this verbal class. Probably the least complicated way around this problem is to abandon the idea that the ablaut doublets split off from a single paradigm, e.g. 3sg. *garppþi, 3pl. *gurbunanþi.4 It would be more straightforward to

�� 3 Kloekhorst (2008: 442-444) derives the root as *gherbh1- on the basis of the (received) comparison with Skt.

g�bhn� �ti ‘to seize’ and ON grápa ‘id.’. Although the semantic shift from ‘grab’ to ‘eat’ is far from inconceivable (cf. E snack ‘to bite’ vs. MDu. snacken ‘to snatch’), the link with the Norwegian forms is more straightforward. It is further clear that ON grápa continues < *gr�pp- < *ghr�bh-n-j rather than *ghr�b-.

4 The expected full grade **grapp/bn- was apparently replaced by *garpp/bn- under the influence of the zero-grade forms.


instead regard the o/zero-ablaut iterative doublets as a vestige of either the so-called iterative-intensive verbs like PGermanic *gangan- ~ *gungan- ‘to go’ < PIE *g(hóngh-ti, *g(h�gh-énti (cf. Mottausch 1996) or of primary perfects, both classes having the same vowel alternation. Now since the meaning of the root *gh(o)rbh- clearly points to an iterative-intensive formation of the well-known type PGermanic *malan-/Lith. málti, it seems logical to assume that the variants *gurppn- and *garpp/bn- demonstrate the pre-existence of an intensive verb *ghróbh-ti, *gh�bh-énti rather than a primary perfect *ghróbh-e, *gh�bh-��r. It thus appears that the Hittite kar�pi, kare/ipanzi continues an intensive verb that was incor-porated into the �i-conjugation, probably because it had the same ablaut as �i-verbs that were created to primary perfects.

The origins of the iterative-intensive verbs with o-grade are, of course, highly debated. A common view is that they were derived from de-reduplicated formations, as a stressed reduplication syllable could theoretically explain the rise of *o in an unstressed root (cf. Stang 1966: 333; Klingenschmitt 1982: 146; Rasmussen 1989: 247; Kortlandt 1994). Most promising, in this respect, are the Indo-Iranian intensive verbs of the type Skt. jáPghanti ‘strikes violently’ < *gwhen-gwhon-, since the ablaut as well as the semantic aspect dovetail with the typology of the o-grade presents in other languages. The “ablaut-theoretic” argument was refuted by Kümmel (2004: 144), however, who argued that no Indo-Iranian intensives are attested for roots that emerge in iterative-intensives in e.g. Balto-Slavic or Germanic. He therefore suggested at least temporarily reconstructing plain mi-verbs with o/zero-ablaut (Kümmel 2004: 148), a suggestion that I will follow here.

The alternative, to reconstruct a Proto-Indo-European h2e-conjugation with paradigmatic o/e-ablaut as per Jasanoff (1979; 2003), seems less attractive. The postulation of this verbal category hinges upon the comparison of the alleged e/o-ablaut of some Hittite �i-verbs with the occasional dialectal alternation of o-grade iterative-intensives with related e-grade thematic verbs elsewhere. However, the Germanic evidence in the form of the doublet Proto-Germanic *garpp/bn- ~ *gurppn- clearly points to o/zero-ablaut in the formation underlying the Hitt. �i-verb kar�pi, kare/ipanzi, thus indicating that this formation must be reconstructed as *ghróbh-e/ti, *gh�bh-� �r/énti rather than *ghróbh-e, *ghrébh-�(s) (-�ti). In combination with the reinterpretation of the e/i-vocalism in the plural of the �i-verbs as a secondary zero grade (Kloekhorst, this volume), the evidence for a PIE verbal class with primary o/e-ablaut thus seems to be “decumulating”.5

Within Germanic itself, the derivation of *neh2-presents from presents with o/zero-ablaut is demonstrated by the preterit-presents, i.e. unreduplicated perfects of the otherwise unique �G�-type. It seems clear, for instance, that the preterit-present *kanne, *kunnunþ ‘to can’ (quasi *g((o)nh3-n-) arose as a back-formation to the de-aoristic nasal present *kunnþi, *kununanþi < *g(nh3-néh2-ti, *g(nh3-nh2-énti (cf. Skt. j�n� �ti, Lith. žinóti ‘to know’ < *g (�h3-néh2-).6 It thus reveals that there must have been a reverse derivational pathway from presentic o/zero-verbs to nasal presents. This is further corroborated by the fact that the same preterit-present appears to have given rise to the o-grade medial factitive ON kanna ‘to explore’ (i.e. “to make oneself familiar with”) < *kannn- (quasi-PIE *g(onh3-n-neh2-), just like the preterit-present attested as Goth. lais, *lisum ‘to know’ produced the zero-grade medial factitive OS l�nn, OFri. lirna, lerna, OE leornian ‘to learn’ (i.e. “to make oneself know”). The ablaut difference of these two factitives may, in parallel to the derivation of the iterative doublets, be a reflection of the vowel alternation in the paradigm of the original perfects.

Chronologically, the derivation of the *neh2-presents must have taken place before the loss of the original *a/zero-ablaut in the class 6 and 7 strong verbs with a-grades. In practice, this means that, for instance, the a- and zero-grade iteratives OSw., Nw. drabba ‘to hit’ < *drappþi, *drabunanþi and Nw. drubba ‘to give a blow’ < *druppþi, *drubunanþi can probably be traced back to an iterative-intensive *drab-ti, *drubinþi < *dhróbh-ti, *dh�bh-énti, a formation surfacing as the strong verb ga-draban*

�� 5 The material is in keeping with Mottausch’s (l.c.) “intermediate” configuration, on the other hand, in which

regular e/zero-presents co-occur with reduplicated h2e-presents with o/zero-ablaut. 6 Here, I differ from Harðarson (1993: 80-81), who derives the root form *kunn- from a present with a nasal

infix, viz. *g (-�-néh3-. According to Harðarson, Skt. j�n� ��ti continues the same formation through remodeling of a proto-form *janáti. However, the neh2-present *g(�h3-néh2- gives j�n� �ti straight away.


‘to hew out’ in Gothic. This scenario is in agreement with the rise of the related strong verb *drepan-, cf. ON drepa ‘to strike, kill’, OHG treffan ‘to hit’, which logically follows from the fact that the ablauting iterative *druppþi, *drubunanþi had become orphaned after the loss of the zero grade in the pertaining strong verb. The secondary origin of *drepan- is further confirmed by the fact that the verb shows clear signs of de-iterativization, the root-final consonant *p being abstracted from the iterative geminate (see Kroonen 2011a: 106-112).

Orphaned iteratives are likely to have triggered the coinage of a considerable body of secondary strong verbs in Germanic. It can be claimed with certainty, for instance, that ON, Icel. hrjóta ‘to fall, fly, be slung’, Nw. rjota ‘to fall down’ < *hreuttan- was back-formed from the zero-grade iterative Norw. ròta ‘to slide down’ < *hrutn-, which in combination with MHG hurzen ‘to rush’ < *hurttn- and ON hrata ‘to fall’, OE hratian, hradian ‘to rush’ < *hrattþi, *hradunanþi points to a PIE root *kret- (not *kreud-!), cf. Lith. krìsti (kriñta, kreñta) ‘to fall, drop, die’ (< *kr-n-t- with secondary zero-grade -i-). Fully parallel is the derivation of Sw. dial. grjopa ‘to hollow out’ < *greuppan- from the iterative MDu. grobben ‘to scramble, scrape’, MLG gropen ‘to hollow out’ < *gruppþi, *grubunanþi, which apparently had become dissociated from the a-grade variant MDu. grabben, grapen, LG grappen ‘to grab’ after the loss of ablaut in the strong verb *graban- ‘to dig’ < *ghróbh-ti, *gh�bh-énti. Note that the back-formation from the iterative is not only apparent from the root-final consonant of grjopa, which does not continue a root *ghreub- (pace Falk/Torp 1909: 146), but also from the iterative semantics ‘to hollow out’.

A third interesting case consists of OE screpan, MDu. schrepen ‘to scrape’ < *skrepan-. The strong verb is listed in combination with e.g. Ru. skrestí ‘id.’ as an example of a verb with o/e-ablaut by Kümmel (2004: 152), and thus potentially classifies as an example of Jasanoff’s h2e-conjugation. However, the Germanic verb can hardly be used to substantiate a PIE root *skreb-,7 but is – like OE sceorfan and sceorpan ‘id.’ < *skerban-, *skerpan- – more likely to be a backformation to the iterative *skurppþi, skurbunanþi, cf. MDu. schorpen, schurpen ‘to cut open’. This formation seems to have co-existed beside the o-grade iterative *skrappþi, *skrabunanþi – cf. the already mentioned MDu. schrappen, schrapen, schraven, schrabben ‘to scratch’–, and thus points to the pre-existence of an old iterative-intensive verb *skraban- < *skróbh-ti, *sk�bh-énti, cf. Latv. skrabt ‘id.’. I conclude that the e-grade of the strong verb *skrepan- is unrelated to the one of e.g. Ru. skrestí, and arose within the parameters of Proto-Germanic derivational history.

Summarizing, I assume that the problematic a/zero-alternations occurring in a large body of Germanic iteratives do not necessarily imply a prehistoric paradigm with root ablaut, e.g. *CoC-néh2-ti, *CC-nh2-énti. A more probable scenario is that they echo the old o/zero-ablaut of the iterative-intensives, from which they seem to have been derived. The origin of this category is still debated in Indo-European studies, but it seems clear that the Germanic verbal system offers important evidence regarding the ablaut as well as the original derivation of this type.

References Beekes, Robert S.P. 1985. The Origins of the Indo-European Nominal Inflection. Innsbruck: Institut für

Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Delbrück, Berthold G.G. 1869. Review of Anton Scherer, Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache.

Zeitschrift für deutsche Philologie 1.124-128. Falk, Hjalmar, and Alf Torp. 1909. Wortschatz der germanischen Spracheinheit. Göttingen:

Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Harðarson, Jón Axel. 1993. Studien zum urindogermanischen Wurzelaorist : und dessen Vertretung im

Indoiranischen und Griechischen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Inns-bruck.

�� 7 Lühr (1988: 359) has already pointed out earlier that the root-final stop of *skrepan- must be secondary.


Jasanoff, Jay. 1979. The position of the �i-conjugation. In Erich Neu and Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch, 79-90. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.

——. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Klingenschmitt, Gert. 1982. Das altarmenische Verbum. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Kluge, Friedrich.1884. Die germanische Consonantendehnung. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen

Sprache und Literatur 9.149-186. Kortlandt, Frederik. 1989. Lithuanian statýti and related formations. Baltistica 25/2.104-12. ——. 1994. The Germanic sixth class of strong verbs. North-Western European Language Evolution

23.69-73. ——. 2007. Miscellaneous remarks on Balto-Slavic accentuation. In Mate Kapoviþ and Ranko Matasoviþ

(eds.), Tones and theories: Proceedings of the international workshop on Balto-Slavic accentol-ogy, 229-235. Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje.

——. 2009. Baltica and Balto-Slavica. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. ——. 2010. Hittite hi-verbs and the Indo-European perfect. Studies in Germanic, Indo-European

and Indo-Uralic, 17, 373-382. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. Kroonen, Guus. 2010. On Gothic iup and the Germanic directionals. North-Western European Lan-

guage Evolution 58/59.367-80. ——. 2011a. The Proto-Germanic n-stems: A study in diachronic morphophonology. Amsterdam/New

York: Rodopi. ——. 2011b. False exceptions to Winter’s Law: On the effects of Kluge’s law on the Proto-Germanic

consonantism. In Tijmen Pronk and Rick Derksen (eds.), Accent Matters (= Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 37), 251-261. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi.

——. 2012 (forthcoming). Consonant gradation in the Germanic iterative verbs. In Thomas Olander (ed.), Proceedings of the Sound of Indo-European conference held in Copenhagen 2009.

Lühr, Rosemarie. 1988. Expressivität und Lautgesetz im Germanischen. Heidelberg: Winter. Milizia, Paolo. 2004. Proto-Indo-European Nasal Infixation Rule. Journal of Indo-European Studies

32.337-359. Mottausch, Karl-Heinz. 1996. Germanisch gangan „gehen“ und die starken Verben mit a aus *o.

Historische Sprachforschung 109.76-109. Osthoff, Hermann. 1882. Über Aoristpraesens und Imperfectpraesens. Beiträge zur Geschichte der

deutschen Sprache und Literatur 8.287-311. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård. 1989. Studien zur Morphophonemik der indogermanischen Grundsprache.

Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. ——. 1990. Zur Abbauhierarchie des Nasalpräsens – vornemlich im Arischen und Griechischen. In

Heiner Eichner and Helmut Rix (eds.), Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie, Jakob Wackernagel und die Indogermanistik heute, 188-201. Wiesbaden: Reichert.

Schmalstieg, William R. 1992. Lithuanian verbs with the infinitive suffixes -in- and -y-. Litanus 38/2.52-61.

Stang, Christian S. 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: Universitetsfor-laget.

Thurneysen, Rudolf. 1883. Urspr. dn, tn, cn im lateinischen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprach-forschung 26.301-14.

Villanueva-Svensson, Miguel. 2008. Lithuanian žinóti “to know”. Baltistica 18/2.175-199. Wissmann, Wilhelm 1932. Nomina postverbalia in den altgermanischen Sprachen, nebst einer Vor-

untersuchung über deverbative -verba. Teil 1: Deverbative -Verba. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.


Appendix of Germanic iteratives with *a/zero ablaut (non-exhaustive)

PGermanic strong verb zero-grade iterative a-grade iterative

*b�tan-: Goth. beitan, ON bíta, OE b�tan, OHG b�zzan ‘to bite’

*bit(t)n-: OHG bizzn ‘to grind, gnash’ / OE grist-bitian ‘to gnash the teeth’

*baitn-: OE grist-b�tian ‘to gnash the teeth’

*brekan-: Goth. brikan, OE brecan, OHG brehhan ‘to break’

*brukkn-: OHG brockn ‘to crumble’ *brakn-: ON braka, OS brakon ‘to make noise’

*brehan-: ON brjá, MHG brehen ‘to shine’

--- *bragn-: ON braga ‘to shine’

--- *dubbn-: MDu. dubben ‘to dunk, dig, push’

*dabbn-: Du. dial. dabben ‘to stamp (of horses), to root’, Eng. dab ‘to strike, peck’

*dintan-: ON detta ‘to fall, smack’

*duntn-: Norw. dutta ‘to push repeatedly’

*dantn-: ON datta ‘to beat’

*dingwan-: OSw. diunga, ME dingen ‘to beat, hit’

*dunkkn-: Sw. dunka ‘to hit, smack’ *dankk/gn-: ON danga ‘to beat up’ / Norw. dakka ‘to slam’

--- *drubbn-: Du. dial. drobben ‘to trot’ *drab(b)n-: G traben, MDu. draven ‘to trot’ / drabben ‘to walk to and fro’

*draban-: Goth. ga-draban ‘to hew out’ / *drepan- ‘to hit’: ON drepa ‘to strike’, OHG treffan ‘to hit’

*drubbn-: Norw. dial. drubba ‘to give a blow’

*drab(b)n-: OSw., Nw. drabba ‘to hit’ / ODa. drabe ‘to hit, kill’

*dragan-: Go. dragan ‘to carry’, ON draga, OE dragan ‘to pull’, OHG tragan ‘to carry’

*drug(g)n-: ME druggen, Nw. drugga ‘to trudge’, stumble’ / Nw. droga ‘to trudge’

*drag(g)n-: Nw. drag(g)a ‘to trudge’

*dreup(p)an-: ON drjúpa ‘to drip; to droop’, OE dr�opan, OHG triofan ‘to drip’

*drup(p)/bbn-: Du. dial. drubben ‘to hang one’s head, be downcast’ / MDu. drup(p)en ‘to sag, drip’

*drauppn-: OE dr�apian ‘to drip’

*kerran-: OE ceorran ‘to cry’, OHG kerran ‘to squeak, cry’

*kurrn-: ON kurra ‘to babble, shout (of birds)’

*karrn-: Icel. karra ‘to shout (of birds)’, MHG karren ‘to cry’

*graban-: Go. graban, ON grafa, OE grafan, OHG graban ‘to dig’ / *greuppan-: Sw. dial. grjopa ‘to hollow out’

*grup/bbn-: MDu. grobben ‘to scramble, scrape’ / MLG gropen ‘to hollow out’

*grap(p)/bbn-: MDu grabben, grapen, LG grappen ‘to grab’

*gr�ppan-: Go. greipan ‘to catch’ *gribbn-: G Pal. grippen ‘to grapple’ *graippn-: OE gr�pian, OHG greifn ‘to grope’


*krimman-: OE crimman ‘to insert’, OHG krimman ‘to hurt; to disembowel’

*krum(m)n-: Nw. krum(m)a ‘to itch’ *kram(m)n-: OSw. krama ‘to press’ / MHG krammen ‘to grab’, OE crammian ‘to cram’

*kring/kkan-: OE cringan / crincan ‘to fall’

*krunkkn-: MDu. kronken ‘to turn, wind’

*krankk/gn-: OHG krankoln ‘to stumble’ / ON kranga ‘to creep’

*reufan-: ON rjúfa, OE r�ofan ‘to break’

*rupp/bbn-: MHG ropfen ‘to pluck’ / Icel. rubba ‘to scrape’, G Als. roppen ‘to pluck’

*raubn-: Goth. bi-raubon ‘to rob’, ON raufa ‘to break open; to rob’, OHG roubn ‘to rob’

--- *jukk/gn-: G Swab. jucken ‘to leap’ *jakk/gn-: OHG jagn, EDu. jakken ‘to rush’

*hinþan-: Goth. hinþan ‘to catch’, ON hinna ‘to get’

*hunttn-: OE huntian ‘to hunt’ *hand(l)n-: OHG hantaln, OSw. hanna, handa ‘to touch’

*hlimman-: OE hlimman ‘to sound’

--- *hlam(m)n-: OHG hlamn ‘to roar’ / ON hlamma ‘to give a dull sound’

*hlauppan-: Go. hlaupan, ON hlaupa, OE hl�apan, OHG hlffan ‘to leap, run’

*hlupp/bn-: MHG lupfen / luppen ‘to lift’, MDu. loppen ‘to run’

*hlauppn-: OHG hlouffn ‘to run different ways’

*hreuttan-: Nw. rjota ‘to fall down’

*hurtn-: MHG hurzen ‘to rush’ / *hrutn-: Nw. ròta ‘to slide down’

*hrat/dn-: ON hrata ‘to fall’, OE hratian, hradian ‘to rush’

--- *likkn-: OE liccian, OHG leckn ‘to lick’

*laign-: Goth. bi-laigon ‘to lick’

*fetan-: ON feta ‘to step’ *futn-: Nw. dial. fòta ‘to go, trod’ *fat(t)n-: ON fata ‘to step’, OE fatian ‘to fetch’, MDu. vat(t)en ‘to catch’

--- *sukk/ggn-: OHG suckn ‘to drop, sag’ *sakk/ggn-: MDu. sacken / ME saggen ‘to sag’

--- *skur(r)n-: OE scorian ‘to project, jut’ / MHG schorren ‘to jut out’

*skarrn-: MHG scharren ‘to jut out’

*skerb/ppan-: OE sceorfan, sceorpan ‘to scratch’ / *skrepan-: OE screpan ‘to shave, scratch’

*skrubb/p(p)n-: MHG schruffen ‘to cleave’, MDu. schruppen ‘to cut open’ / MDu. schrobben, schrubben ‘to scratch’ / *skurppn-: MDu. schorpen, schurpen ‘to cut open’

*skarbn-: OE scearfian ‘schrapen’, OHG scarbn ‘concidere’ / *skrap(p)/b(b)n-: MDu. schraven / schrabben / schrappen / schrapen ‘to scratch’

*sn�þan-: Goth. sneiþan, ON sníða, OE sn�dan, OHG sn�tan ‘to cut’

*snittn-: OHG snizzn ‘to cuttle’ *snaitt/dn-: OHG sneitn ‘to shave’ � MHG sneize ~ sneite ‘cut out road in the woods’


*stelan-: Goth. stilan ‘to steal’, ON stela, OE,OHG stelan ‘to steal; to sneak’

*stulln-: Nw. dial. stulla ‘to walk slowly’, G Rhinel. stollen ‘to steal, conceal’

*staln-: OE stalian ‘to steal; to sneak’

*stautan-: Goth. stautan, OHG stzzan ‘to bump’

*stuttn-: G Pal. stutzen ‘to hit’ *stautn-: OHG stzn ‘to hit’

*str�kan-: OE str�can, OHG str�hhan ‘to wipe, stroke’

--- *straikn-: OE str�cian, OHG streihhn ‘to stroke’

*sw�ban-: ON svífa ‘to move, turn, wander’

*swipp/bbn-: Norw. svippa ‘to make a turn’ / G schwibben ‘to curve’

*swaibn-: OHG sweibn ‘to turn’

*swerban-: Goth. swairban ‘to wipe’, ON sverfa ‘to whirle around, OE sweorfan ‘to rub, to scour, to file’

*swurpp/bn-: Norw. dial. surpa ‘to shove, move’ / surva ‘to be drowsy’

*swarpp/bn-: Norw. dial. svarpa ‘to thrust, push; to be dizzy’ / ON svarfa ‘to roam; to tumble, fall down’

*þr�fan-: ON þrífa ‘to grasp’ *þripp(l)n-: Nw. dial. tripla ‘to touch lightly’

*þraibn-: ON þreifa ‘to touch’

*þrimman-: OS thrimman ‘to become heavy’

*þrummn-: MDu. drommen ‘to crowd’ *þrammn-: ON þramma ‘to trample’

*wegan-: Goth. gawigan ‘to move’

*wuggn-: Norw. vogga, vugga ‘to wobble, rock’

*wakk/gn-: Icel. vakka ‘to roam’ / ON vaga, OE wagian ‘to move’ / Icel. vagga ‘to wag, rock’

*windan-: OE windan ‘to wind, turn’

--- *wandn-: OE wandian ‘to turn aside’

*wl�t(t)an-: Goth. wleitan, ON líta ‘to look’

*wlit(t)n-: ON lita ‘to watch’, MHG lizzen ‘to shine’

*wlaitn-: Goth. wlaiton ‘to look around’ < *wlaitn-

the indo-european verb - kroonen

Documents