💾 Archived View for gemini.ucant.org › notes › deep-morphology.gmi captured on 2023-12-28 at 15:30:43. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Trying to collect thoughts re Indo-European morphology, particularly of verbs; this is about looking back through time at the strange connection between animacy, aspect and morphophonology.
This material is largely cribbed from Wikipedia, so must be under the same copyright licence.
Verbs, like nominals, made a basic distinction based on whether a short, ablauting vowel -e- or -o-[g], called the thematic vowel was affixed to the root before the final endings added.
In the case of the thematic conjugations, some of the endings differed depending on whether this vowel was present or absent, but by and large the endings were the same for both types.
The athematic system is much older and exhibits ablaut within the paradigm. In the descendant languages, athematic verbs were often extended with a thematic vowel, likely because of the complications resulting from the consonant clusters formed when the mostly consonant-initial endings were added directly onto the mostly consonant-final stems.
Consequently, the athematic verbs became a non-productive relic class in the later Indo-European languages. In groups such as Germanic and Italic, the athematic verbs had almost gone entirely extinct by the time of written records, while Sanskrit and Ancient Greek preserve them more clearly.
In the case of the thematic conjugations, some of the endings differed depending on whether this vowel was present or absent, but by and large the endings were the same for both types.
At least the following sets of endings existed:
Primary ("present") endings used for:
Present tense of the indicative mood of imperfective verbs.
Subjunctive mood
Secondary ("past" or "tenseless") endings used for:
Past tense of the indicative mood of imperfective verbs.
Indicative mood of perfective verbs.
Optative mood
Stative endings used for
Indicative mood of stative verbs.
Imperative endings used for
Imperative mood of all verbs.
The perfective ("aorist") and imperfective ("present") aspect classes are together known as eventive, or verbs that depict events, to distinguish them from stative (verbs that depict a state of being). Both shared the same conjugation, with some small differences. The main difference was that imperfective verbs allowed the use of special present-tense (primary) endings, while perfective verbs only allowed the default tenseless (secondary) endings.
The present tense used the primary eventive endings, and was used specifically to refer to present events, although it could also refer to future events. The past tense referred to past events, and used the secondary eventive endings. Perfective verbs always used the secondary endings, but did not necessarily have a past-tense meaning. The secondary endings were, strictly speaking, tenseless, even in imperfective verbs. This meant that past endings could also be used with a present meaning, if it was obvious from context in some way. This use still occurred in Vedic Sanskrit, where in a sequence of verbs only the first might be marked for present tense (with primary endings), while the remainder was unmarked (secondary endings). If the verbs were subjunctive or optative, the mood markings might likewise be only present on the first verb, with the others not marked for mood (i.e. indicative).
In Ancient Greek, Armenian and Indo-Iranian, the secondary endings came to be accompanied by a prefixing particle known as the augment, reconstructed as *e- or *h₁e-. The function of the augment is unclear (it is usually thought to be connected to the meaning of 'past'), but it was not a fixed part of the inflection as it was in the later languages. In Homeric Greek and Vedic Sanskrit, many imperfect (past imperfective) and aorist verbs are still found lacking the augment; its use became mandatory only in later Greek and Sanskrit.
Morphologically, the indicative of perfective verbs was indistinguishable from the past indicative of imperfective verbs, and it is likely that in early stages of PIE, these were the same verb formation. At some point in the history of PIE, the present tense was created by developing the primary endings out of the secondary endings. Not all verbs came to be embellished with these new endings; for semantic reasons, some verbs never had a present tense. These verbs were the perfective verbs, while the ones that did receive a present tense were imperfective.
Stative verbs signified a current state of being rather than events. It was traditionally known as perfect, a name which was assigned based upon the Latin tense before the stative nature of the PIE form was fully known. While Latin conflated the static aspect concept with tense, in PIE there was no association with any particular tense.
The stative aspect was marked formally with its own personal endings, which differed from the eventives by a root in the singular in o-grade, but elsewhere in zero-grade, and typically by reduplication.
Like the perfective verbs, stative verbs were tenseless, and described a state without reference to time. This did not mean that stative verbs referred to permanent states (as in Spanish ser versus temporary estar), but rather that there was no way to express, within the verbal morphology, whether the state was applicable in the present moment, in the past, or in the future. These nuances were, presumably, expressed using adverbs.
In many daughter languages, the stative took on a meaning that implied a previous action that had caused the current state, a meaning which resulted in the Greek perfect. Eventually, by shifting emphasis to the inchoative action, an action that was just started or a state that was just begun prior to the resulting state, the stative generally developed into a past tense (as in Germanic, Latin, and later, Greek). The original present sense of the IE stative is seen in the Germanic preterite-present verbs such as Gothic wait "I know" (< PIE *woidh₂e, originally "I am in a state resulting from having seen/found"; cf. Latin vidēre "to see", Sanskrit vinátti "he finds"), with exact cognates in Sanskrit véda, Ancient Greek oĩda, and Old Church Slavonic vědě, all of which retain their essentially present tense meaning "I know".
The optative mood was used for wishes or hopes, like the English "may I sleep well". It was formed with an athematic ablauting suffix -yéh₁- ~ -ih₁- attached to the zero-grade of the stem.
In Vedic Sanskrit, optatives were very rarely found for characterised stems (primary and secondary derivations); most occurrences of the optative are in root verbs. This is taken by Sihler[11] to indicate that the optative was not really a mood in PIE, but a separate verb, and was thus restricted to being derived directly from roots only, not from already-derived verbs. In addition, it appears that in PIE itself, stative verbs did not have the optative mood; it was limited to eventive verbs. Early Indo-Iranian texts mostly lack attestations of stative optative forms.
The place of the injunctive mood, of obscure function, is debated. It takes the form of the bare root in e-grade with secondary endings, without the prefixed augment that was common to forms with secondary endings in these languages. The injunctive was thus entirely without tense marking. This causes Fortson (among others) to suggest that the use of the injunctive was for gnomic expressions (as in Homer) or in otherwise timeless statements (as in Vedic).[citation needed]
The injunctive mood is a grammatical mood in Sanskrit that was characterized by secondary endings but no augment, and usually looked like an augmentless aorist or imperfect.[1] It typically stood in a main clause and had a subjunctive or imperative meaning; for example, it could indicate intention, e.g. índrasya nú vīryā̀ṇi prá vocam "Indra's heroic deeds will/shall I now declaim" (Beekes, Comparative Indo-European Linguistics, An Introduction. 1995, p.245). It was obligatory for use in prohibitions, where it follows mā́. In later Classical Sanskrit, only the use after mā remained (there are no accents in Classical Sanskrit).
Ancient Greek has words that are formally similar to the Sanskrit injunctive mood, consisting of aorist and imperfect forms lacking the augment. However, in this case there is no difference in meaning between these forms and the normal augmented forms. These are normally used in Homer and other epic poetry (see Homeric Greek).
It is generally assumed that the augment was originally a separate particle meaning something like "then", added to indicate the past time of a form that was once mostly aspectual, and neutral with respect to tense. Originally, its use appears to have been optional, added as necessary to clear up an otherwise ambiguous expression, similarly to time adverbs in Chinese. Gradually, it fused onto the verb form and became mandatory, but in the early stages of Greek and Sanskrit this change was not yet complete, and hence augmentless forms existed side-by-side with augmented forms. The modal semantics of the augmentless forms may then be a later development within Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan. It's also possible that the modal semantics developed in the parent language and later developments in Pre-Greek removed them and put back the basic meaning of the aorist and imperative, by analogy.
The most basic verb formation was derived directly from the root, with no suffix, and expressed the meaning of the root itself. Such "root verbs" could be either athematic or thematic; it was not predictable which type was used. The aspect of a root verb was determined by the root itself, which had its own "root aspect" inherent in the basic meaning of the root. Thus, there were verbal roots whose default meaning was durative, ongoing, or iterative, and verbs derived from them were generally imperfective in aspect. Roots whose meaning was punctiliar or discrete created perfective-aspect verbs. Stative roots were rare; perhaps the only reconstructible stative root verb was *wóyd- "know".
There are numerous unexplained surprises in this system, however. The common root *h₁es- meant "to be", which is an archetypically stative notion. Yet, aspect-wise, it was an imperfective root, and thus formed an imperfective root verb *h₁és-ti, rather than a stative verb.
(In relation to PIE nouns: a distinction is made between primary formations, i.e. words formed directly from a root, and secondary formations, which are formed from existing words, whether primary or secondary themselves.)
In early PIE, the aspect system was less well-developed, and root verbs were simply used in their root aspects, with various derivational formations available for expressing more specific nuances. By late PIE, however, as the aspect system evolved, the need had arisen for verbs of a different aspect than that of the root. Several of the formations, which originally formed distinct verbs, gradually came to be used as "aspect switching" derivations, whose primary purpose was to create a verb of one aspect from a root of another aspect.
This led to a fundamental distinction in PIE verb formations, between primary and secondary formations. Primary formations included the root verbs and the derivational formations that came to be used as aspect switching devices, while secondary formations remained strictly derivational and retained significant semantic value. For example, the secondary suffix *-éye- derived causative verbs, and retained this purpose and meaning throughout the descendants of PIE. The common primary suffix *-ye-, however, came to be used for the majority of verb formations in Latin, without any discernible meaning being conveyed by the suffix; its function had become purely morphological.
A verb needed no derivational or aspect-switching markers for its own root aspect. Affixes of various types were used to switch the inherent aspect to a different type. Such affixes created "characterised" verb formations, contrasting with the basic "root" or "uncharacterised" formation. Examples of aspect switching affixes include -yé-, -sḱé-, and the nasal infix, all of which were used to derive imperfective verbs from roots whose inherent aspect was not already imperfective. Conversely, the "s-aorist" formation (retained most notably in Greek) used the suffix -s- to create perfective verbs. Many roots were "hyper-characterized", however, with an aspect marker added to a root that already had the correct aspect. This may have been done in order to emphasize the aspect. For example, the s-aorist also seemed to have been used when the verb root was inherently perfective already.
A root did not necessarily have verbs to express all three aspects. There were many roots that seem to have had verbs for only for one or two aspects in PIE. For example, the root *h₁es- "to be" seems to have formed only an imperfective verb, no perfective or stative verbs derived from this root can be reconstructed. Various later languages amended this situation differently as needed, often by using entirely different roots (suppletion). Latin used the root *bʰuH- "to become" to fill in as the perfective aspect of *h₁es-, while the Germanic languages used the root *h₂wes- "to live, to reside" in that role.
While several aspect switchers were available to be added to the root, particular markers were not exclusively assigned to any root. Certain roots did show a preference for the same markers in multiple daughter languages, but the use of a particular marker was not exclusive, and a variety of formations are often found for the same root. For example, the basic root for "stand", *steh₂-, was a perfective root. Therefore, the root verb had the punctual sense of "come to a standing position; to rise from a sitting position". In order to speak about "standing" in a present, durative sense ("be in a standing position"), the root verb required a derivational marker to put it into the imperfective aspect. For this root, the imperfective aspect switcher was often reduplication (Ancient Greek hístēmi, Sankskrit tíṣṭhati), but the Germanic languages also show a nasal infix or suffix for this root (Gothic present ik standa vs. preterite ik stōþ), at least by a later period. The Slavic languages, meanwhile, also have a form derived with the -yé- suffix. Such discrepancies suggest that in PIE proper, this root had no imperfective verb at all, and the aspect-switched verbs we see in the later descendants were formed independently of each other.
Many primary formations retained some "residue" of their original derivational function and meaning, and significant relics of this earlier derivational system can be reconstructed for PIE. The perfective root *gʷem- "to step" is reconstructible with two different imperfective derivations: *gʷm̥-sḱé- (Ancient Greek báskō, Sanskrit gácchati) and *gʷm̥-yé- (Ancient Greek baínō, Latin veniō). Both formations survived side by side in Greek, suggesting that they did not overlap significantly enough in meaning throughout their history for one or the other to fall out of use.
Secondary verbs were formed either from primary verb roots (so-called deverbal verbs) or from nouns (denominal verbs or denominative verbs) or adjectives (deadjectival verbs). (In practice, the term denominative verb is often used to incorporate formations based on both nouns and adjectives because PIE nouns and adjectives had the same suffixes and endings, and the same processes were used to form verbs from both nouns and adjectives.) Deverbal formations included causative ("I had someone do something"), iterative/inceptive ("I did something repeatedly"/"I began to do something"), desiderative ("I want to do something").
The formation of secondary verbs remained part of the derivational system and did not necessarily have completely predictable meanings (compare the remnants of causative constructions in English — to fall vs. to fell, to sit vs. to set, to rise vs. to raise and to rear).
They are distinguished from the primary formations by the fact that they generally are part of the derivational rather than inflectional morphology system in the daughter languages. However, as mentioned above, this distinction was only beginning to develop in PIE. Not surprisingly, some of these formations have become part of the inflectional system in particular daughter languages. Probably the most common example is the future tense, which exists in many daughter languages but in forms that are not cognate, and tend to reflect either the PIE subjunctive or a PIE desiderative formation.
Secondary verbs were always imperfective, and had no corresponding perfective or stative verbs, nor was it possible (at least within PIE) to derive such verbs from them. This was a basic constraint in the verbal system that prohibited applying a derived form to an already-derived form. Evidence from the Rig Veda (the earliest attestation of Sanskrit) indicates that secondary verbs in PIE were not conjugated in the subjunctive or optative moods. This suggests that these moods follow the same constraint, and are derivational in origin. The later Indo-European languages worked around these limitations, but each in their own way.
In Old Irish, most verbs have, in addition to the tenses, voices, and moods named above, two sets of forms: an independent and a dependent conjugation. The independent conjugation occurs when the verb occurs absolutely sentence-initial with no preverbs, while the dependent conjugation occurs when the verb is preceded by one or more preverbs. The formation of the independent and dependent conjugations depends on whether a verb is simple or complex. A complex verb is a verb that is always combined with a preverb, while all other verbs are simple verbs. The dependent conjugation of a simple verb is essentially the same as the independent conjugation of a complex verb, though different terminology is used.
In the Goidelic languages, dependent and independent verb forms are distinct verb forms; each tense of each verb exists in both forms. Verbs are often preceded by a particle which marks negation, or a question, or has some other force. The dependent verb forms are used after a particle, while independent forms are used when the verb is not subject to a particle. For example, in Irish, the past tense of the verb feic ("to see") has two forms: the independent form chonaic and the dependent form faca. The independent form is used when no particle precedes the verb, as in Chonaic mé Seán ("I saw John").[n 1] The dependent form is used when a particle such as ní ("not") precedes the verb, as in Ní fhaca mé Seán ("I did not see John").[n 2]
The distinction between dependent and independent forms originates with two distinct but related phenomena in Old Irish: the contrast between absolute and conjunct verb endings, and the contrast between prototonic and deuterotonic forms.[1]: 1–2
Old Irish verbs that have no prefixes, called "simple verbs", have two sets of endings, absolute and conjunct. The conjunct endings are used after a variety of grammatical particles, including among others the negative particle ní ("not"), the interrogative particle in, and prepositions combined with the relative pronoun (e.g. lasa "with which"). Where no such "conjunct particle" is present, the absolute endings are used. For example, "he calls" is gairid (absolute), while examples of conjunct forms are ní·gair "he does not call" and lasa·ngair "with which he calls". (An interpunct "·", hyphen "-", or colon ":" is usually used to indicate conjunct forms in pedagogical and analytical works on Old Irish. Actual manuscripts do not use such punctuation marks.) When a particle is present, stress falls on the first syllable of the verb itself, i.e. the syllable after the "·" mark.[2]: 27–30, 350, [3]: 67–68
In most verbs, distinct absolute and conjunct endings are found in the present indicative, present subjunctive, future, and preterite, and most persons.
Verbs that have one or more prefixes, called "compound verbs", always take conjunct endings.
The distinction between absolute and conjunct endings is believed to have originated with the placement of a particle *(e)s in Proto-Insular Celtic;[5] see Insular Celtic languages#Absolute and dependent verb for discussion.
(in verbs)
The PIE verb is characterized by two distinct sets of endings: one found in the thematic present and the perfect, and another found in the aorist and the athematic present. The middle endings seem like a mixture of these two. The thematic conjugation was widespread in what Donald Ringe terms "Western Indo-European" (Western IE), i.e. IE excluding Tocharian and especially Anatolian. The biggest problem on the origin of PIE thematic inflection is that the thematic endings have more in common with the PIE perfect (which formally, though not functionally and lexically, corresponds to the ḫi-conjugation in Hittite and other Anatolian languages), and that the actual etymological cognates reconstructed of thematic presents are few among the verbs belonging to the Anatolian ḫi-conjugation. In fact, most of the verbs belonging to the ḫi-conjugation in Anatolian actually have lexical cognates that inflect as athematic verbs in Western IE.[7] All types of verbs belonging to the ḫi-conjugation in Hittite can be shown to have, or to originally have had the ablaut pattern with *o in the singular and the zero-grade in the plural, which is exactly the pattern of the Western PIE perfect.[8]
The thematic presents in Western PIE also do not have quantitative ablaut, which indicates their relatively recent origin. This all has caused some linguists to speculate that perfect and thematic present endings go back to a single Early PIE prototype. According to Matasović, the Early PIE stative (becoming the perfect) is responsible for the original form of the thematic suffix *-o-, while the e-grade form is secondary. Verbs forming the underived thematic presents are overwhelmingly bivalent/transitive, and there are no statives in the Late PIE thematic inflection since all the original Early PIE statives either remained athematic presents, or they became Western PIE perfects. It is also probable that some Early PIE middle verbs also became thematic in the Western PIE period, since they lack middle correspondences in Anatolian.[9]
The distinction between thematic and athematic stems is especially apparent in the Greek verb; they fall into two classes that are marked by quite different personal endings. Thematic verbs are also called -ω (-ō) verbs in Greek; athematic verbs are -μι (-mi) verbs, after the first person singular present tense ending that each of them uses. The entire conjugation seems to differ quite markedly between the two sets of verbs, but the differences are really the result of the thematic vowel reacting (fusing) with the verb endings, apart from the first person singular which already had different endings for thematic and athematic verbs in PIE.[5] In classical Greek, the present tense active endings for athematic verbs are:
-μι, -ς, σι, -μεν, -τε, -ασι(ν)
(-mi, -s, -si, -men, -te, -asi(n))
while the thematic verbs took the endings:
-ω, -εις, -ει, -ομεν, -ετε, -ουσι(ν)
(-ō, -eis, -ei, -omen, -ete, -ousi(n))
In Greek, athematic verbs, except for those that end in -νῡμι -nūmi, are a closed class of inherited forms from PIE.
The augment is a prefix used in certain Indo-European languages (Indo-Iranian, Greek, Armenian and Phrygian) to indicate past time. The augment is of rather late origin in Proto-Indo-European, and in the oldest attested daughter languages, such as Vedic Sanskrit and early Greek, it is used optionally. The same verb forms when used without the augment carry an injunctive sense.[1][2][3]
The augment originally appears to have been a separate word, with the potential meaning of 'there, then', which in time got fused to the verb. The augment is *é- in PIE (é- in Greek, á- in Sanskrit) and always bears the accent.[1][2]
The augment is used in Sanskrit to form the imperfect, aorist, pluperfect[a] and conditional. When the verb has a prefix, the augment always sits between the prefix and the root.[10] The following examples of verb forms in the third-person singular illustrate the phenomenon:
Semantically speaking, words that denote attributes or properties are primarily distributed between two morphological classes (there are also a few other classes):
adjectival verbs (形容詞, keiyōshi, conventionally called "i-adjectives")– these have roots and conjugating stem forms, and are semantically and morphologically similar to stative verbs.
adjectival nouns (形容動詞, keiyōdōshi, lit. "adjectival verb", conventionally called "na-adjectives")– these are nouns that combine with the copula.
Unlike adjectives in languages like English, i-adjectives in Japanese inflect for aspect and mood, like verbs. Japanese adjectives do not have comparative or superlative inflections; comparatives and superlatives have to be marked periphrastically using adverbs like motto ('more') and ichiban ('most').
Every adjective in Japanese can be used in an attributive position, and nearly every Japanese adjective can be used in a predicative position.
The two inflected classes, verb and adjective, are closed classes, meaning they do not readily gain new members.[1][2] Instead, new and borrowed verbs and adjectives are conjugated periphrastically as verbal noun + suru (e.g. benkyō suru (勉強する, do studying; study)) and adjectival noun + na. This differs from Indo-European languages, where verbs and adjectives are open classes, though analogous "do" constructions exist, including English "do a favor", "do the twist" or French "faire un footing" (do a "footing", go for a jog), and periphrastic constructions are common for other senses, like "try climbing" (verbal noun) or "try parkour" (noun). Other languages where verbs are a closed class include Basque: very few Basque verbs (albeits very common ones) have synthetic conjugation, all the others are only formed periphrastically. Conversely, pronouns are closed classes in Western languages but open classes in Japanese and some other East Asian languages.
In a few cases new verbs are created by appending -ru (〜る) suffix to a noun or using it to replace the end of a word. This is most often done with borrowed words, and results in a word written in a mixture of katakana (stem) and hiragana (inflectional ending), which is otherwise very rare.[3] This is typically casual, with the most well-established example being sabo-ru (サボる, skip class; play hooky) (circa 1920), from sabotāju (サボタージュ, sabotage), with other common examples including memo-ru (メモる, write a memo), from memo (メモ), and misu-ru (ミスる, make a mistake) from misu (ミス, mistake). In cases where the borrowed word already ends with a ru (ル), this may be punned to a ru (る), as in gugu-ru (ググる, to google), from gūguru (グーグル, Google), and dabu-ru (ダブる, to double), from daburu (ダブル, double).[4]
New adjectives are extremely rare; one example is kiiro-i (黄色い, yellow), from adjectival noun kiiro (黄色), and a more casual recent example is kimo-i (きもい, gross), by contraction of kimochi waru-i (気持ち悪い, bad-feeling).[5] By contrast, in Old Japanese -shiki (〜しき) adjectives (precursors of present i-adjectives ending in -shi-i (〜しい), formerly a different word class) were open, as reflected in words like ita-ita-shi-i (痛々しい, pitiful), from the adjective ita-i (痛い, painful, hurt), and kō-gō-shi-i (神々しい, heavenly, sublime), from the noun kami (神, god) (with sound change). Japanese adjectives are unusual in being closed class but quite numerous – about 700 adjectives – while most languages with closed class adjectives have very few.[6][7] Some believe this is due to a grammatical change of inflection from an aspect system to a tense system, with adjectives predating the change.
The conjugation of i-adjectives has similarities to the conjugation of verbs, unlike Western languages where inflection of adjectives, where it exists, is more likely to have similarities to the declension of nouns. Verbs and adjectives being closely related is unusual from the perspective of English, but is a common case across languages generally, and one may consider Japanese adjectives as a kind of stative verb.
Japanese vocabulary has a large layer of Chinese loanwords, nearly all of which go back more than one thousand years, yet virtually none of them are verbs or "i-adjectives" – they are all nouns, of which some are verbal nouns (suru) and some are adjectival nouns (na). In addition to the basic verbal noun + suru form, verbal nouns with a single-character root often experienced sound changes, such as -suru (〜する) → -zuru (〜ずる) (rendaku) → -jiru (〜じる), as in kin-jiru (禁じる, forbid), and some cases where the stem underwent sound change, as in tassuru (達する, reach), from tatsu (達).
Dependent and independent verb forms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergin%27s_Law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caland_system
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%E2%82%82e-conjugation_theory
https://www.ling.upenn.edu/~rnoyer/courses/51/PIEVerbs.pdf
https://indo-european.info/a-grammar-of-modern-indo-european-third-edition.pdf