Remarks On Indo-European Infinitives

Linguistic Society of America
Remarks on Indo-European Infinitives

Author(s): Robert J. Jeffers
Source: Language, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Mar., 1975), pp. 133-148
Published by: Linguistic Society of America
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/413155
Accessed: 01-11-2015 07:49 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Linguistic Society of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 132.174.255.116 on Sun, 01 Nov 2015 07:49:20 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REMARKS ON INDO-EUROPEAN INFINITIVES
J. JEFFERS
ROBERT
Ohio State University
Indo-European offers a wide variety of infinitive formations, many of which are
shared by severalof the dialects,and all of which appearto reflectearlierverbalnouns.
The literatureincludesconsiderablediscussionon the etymologicaloriginsof individual
infinitiveendings, but little on intermediatedevelopmentswhich may account for the
disparate systems of the historical languages. This paper suggests that at least two
separate classes of infinitivesare to be noted among the infinitive types which occur
cross-dialectally,and that these two classes reflectchronologicallydistinctoccurrences
in the history of IE infinitival development. This distinction is most clearly demon-
strable in Vedic, but parallel evidence exists in several other dialects.*
1. Most major works on general Indo-European linguistics, and most historical

handbooks for the various IE dialects, give little more than the most basic informa-
tion about the forms that grammarians and linguists have traditionally termed
INFINITIVES.1 In general, it is merely pointed out that IE infinitives are, in origin,
verbal nouns of a fairly large but finite number of derivational types which have
become fixed in certain case forms, and subsequently incorporated into the verbal
system. This is manifested by, e.g., the fact that they govern objects in the same case
as their finite counterparts (commonly the accusative), while a noun regularlytakes
an objective genitive (Brugmann-Delbriick 1916.11:3/2.983; Kurylowicz 1964:168).
This capsule historical statement is generally followed by a list of the noun-
deriving suffixes which are reflected in the infinitive endings of the various IE
dialects. Table 1 gives a list of such Proto-IE suffix types and their infinitival
reflexes in the historical languages.
However, scant attention has been given to the processes through which the
individual infinitive systems of the historical languages have developed, or to any
intermediate stages of linguistic development between the period in which these
suffixes function only in nominal derivation and that in which they have become
elements of productive infinitive endings.
This is not an isolated problem in lE studies. Watkins (1962:2) has pointed out
that 'historical and comparative linguistics has had in the past a tendency to
* An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Summer Meeting of the Linguistic
Society of America at Chapel Hill, North Carolina, on 29 July 1972. The content of this paper
representspart of a more general investigation into the history of IE infinitivesin which I have
been engaged for some time. I have received valuable direction, comment, and criticism from
many scholars in the course of this research, and I would like to thank Gordon Messing,
George Cardona, Eric Hamp, David Robinson, Henry Hoenigswald, and George Dunkel for
discussion on various aspects of this work. I especially appreciatethe very thorough considera-
tion given an earlier version of this manuscript by Warren Cowgill. Of course, I am solely
responsible for any errors of fact or judgment in this paper.
1 Although descriptive grammars generally make a distinction between infinitives and the
Latin and Balto-Slavic supines, these so-called supines are included in this discussion. Etymo-
logically and functionally, the supine is to be equated with the IE infinitive; it is peculiar only
in that its range of occurrenceexhibits limitations which are not generally associated with an
infinitive.
133
-dhyai -erl/n"- -serin- -(e)s- j}ern- -w- -terln- -tu-
Indic:
Ved. -dhyai -anea -sani -ase, -vane, -tarn -tos,
-se -mane -(aue,
-turn,
-tavai
C1. Skt. -turn
Iranian:
Av. -dydi -cOt -toi
OP -tanaiy
Slavic: -tu
Baltic
Lith,
Lett.
OP -to"n,
-twet
Greek -sthai -en, -nai -ein -salt -(w)enas,
-menat
Latin -izerb -re, -tur,
-ri
-ta
Tlocharian -tsi
Hittite (-sar, -war, -waS -fatar,
-snas ...) -wanzi, -wan, -anna,
-mar, -mranzi *annas
Armenian
Germanic
Osco-lUmbrian
TABLEI.
a Vedic infinitives in
-ane perhaps represent mis-analysed forms with the suffi
b
Lat. -ier has been etymologized by Benveniste(1935b:144 if.) as representi
GThe Latin medio-passiveinfinitive in -i is discussed in ?9 below.
REMARKS ON INDO-EUROPEAN INFINITIVES 135
concentrate its attention on linguistic origins, and not on linguistic development.'

To a great extent it appears to be a consequence of this tendency that our under-
standing of the development of IE infinitive formations is so limited.
In the comparison of formal and functional categories, the historical linguist
must do more than simply point out correspondences between formal types that
make up such categories in related languages. He must begin with an analysis of
the formations under consideration in the context of the linguistic systems of which
they are a part. Then, after critical examination of relevant internal as well as
comparative information, the linguist can proceed to hypothesize about develop-
ments which result in the diverse morphological and syntactic systems of the
historical languages. Only through such an analysis of the data with respect to the
IE infinitives can we hope to go beyond the atomistic comparative morphology of
infinitive formations which we find in most of the literature.
It is with these points in mind that I would like to discuss just one aspect of the
history of infinitive formations, namely relative chronology. Two major divergent
points of view concerning the relative antiquity of IE infinitives are found in the
literature. Brugmann (1904:351, 1906:11/1.639) felt that the attested infinitives
were beginning to develop as entities separate from abstract verbal nouns during
the PIE period, while Meillet (1937:242-3) considered the autonomous infinitive to
represent a separate development in each dialect. Both positions are simplistic in
their generality, since they lump together virtually all IE infinitives without consider-
ing their individual histories. While it is not my intention to attempt to answer all
questions of chronology here with respect to the development of IE infinitives, I do
hope to show that (1) at least two clearly discernible chronological strata exist
among the infinitive types that occur cross-dialectally,2 and (2) the more recent
stratum represents a restricted isogloss associated with the period of ethnic differ-
entiation of the dialects.
2. Before proceeding with the discussion, I should perhaps briefly elaborate

certain basic assumptions about the development of lE infinitives. Although the
verbal characterof infinitives in the historical languages is often striking, in terms of
both morphology and surface syntax, any discussion of the prehistoric development
of such forms cannot disregard the fact that IE infinitives are derived NOUNSin
origin. The nominal origins of infinitives were recognized by the earliest scholars in
the field (Bopp 1816:37 ff.), and it is relatively certain that virtually all 1E infinitive
suffixes developed as a consequence of a morphological re-interpretation of verbal
nouns as verbals. The process probably began with verbal government of an object,
2 The unique infinitive formations of Armenian, Germanic, and Osco-Umbrian, as well as

the peculiarsituation in Celtic, will be brieflydiscussedin ?12 below. In Albanian each verb has
a single form which serves the dual function of participle and infinitive. Infinitival usage is
distinguishedfrom participial by means of the preposed particles, me in Geg, and per (te) in
Tosk. These participle/infinitivescan be assumed to reflect a conflation of old participlesand
nouns, which would have come to be partially similar in form. This conflation is apparently
associated with the characteristicBalkan phenomenon wherebyinfinitivesare LOST as a separate
morphological category. Albanian developments are language-specific,and will not be con-
sidered in this paper.
136 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 51, NUMBER 1 (1975)
and resulted in the development of one or more NEW and productive suffixes,
consequently introducing a new and productive inflectional category-the infinitive.
The development of such autonomous infinitive suffixes was especially facilitated in
situations where the original, nominalizing suffix involved was no longer a pro-
ductive, derivational element of the grammar; e.g., in Vedic kartave, the infinitive
suffix -tave is etymologically interpreted as the archaic noun-forming suffix* -t(e)u-
with a dative case ending.
These facts have apparently been misunderstood by some students of IE linguis-
tics. Thus Prokosch (1939:204-5), in a statement recently reiterated by Voyles
(1970:68-9), speaks of the infinitive as a 'verbal noun which has retained a closer
association with the verb system proper'. In terms of morphological systems, it is
difficultto interpret such a statement. It can be understood only in terms of abstract
representations to which it apparently does not refer. Although the earlier forma-
tions from which infinitives are etymologically derived refer to abstract, verbal
notions (underlying verbs, if you will), they are morphologically nouns. The surface
verbal characteristics of IE infinitives are everywhere secondary, and recognition
of this fact is basic to an understanding of any aspect of their development. Rather
than retaining an association with the verb system, through re-interpretationthese
derived nouns have been secondarily integrated into the verbal systems of the
historical languages.
3. As stated above, it is necessary to begin such an investigation as this with an

analysis of the extant formations in the context of the linguistic systems in which
they occur. I will begin, then, with a discussion of the Vedic situation, since (as is
apparent from Table 1) that language offers the greatest variety of differentinfinitive
formations. Indeed, most infinitives that occur in theIE dialects can find their
cognate in Vedic, and perhaps our too poorly defined picture of the pre-history of
IE infinitives is a result of using the Vedic storehouse of formal types merely to find
correspondences which might historically ACCOUNT FOR non-Indic infinitives. Yet a
more thorough analysis of this same wealth of forms can give new insights into
developments in Indic and Indo-European in general.
If one considers the individual Vedic formations as they occur in the text, one is
struck by the wide variety in the frequency of their occurrence. Most types occur
rarely, e.g. -tari (4), -mane (6),3 -sani (10). Only two types occur very commonly,
the radical and the -tu-suffixed infinitives.4 However, these two formations have
other shared traits of significant linguistic interest; e.g., they alone among Vedic
infinitives show any sign of nominal inflection. The radical and -tu forms occur in
three cases (e.g. ddtu-, dat. datave, gen.-abl. datos, acc. datum;subh-, dat. subhe,
3 The exact number of genuine infinitives in -mane is controversial. There are at most six,
but perhapsas few as one, or even none (Sgall 1958:183-5). See fn. 12 below for a more complete
discussion of this infinitive suffix.
4 Though not as frequent as radical and -tu-suffixedinfinitives, the Vedic suffixes -ase and
-dhyai occur in significantnumbers: by Delbruck's calculations, there are 59 infinitivesin -ase
and 70 in -dhyai. However, -ase is not particularlyproductive, 39 of its 59 occurrencesbeing
associated with the single root Vjlv. -dhyaiis peculiarin that it has apparentlycome to indicate
medio-passive voice, as has been lucidly pointed out by Benveniste (1935a:72 ff.) This special
association may well be responsible for its durability.
ace. subhanz; skad-, dat. skade, gen. -skadas), while all other Vedic infinitives
represent only old dative-locatives.5
The peculiar character of these two formations with respect to other Vedic
infinitive types leads one to expect other evidence for some special relationship
between them. And, to be sure, very significant evidence, which has generally been
neglected, arises to support this special relationship. It lies in the fact that these
two formations occur in complementary distribution. Verbal roots which show
associated infinitives with a -tu suffix do not exhibit infinitives which reflect radical
derivation. Similarly, there is a subset of verbal roots which is associated with
radical infinitives to the exclusion of-tu-suffixed forms. The items listed in Table 2
exemplify this situation.
-tU INFINITIVES RADICAL INFINITIVES
at: attave, attum* skad: -skade, -skadas
kr: kartave, kartos, kartum tr: -tire, -tiras
dhad:dhatave,-dhadtos, -dhadtavai khyad:-khyai
vas: vastave, vastos svas: svasas
TABLE2 (* = Atharva-Veda)
One significant but systematic exception does exist, however. A monosyllabic

vowel-final root must take a -tu suffix if it is not prefixed; so paraidai,but datave.6
The fact that some kind of complementation existed between the Vedic radical
and -tu infinitives was recognized by Sgall (174 ff.); but he suggested that the
complementation was phonologically determined, roots with final sibilants and
stops showing radical infinitives. Unfortunately, there are at least 29 exceptions to
Sgall's rule. The forms in Table 2 were selected specifically to point out the
untenability of his position.7
4. It would appear, then, that the radical and -tu type infinitives represent a
special subsystem. How then is this complementary pair of infinitive types to be
viewed in the context of the larger system of Vedic infinitives? Even disregarding
evidence which I will discuss below, concerning the greater antiquity of many of
the other Vedic infinitive types, the very preponderance of the radical/-tu type
suggests that it is a later formation-and, in the Vedic period, a more productive
one-which is in the process of overtaking the other infinitive types of Indic.
Indeed, if IE infinitives are to be defined as verbal nouns which have become fixed,
derived forms, totally disassociated from the nominal system, and showing verbal
5 I accept the suggestion of Meillet 1931 that forms such as Skt. -ase (<*-es-ei) and Lat.
-ere (< *-es-i) may be viewed as differentablaut forms of an original dative-locativeinflection.
6
Also exceptional are the two forms prastumand pattaue, each occurring once. These are
inconsistent with the radical infinitives of the respective roots Vprs and v/pat. However, we
know that the -tu formation replacesall Indic infinitives,and that it begins to dominate even in
the later Vedic period. Thus it is worth noting that the two apparentlyaberrantforms occur in
late hymns, prastum in 1,164 and pattave in 4,18 (Arnold 1897:212).
7 It should be pointed out that Voyles (71) appears to assume, without discussion, that all
Vedic infinitivesuffixesare lexicallydetermined.This is clearlyfalse. The texts providenumerous
examplesof roots which occur with severalsuffixtypes, e.g. Vbhr, bhartave,bharadhyai,bharase,
bharmane.The complementation with which I am concerned obtains only for radical, -tu-
suffixed,and (as we shall see presently)-ti-suffixedinfinitives.
government of objects, the radical/-tu type of Vedic clearly does not meet all these
criteria. This type retains remnants of nominal inflection, and shows a lexically
determined complementation clearly characteristic of IE nominal derivation. It is,
however, with respect to object government that we find perhaps the most significant
evidence for the relative lateness of radical and -tu-suffixedinfinitives in Vedic.
Both radical and -tu-suffixedinfinitives continue to representproductive types of
derivation in the Vedic nominal system. It has long been recognized that the
productivity of these formations in purely nominal derivation, as well as in the
formation of infinitives, accounts for the interesting situation whereby both forms
can function syntactically as either nominals or verbals (i.e. infinitives) at the
surface. With the exception of infinitives in -taye (which will be discussed presently),
this is not the case with any other Vedic infinitive. Consider the following from the
Rig Veda:
(1) a. suiiryasyasarndrsi 10.37.6 '(in) the sight of the sun'
(gen.) (loc. noun)
b. ... jyok ca suiiryandrse 1.23.21 'and to see the sun for a long time'
(acc.) (inf.)
... kavlnr ichami samdrse ... 3.38.1 'I wish to see the wise men'
(ace.) (inf.)
(2) a. vasunam datum 5.36.1 'to give wealth'
(gen.) (acc. noun)
b. etavad ... bhuyo va datum 5.79.10 'to give so much or more'
(acc.) (acc.) (inf.)
This dual function, added to the array of nominal characteristicscited above, seems
to point to a situation wherein the development from verbal noun to infinitive can
actually be seen in progress in the radical/-tu formation of Vedic. One might
consider forms of these two types which do show verbal government as PRE-
INFINITIVES, because of their ambivalent character. In his monograph on the suffix
-tu in Sanskrit, Renou (1937:20 ff.) points out that the various case forms of the
verbal nouns in -tu come to function as infinitives at progressive stages in the
development of that language.8 Such would tend to corroborate the position that
the usage of, at least, the -tu-suffixedformation as an infinitive is a late innovation.
It is important to note that if this is a development which is indeed in progress in
Vedic, the use of radical and -tu formations as infinitives would not appear to
represent an inherited phenomenon.
5. Up to this point I have not mentioned the Vedic infinitives in -taye, which
have developed from a -ti-suffixed verbal noun. There has been some disagreement
in the literature as to the antiquity of this infinitive within Vedic. It is commonly
considered archaic, e.g. by Arnold (223) and more recently by Sgall (176). Arnold's
assumption of archaism was based on the proposed statistical preponderance of
these forms in the oldest parts of the Rig Veda. He noted that the use of this
formation, while very common in the oldest hymns of the Rig Veda, gradually
8
In his discussionof the accusativeinfinitivein -turn,Renou (24) goes so far as to suggest that
'l'infinitif en -turnest dans le RV., le moins solide des trois; malgre les parallelesexterieuresi
l'indien tout laisse croire qu'en vedique il repose sur une creation recente.'
diminished in the course of the Vedic period. For his period A he gave 200 occur-
rences; for period B, 60; and for period C, 4. However, Arnold apparently did not
distinguish forms in -taye which function as infinitives from dative case verbal
nouns in -ti which are formally identical.
Others have recognized the differenceand have attempted to make the distinction.
Thus Delbriick (1874:224-5) gave 61 occurrences of infinitives in -taye, while
Sgall (176) accepts an absolute maximum of 21. Using Delbriick's list of infinitives
in -taye as an upper limit, the relative statistics on these forms give a far different
picture of the situation.9 Of Delbriick's forms, approximately 40 occur in period A,
and 18 in period B. Since the material included in A is about twice that in B, it
would seem that the infinitives in -taye representa moderately productive formation
throughout most of the pre-Brahmanic Vedic period.
Thus the statistical evidence does not support the general assumption that the
use of -taye as an infinitive suffix is a particularly archaic formation. On the
contrary, the linguistic evidence suggests that -taye is actually a late formation,
more properly classed with the pre-infinitive type discussed above.
In pointing out the basic flaw in Arnold's statistics on the occurrence of infinitives
in -taye, i.e. his inclusion of dative case verbal nouns, I have already insinuated a
significant similarity between infinitives in -taye and the radical/-tu forms. Like
(sam)drse and datum in 1-2 above, a word like pitaye can function syntactically as
either a noun or a verb. Consider the following examples:10
(3) a. sitiprsta vahatdmmadhvoandhaso vivaksanasyapitaye 8.1.25
(gen. sg.)
b. o su ghrsviradhasoydtana andhansipitaye 7.59.5
(acc. pl.)
It may be recalled that the radical and -tu infinitives occur in lexically determined
complementation. The suffix -taye fits readily into this system. Only five roots form
infinitives with -taye (san, vi, is, av, pi), and these never occur with radical or
-tu-suffixed infinitive endings. Consequently, I am led to assume that a -ti suffix
represents a third lexically conditioned alternant of this late, productive infinitive
system of Vedic.
6. In suggesting that the radical, -tu, and -ti infinitives are late (perhaps original)
and productive Vedic formations, I have been assuming that all other Vedic
infinitives represent a significantly older element in the language. Let us consider
some evidence for this position. For ease of reference, from this point on I will use
the terms Type A for all these alleged old infinitive types, and Type B for those
which I assume to be more recent.
First, the very limitations of occurrence on Type A forms suggest antiquity.
I have already noted the general paucity of the alleged old forms in contrast with
9 I prefer Delibruck'slist, because Sgall's strikes me as overly cautious. Unless a form shows
an overt accusative object, Sgall does not accept it as a sure infinitive.In any case, the relative
statistics for Sgall's or Delbruck's lists are similar.
10Geldner 1951 translates 8.1.25 '(Dich) soll ... das weissruckige [Falbenpaar]herfahren
zum Trunk des sussen, redselig machenden Trankes!', and 7.59.5 'Kommet fein her, um die
Somasafte zu trinken ...'
the subset of formations just discussed. lMoreover,many of these suffixes occur with
a very limited number of roots. Such limitations suggest that these infinitives
actually represent archaisms maintained in certain formulaic contexts.1l Further-
more, contrary to the situation noted among Type B Vedic infinitives, the deriva-
tional morphemes which have come to be re-interpreted as elements of infinitive
suffixes in Type A formations are themselves archaic and unproductive in the
context of the nominal systems, e.g. the s-stems reflected in -ase and -se, and the
-r/n stems of -sani, -mane,l2 -vane, and -tani.
A third characteristic of these alleged archaic infinitives which may insinuate
antiquity, and again one not shared with Type B, is a tendency toward a closer
association with, or better integration into, the finite verb system proper. While the
radical/-tu/-ti infinitives are invariably root formations in a synchronic sense,
several of the Type A infinitives show verb stems. The Type B infinitive bhlartave,
11Benveniste(1935a:106-7), in his discussion of the single infinitivesuffix-tari, suggests that

'le flottementdes autres exemples (of forms in -tari) ... tient sans doute a l'archaismed'un type
tombe en desuetude hormis quelques formules anciennes ...'
12 The number and, indeed, the very existence of Vedic infinitivesin -mane has long been a
matter of discussion in Indic philology. Wackernagel & Debrunner (1954:760) distinguish

between the unique suffix-accentedform vidmdne(occurring twice) and the more commonly
occurring root-accented forms trbnane, ddmane, d/,drmane, hhdrmane. They suggest that forms
like ddmanereflect original root-accented neuter abstracts in -man-, and that their infinitival
usage reflectsconfusion with the more ancientand more genuine infinitiveformationrepresented
in vidmdne.The authenticity of vidmdneis apparently bolstered by the presence of the less
ambiguous suffix-accentedinfinitivesin -vane.
Whetherthe confusion between -maneand -maneis ancient or modern is difficultto establish.
Delbruck (220) lists all forms with this suffix as infinitives, but most later scholars tend to
distinguishthe two types. Thus Geldner translatesvidmdneas 'zu wissen', but ddmaneas 'zum
Schenken'. (He consistently treats the root-accented forms as nouns.) Grassmann'streatment
(1964) is in agreementwith Geldner's,and Sgall (183 ff.) goes so far as to question the infinitive
status of all Vedic forms with this suffix, including vidmdne.He notes, with many before him,
that the correspondence vidmdne,Gk. idmenai is unsure. Greek -ai cannot reflect a dative
ending, but is rather an enclitic emphatic particle.
It is important to remember that an Indic -man- suffix is associated with several different
derivational types, e.g. suffix-accented agent nouns, root-accented neuter abstracts (which
Wackernagel-Debrunner1954, at least etymologically,associates with forms like ddmane),and
heterocliticaction nouns. Benveniste1935b has shown that it is with the last mentioned of these
noun types-the -r\n- stems, still productive in Hittite-that the IE infinitive suffixes *-sen-,
*-ten-, *-men-, *-wen- are to be identified.
Of the Vedic infinitives in -mane/-mdne,vidmdneis the only good candidate for derivation
from the heterocliticstem type reflectedin the Greek infinitivesin -men(ai)and the Hittite verbal
substantivesin -mar/n-.It is not unreasonableto speculatethat vidmdnrepresentsthe endingless
normal-grade'cas indefini' seen in Gk. -men(ai), and probably in Hitt. -wan. The final -e may
well representa secondaryextension of the dative ending, which appearsto have become closely
associated with early Indic infinitive formations.
Some of the alleged root-accented infinitives in -mane show other inflected forms, e.g. gen.
ddmanasalongside dat. ddmane.This would appear to offer difficultyfor my analysis of Vedic
infinitives.Inflection should be restrictedto Type B infinitives. However, if ddmaneetc. reflect
root-accented neuter n-stems, they are not to be identifiedwith Type A infinitivesin any case.
As the precedingdiscussionhas shown, it is questionablethat these forms are indeed infinitives;
and if they are, they would represent a development specific to Indic. It appears, then, that
vidmdneis the only Vedic form in question which is relevant to the presentdiscussion.
e.g., representsthe straightforwardre-interpretationof the structureROOT(bhar-) +

DERIV-SUFFIX (-tav-) + CASE ENDING (-e), producing the structure ROOT (bhar-) +
INFINITIVE SUFFIX (-tave). The Type A form grnmsani, on the other hand, shows
something more than simple morphological re-interpretation. The new INFINITIVE
SUFFIX (-sani), which reflects an earlier DERIV-SUFFIX(-san-) + CASE ENDING (-i), is
preceded not by a root, as is expected etymologically, but by a present stem, grml-.
The fact that verbal aspect stems have replaced the root of the original nominal
formation in forms like grnmisani would appear to bespeak a more ancient dis-
association from the nominal system than is the case with Type B forms like
bhartave.
Finally, it is well known that some Vedic infinitives, especially -dhyai and -sani,
act as finite verbs in an imperative function (Brugmann-Delbriick 11:3/2.939). Yet
the hundreds of occurrences of the three Type B formations offer no such finite
usage.
7. Since the Vedic infinitives have cognate formations scattered throughout the
non-finite verb systems of several IE dialects, any suggestion that the Vedic
infinitives represent at least two distinct systems holds considerable implications
for Indo-European in general. It remains, then, to see whether the morphologic and
syntactic characteristics which were the basis for my suggesting two systems of
Vedic infinitives are shared with their counterpart formations elsewhere.
I have noted above that the Vedic infinitives of Type A were at times formed with
verbal, i.e. aspectual, stems. This is almost the rule for Type A infinitives in the
other dialects where they occur. Avestan forms in -dyai commonly occur with
thematic stems, and at times with such clearly verbal stems as the causative (-aya-,
1 x), change of state (-ya-, 3 x), and reduplicated (2 x). Moreover, the Avestan
infinitives in -ayhe (cf. Skt. -ase) show verbal stems, with only one exception.13
Tocharian -tsi, which may be a reflexof the Type A suffix *-dhyi,l4 is regularlyadded
to a verbal stem, the present stem in East Tocharian and the subjunctive stem in
West Tocharian. In Greek, all infinitives are Type A formations. These infinitives
have come to be associated with the verbal system so completely that they are in
every case differentiated formally for verbal aspect and voice, and for thematicity
in the present. Similarly, the Latin infinitives, also Type A formations, have become
totally integrated into the verbal system. The active and medio-passive endings -re
13 For the most part,
I accept Benveniste'sinterpretation(1935a:62 ff.) for the morphological
analysis of Avestan infinitives.
14This etymology has only recently gained acceptance. Toch. -tsi was generallyassumed to
be a reflex of the infinitivesuffix *-ti (Pedersen 1941:217, Krause 1952:1.111, Winter 1962:21).
However, Evangelisti (1950:132ff.) has noted that Toch. ts fairly regularlyreflectsIE dh, and
has suggested the etymology *dhydi > Toch. -tsi. A number of other scholars (e.g. Pedersen
1951:7, Van Windekens1962) have accepted his etymology. But even if Evangelisti'setymology
is not correct, Tocharianneed not create a problemfor my generalanalysis. Cowgill has pointed
out to me that, since the Tocharian subjunctive stem often equals the root, West Tocharian
infinitivestems of this type might well reflect the archaic formation, root plus a *-t-type suffix.
This is comparableto the regularsituation for Vedic Type B infinitives,as well as that for Type B
infinitives in other languages (see ?8 below). In such an analysis, the regular appearanceof a
verb stem in the East Tocharianinfinitivewould seem to attest a late internalinnovation in this
younger of the two Tocharian languages.
and -ra, which reflect dative-locatives of s-stem verbal nouns, are synchronically
associated with verb stems. Lat. duicereis surely to be interpreted synchronically as
PRES. THEMATIC STEM duce- + INFINITIVE ENDING-re, and laudare as PRES. STEM
laudad+ -re.15The only apparent exception to Type A origin for Latin infinitives is
the third conjugation medio-passive formation, which I will discuss separately
below.
Certain Type A Vedic infinitives are also characterizedby use in finite, specifically
imperative, contexts. Similarly, Avestan infinitives of Type A, but never of Type B
(Benveniste 1935a:70) can function as imperatives, as can Greek infinitives in
general. The Latin historical infinitive represents a similar finite-like usage.
The antiquity of the derivational suffixesin the Vedic Type A infinitives was noted
above. It is trivial to point out that this fact speaks for the morphologic antiquity
of all Type A infinitives cognate with those of Vedic. Yet there is one further
significant point concerning those derivational suffixes reflected in Type A infinitive
endings. Since general practice has been to discuss all possible infinitive formants
as a group, it would indeed be significant if some kind of formal similarity could be
shown to exist among some subset of these suffixes, one which has itself been
posited on the basis of some other types of evidence. This is apparently the case for
Type A forms, since all these forms can be understood in terms of four suffix types:
an s-type, a u/m- type, a t-type, and the heteroclitic -er/n- suffix. The u/m- and
t-types are apparently uniquely inherited in the -toi and -voi infinitives of Avestan.
Any of the first three suffixes may be compounded with the -er/n- suffix, which may
itself occur separately, as in the Greek thematic infinitives in -en-and, at least
according to Benveniste (1935b:145ff.), in the old medio-passive infinitives of
Latin in -ier.
8. Just as the Type A infinitives show common traits throughout Indo-European,
Type B infinitives are similarly comparable. Outside Indic, Type B non-finite
verbals occur only in Avestan,16 in Balto-Slavic in the form of supines and infini-
tives, and as the Latin supine. Leaving the radical infinitive aside for the moment,
let us consider the formations in -tu and -ti.
In contrast with the archaic suffixes of Type A, these two suffixes are late, and
continue to be productive well into the individual histories of several dialects. In
15 The process of re-interpretationwhich accounts for the new Latin infinitives probably
begins when s-stem nouns like Pre-Latin *douk+ es + i are analogically re-analysed as
*douk-e+si on the basis of related thematic verbal forms of the type (2sg. pres.) *douk-e+s >
ducis (3sg. pres.) *douk-e + t > ducit. This newly established verbal suffix -si (> -re) becomes
productive and is extended to all verbal stems, giving laudareetc. Although I will not examine
the developments here, the processes which produce the Greek infinitives, while more compli-
cated, are similar. For a more extensive discussion of the processes through which the Greek
and Latin infinitive systems are derived, see Jeffers(1972:73 if.)
16 I single out Avestan within Iranian,since the Old Persianinfinitivesuffix-tanaiyis generally
associated with the compound Type A suffix -termn-occurring in Vedic -tari and Hitt. -anna.
But Cowgill has pointed out to me that the Persianinfinitivemay be a Type B infinitive,*-tayai,
with -n- for -y- either by dissimilation and/or by contamination with relics of Type A forms
such as *-manai and *-vanai. This etymology for -tanaiy is particularlyattractivein the context
presentedhere, because the Persian suffix is added to the root,
of the analysis of IE infinitives^
which would be expected for a Type B infinitive.
Vedic they are invariably associated with simple roots, as is the case wherever these
suffixes occur. Avestan -tae (from a -ti-suffixed verbal noun) occurs regularly with
a simple root-in clear contrast with such Type A forms as -ayhe, which are
generally associated with verbal stems. Thus harstae 'to let go' shows a root
preceding the infinitive suffix -t5e; but vaenayhe 'to see' and vaocayhe 'to speak'
show present and aorist stems respectively. In Latin the supine is, to a great extent,
morphologically differentiatedfrom the regular infinitives. In terms of a synchronic
description of Latin, supines such as ductum and monitum must be considered
radical formations in contrast with the corresponding infinitives, duicereand monere,
which clearly show verbal stems.
The Balto-Slavic situation is comparable, but somewhat more complicated. For
root verbs, the infinitive suffix is added either directly to the root, as in OCS by-ti
'to be', sta-ti 'to stand', Lith. bui-ti'to be'; or it is added to an extended form of the
root, as in OCS ziv-a-ti 'to call', Lith. mieg-o-ti 'to sleep'. Historically, the former
type must represent the original formation, ROOT + DERIV-SUFFIX -tU/-ti + CASE
ENDING; it is formally cognate with the -tu/-ti infinitives of Vedic etc., and with the
morphologically identical abstract nouns of this type found throughout Indo-
European. For derived verbs, the infinitive suffix is added to a stem which in-
corporates one of a number of so-called THEMATIC vowels, e.g. glagola- in glagolati
'to speak', mine- in mTneti'to think', moli- in moliti 'to beg'. Similarly, Baltic
(i.e. Lithuanian) shows stems in -e-, -y-, -uo- etc.
It has generally been assumed that these vowel-final stems of extended root verbs
and derived verbs are to be considered verbal stems. In Slavic, e.g., the infinitive
stem regularly agrees with the aorist stem with respect to the thematic vowel in
verbs which show such a vowel in the infinitive (inf. glagolati, videti, moliti, zuvati;
aor. glagolaxu, videxu, molixu, zuvaxu). Hence, in a synchronic description of
Slavic, these vowels may well be considered some kind of verbal thematic stem
vowels. Since a similar situation obtains for Baltic, it would appear that the formal
development of certain infinitives in Balto-Slavic, all Type B formations, parallels
the general development of Type A infinitives. However, an examination of the
situation in Baltic and Slavic shows that the similarity of development is quite
superficial.
It will be rememberedthat the development of formal association between Type A
infinitives and finite verb forms comes about in two ways. Either a tense/aspect
stem is introduced in place of the root of an old verbal noun formation; or else an
old derived nominal is re-interpretedmorphologically as if it did indeed incorporate
a genuine tense/aspect stem. This is not at all the case in Balto-Slavic.
In general, the thematic vowels of Balto-Slavic, particularly in the case of derived
verbs, do nothing more than group verbs into certain formal classes. Neither the
infinitives nor infinitive stems of Balto-Slavic are verbal in the manner of Type A
infinitive stems, which actually carry tense/aspect information. Consider the Slavic
situation. Although aorist/imperfect and infinitive stems of individual Slavic verbs
agree in the occurrence of-a-, -e-, or -i-, this does not imply that the infinitive stem
is a tense/aspect stem; thus the occurrence of these thematic vowels in the x-aorist
is a uniquely Slavic development. In the IE sigmatic aorist, it is an -s- suffix which
creates an aorist stem, at least in part. Likewise, in Slavic, it is the reflex of this -s-,
-xls-, that gives an aorist stem. The thematic vowels differentiate the verb as to
morphological class, but do not in themselves create a tenselaspect stem: molix- is
an aorist stem; moli- alone gives no information as to tense or aspect. (In general,
Baltic thematic vowels are similarly classificatory.) That the infinitive stem in
Balto-Slavic is not to be interpreted as a tense/aspect stem becomes especially clear
if verbs like vresti 'to throw' and iti 'to go' are considered. For verbs such as these,
the infinitive stem is significantlydifferentfrom that of either the present or the aorist.
Although the infinitive suffixes -ti and -tu in Balto-Slavic have been extended in
occurrence beyond the range of the basic and original nominal formation, this
extension is not to be associated or indeed compared with developments among
Type A infinitives, where there is a definite tendency toward integration into the
formal system of the finite verb through formal identification with finite tense/aspect
stems.
Another relevant point concerning the Balto-Slavic infinitive is to be noted. In
Baltic and Slavic, the object of the supine is always in the genitive. Such a syntactic
feature is never noted with any Type A infinitive. This Balto-Slavic characteristic
is apparently to be compared with the dual government of Vedic Type B infinitives
which was discussed in ??4-5 above.
9. I have deferred further discussion of the radical infinitives because of an
apparent problem concerning the Latin medio-passive infinitives of the third
conjugation, such as agl 'to be driven', ducl 'to be led'. If these forms are indeed
radical infinitives, as is generally assumed (Buck 1933:305, Leumann et al.
1963:238), they are the only formations of that type outside Indo-Iranian. More-
over, if the radical infinitive is a relatively late development in Indo-Iranian, as the
Vedic evidence suggests, it would be difficult to explain the introduction of such a
formation into an apparently well-established older infinitive system in Latin.
The question then arises: Are these Latin forms truly cognate with the Indo-
Iranian radical infinitives ? Are they, indeed, radical infinitives at all ? I think not.
If we were to consider these forms within the over-all infinitive system of Latin, they
would demand an internal explanation, even if the Indo-Iranian radical infinitives
did not exist, because they represent quite irregularforms in a very regular system.
All Latin active infinitives are in -re; and all medio-passive, but for the third
conjugation, show -rt. A more regular development would give forms like *ager,
*duceri for agl, ducl. But a suffix *-er would be inconsistent with all the other
medio-passive infinitives which show a pattern of sequential long vowels (-ar!, -er,
-tn).17
17 The possibility that *-er! would have been not only paradigmatically but also phonetically
unstable might also be considered. Under certain conditions, Latin sequences of the type -_
are altered to ^ by a phenomenon known as IAMBIC SHORTENING (e.g. Gk. ego '', but
Lat. ego). One situation in which iambic shortening appears to be operative is as follows:
x'. x ... > x*-^ x ... Although the shortening of a long vowel in a final syllable is not
absolutely regular in such a situation, it does occur, especially in cretic (x_) words (Drexler
1967:52-3). (The hypothetical *ducerwould be such a word.) If xK x ... is a genuine context
for iambic shortening, many third declension medio-passive infinitives would present prosodic
difficulties when followed by word-initial accent. The normal shortening of the final vowel which
operates in other circumstances would be unfortunate here, because the final -! is perhaps the
most characteristic feature of the Latin medio-passive infinitive.
It might be suggested that the inconsistent third declension infinitives were

eliminated through syncope. Then we would expect forms like *agri, ducri-or,
more likely, *axl (<*agesei), *duxix (<*doukesei), since syncope apparently
precedes rhotacism in Latin. But any of these forms would be especially aberrant,
and some (e.g. *djuxi)would be homophonous with the Isg. perfect; hence their
replacement would not be unlikely. If syncope did indeed affect the mnedio-
passive infinitives of thematic verbs, a suffix -i would be the regular result in a few
cases, e.g. texere, texi; capessere, capessl etc.18 These verbs may well have served
as models for the replacement of the difficult *axi, *diuxtetc. with agi, duicietc.19
Although any specific explanations suggested here may be difficult to confirm, and
may not be entirely convincing, I am confident that the -i infinitives of Latin are
secondary, and that the only genuine radical infinitives are to be found in Indo-
Iranian.
10. It appears that the many factors suggesting a chronological distinction in

Vedic hold throughout Indo-European. However, if the Vedic Type B infinitives
are a late innovation, how are they to be viewed relative to Type B infinitives in the
other IE dialects? It should be reiterated that Type B infinitives are restricted to
certain dialects. Thus, one might suggest that the development of Type B infinitives
represents a kind of morpho-syntactic isogloss-a late development, restricted to a
certain IE dialect area. Consequently, one need not assume (with Brugmann) that
Greek, e.g., at any stage of its prehistory, knew a series of infinitives in -tu and/or -ti,
which it subsequently lost without a trace. At the same time, it is not necessary to
suggest (with Meillet) that the cross-dialectal similarities of Type B infinitives are
to be overlooked, and relegated to virtually accidental parallel developments.
To support the assertion that Type B infinitives represent a late isogloss, it would
be helpful to show that they actually appear late in the dialects where they are
attested, or that they must be late in that they overlie some older system of Type A
infinitives. Unfortunately, such evidence is impossible in the case of Balto-Slavic,
since only Type B forms are attested in these dialects. This is not surprising, since
our documentation dates only from the 9th century A.D. However, the older
languages, Avestan and Latin, do show evidence for the lateness of Type B infini-
tives. Avestan -toe is restricted to the Later Avesta; it has totally replaced the
common -ayhe and the other rarer active infinitives of the older Gathic Avestan
texts. The only other active infinitive which occurs in the Later Avesta is the radical
one, and this is to be expected in light of the Indic situation.20
18 J
am especially grateful to Warren Cowgillfor pointing out the special relevance of these
verbs for my suggestion that Latin third declension medio-passive infinitives may reflect
syncopation.
19It might also be suggested that the paradigmaticallyunfortunateforms in *-eri have been
replaced by an inflected form of a thematic verbal noun. An etymology associating the -i
infinitives with the locative of a thematic noun type was suggested by Kent (1946:130) in an
attempt to relate these infinitivesto the thematic accusativeinfinitivesof Osco-Umbrian.
20 All sure examples of -voi and -toi occur in the Gathas; -dyai is the only infinitive ending
which occurs in both Gathic and Later Avestan. Like Vedic -dhyai, it is a medio-passive
infinitive (see fn. 3), and may have endured due to its special association with a particular
inflectional category of the finite verb system.
Although Latin shows both regular infinitives and supines at all periods (i.e.
forms of both Types A and B), Early Latin evidence suggests that the supine does
represent a late element among the non-finite forms of that language. Consider
these two representative phrases from Plautus:
(4) a. venerat ... aurumpetere '(he) had come to ask for gold' (Bacchides 631)
b. it petitum ... gratiam '(if a rich man) goes to ask for favor' (Aululuria
247)
The infinitive, as well as the supine, is used to denote purpose with verbs of motion
in the oldest texts, a context in which Classical Latin offers only supines. Early
Latin shows several examples of the infinitive used in this manner;21 and it appears
that the supine, perhaps already established as a specialized type of complementizer,
is secondarily introduced into a Latin system where the infinitive occurs in the full
range of verbal complement environments, including those associated with the
supine in Classical Latin.
11. In this paper I have not attempted to draw any conclusions about matters of
absolute chronology with respect to the ancient Type A infinitives. This matter will
surely be clarified by integrating what is known about the Hittite verbal noun/
infinitives in -essar, -atar, -war, and -mar with our understanding of the origin and
development of Type A infinitives outside Anatolian. This is, however, beyond the
limited goal of the present paper, which is simply to suggest that at least two
distinct periods of infinitival development must be recognized among those IE
noun types which exhibit infinitival reflexes in several of the dialects.
12. Finally, I wish to make a few remarks with respect to developments in
Germanic, Armenian, Osco-Umbrian, and Celtic. I have disregarded these major
dialects thus far, because they are not informative with respect to the general IE
developments with which this paper is primarily concerned.
We can only assume that the development of Germanic infinitives from sub-
stantives in *-no-, of the Armenian infinitives from substantives in *-lo-, and of the
Osco-Umbrian infinitives in *-o- must be dialect-specific. Each formation is unique
to its dialect,22and all three formations show thematic noun suffixes. Neither of the
two more widely attested infinitive types discussed in this paper include suffixes of
the thematic type. Thus, not only do the individual suffixes lack external corre-
spondence, but the suffix type itself is otherwise alien to infinitive formations.
Our acquaintance with Germanic and Armenian is quite late, well into the period
of dialectal autonomy. Consequently, it is perfectly reasonable that any older
infinitive(s) may have been replaced. It is surprising, then, that these late-attested,
language-specific formations have often been discussed in the context of more
21
A more complete list of occurrencesof this Old Latin INFINITIVEOF PURPOSE is found in
Bennett (1910:418-19). Infinitiveof purpose is Bennett'sterm for the kind of usage apparentin
4a. He seems to consider this usage quite ancient (366, 418), as do Ernout & Thomas
(1964:260).
22 Armenian's usage of *-lo- in an infinitive is unique. However, a few dialects-Slavic,
Tocharian, and Armenianitself-show predicativeparticiplesin -lo- (cf. Arm. inf. gorcel, part.
gorceal); Meillet does not consider this participial usage ancient (1936:263, 1937:97). Cf.
substantivesin Lat. -lus, Gk. -lo-.
general IE infinitival development (Brugmann-Delbriick 1906:11/1.639ff., Sgall

1958:143, Voyles 1970:70). Although we know Balto-Slavic from an equally recent
period, our understanding of the prehistory of the infinitives of these dialects is
significantly clarified by information gleaned through comparison with other
dialects that show cognate infinitives. No such external information is available
for the Germanic, Armenian, or Osco-Umbrian infinitives.
Celtic presents a special problem, since it does not possess a true infinitive:
so-called VERBALSUBSTANTIVESoccur where one might expect an infinitive in other
IE languages. Despite the insistence of some on the existence of a Celtic category
INFINITIVE(Windisch 1879, Vendryes 1914:247, Pedersen-Lewis 1937:312), the
major characteristicsof the verbal substantive are consistent with those of any noun.
It might be suggested that the Celtic situation reflects the remnant of a very early
stage in the development of IE infinitives; but it seems unlikely to me that this is
correct.
We have seen that all IE infinitives are the result of the re-interpretation, as a
verbal form, of some derived abstract verbal noun formation; and that there tend
to be limitations on the formal types involved in such a development at any given
time. In Celtic, the verbal substantive very often is neither a derived formation nor
an abstract action noun of the type that occurs in Type A and B infinitives, and
there is virtually no limitation on what stem types may occur. The other IE
languages show a systematic extension of some (or some small group of) nominal
suffix(es) in the creation of a new morphological category, the infinitive; but Celtic
at best appears merely to have developed a set of verb/noun associations, which
need not even incorporate an element of formal identity (e.g., sere is the verbal
substantive to caraid 'loves'). Moreover, many so-called verbal substantives in
Celtic only secondarily designate an abstract verbal notion. In another context, the
meaning is basic (sere is the noun meaning 'love', as well as the verbal substantive
signifying 'the act of loving').
Certain stem types which occur in the formation of Celtic verbal substantives
have been linked with infinitive formations in other IE dialects, such as -tu in
OIr. morad 'to magnify'. Although the relation of stem type to verbal substantive
suffixes is not as random as Thurneysen's account (1909) makes it appear, Celtic
does show some verbal substantives which reflect virtually every derived nominal
formation that it has inherited.
Admittedly, much is yet to be learned about the verbal substantive and its
origins; but I am at present disinclined to believe that the Celtic situation is ancient,
and I tentatively agree with Gagnepain (1963:399), who said: 'II ne semble pas
temeraire de penser ... que le nom d'action [of Celtic] ait du, par une sorte de
suppletisme, assumer les fonctions d'un infinitif disparu.'
REFERENCES
ARNOLD,E. V. 1897. Sketch of the historicalgrammarof the Rig and ArtharvaVedas.
JAOS 18.203-353.
BENNETT,C. 1910. Syntax of Early Latin, I: the verb. Boston.
BENVENISTE, E. 1935a. Les infinitifs avestiques. Paris.
- - . 1935b. Origines de la formation des noms en indo-europeen. Paris.
BOPP, F. 1816. Uber das Conjugationssystem der Sanskrit Sprache. Frankfurt.

BRUGMANN,K. [and B. DELBRUjCK.] 1897-1916. Grundriss der vergleichende Gram-
matik der indo-germanischen Sprachen. 2nd ed. Strassburg.
BUCK,C. D. 1933. Comparative grammar of Greek and Latin. Chicago.
DELBRUCK, B. 1874. Das altindische verbum. Halle.
DREXLER, H. 1967. Einfuhrung in die romische Metrik. Darmstadt.
ERNOUT,A., and F. THOMAS. 1964. Syntaxe latine. 2nd ed. Paris.
EVANGELISTI, E. 1950. I modi di articolazione indoeuropei nelle palatalizzazioni
tochariche. Ricerche Linguistiche 1.132-40.
GAGNEPAIN, J. 1963. Le syntaxe du nom verbale dans les langues celtiques, I: Irlandais.
Paris.
GELDNER, K. F. 1951. Der Rigveda, aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsch ubersetzt. (Harvard
Oriental Series 33-35.) Cambridge, Mass.
GRASSMANN,H. 1964. Worterbuch zum Rigveda. 4th ed. Wiesbaden.
JEFFERS,R. 1972. The infinitives of Indo-European. Cornell University dissertation.
KENT, R. 1946. The forms of Latin. Baltimore.
KRAUSE,W. 1952. Westtocharische Grammatik, I. Heidelberg.
KURYLOWICZ, J. 1964. The inflectional categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg.
LEUMANN, M.; J. B. HOFMANN; and A. SZANTYR. 1963. Lateinische Grammatik, I.
Munich.
MEILLET, A. 1922. Les dialectes indo-europeens. Paris.
. 1931. Les cas employes a l'infinitif en indo-europeen. BSL 32:2.188-93.
. 1936. Esquisse d'une grammaire comparee de l'armenien classique. 2nd ed.
Vienna.
-- . 1937. Introduction a l'etude comparative des langues indo-europeennes. 8th ed.
Paris.
PEDERSEN, H. 1941. Tocharisch vom Gesichtspunkt der indoeuropaischen Sprachver-
gleichung. Copenhagen.
--. 1951. Die gemeinindoeuropaischen und die vorindoeuropaischen Verschlusslaute.
Copenhagen.
--, and H. LEWIS.1937. A concise comparative Celtic grammar. Gottingen.
PROKOSCH, E. 1939. A comparative Germanic grammar. Philadelphia.
RENOU, L. 1937. Monographies sanskrites, II: le suffixe -tu et la constitution des
infinitives en -toh, -tave, -turn. Paris.
SGALL,P. 1958. Der Infinitiv im Rigveda. (Acta Universitatis Carolinae, philologica, II.)
Prague.
THURNEYSEN, R. 1909. Handbuch des Alt-Irischen. Heidelberg.
VANWINDEKENS, A. J. 1962. Etudes de grammaire historique et comparee du tocharien.
(Annali dell' Instituto di Napoli, sezione linguistica, 4.) Naples.
VENDRYES, J. 1914. Sur l'emploi de l'infinitif au genitif dans quelques langues indo-
europeennes. MSL 16.247-60.
VOYLES,J. B. 1970. The infinitive and participle in Indo-European: a syntactic re-
construction. Linguistics 56.68-91.
WACKERNAGEL, J., and A. DEBRUNNER. 1954. Altindische Grammatik, 11:2. Gottingen.
WATKINS,C. 1962. The Indo-European origins of the Celtic verb. Dublin.
WINDISCH,E. 1879. Kurzgefasste irische Grammatik. Leipzig.
WINTER,W. 1962. Die Vertretung indogermanischer Dentale im Tocharischen. Indo-
germanische Forschungen 67.16-35.
[Received 26 February 1974.]

Remarks On Indo-European Infinitives - Jeffers 1975

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Remarks On Indo-European Infinitives - Jeffers 1975

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Linguistic Society of America

1. Most major works on general Indo-European linguistics, and most historical

concentrate its attention on linguistic origins, and not on linguistic development.'

2. Before proceeding with the discussion, I should perhaps briefly elaborate

2 The unique infinitive formations of Armenian, Germanic, and Osco-Umbrian, as well as

3. As stated above, it is necessary to begin such an investigation as this with an

One significant but systematic exception does exist, however. A monosyllabic

11Benveniste(1935a:106-7), in his discussion of the single infinitivesuffix-tari, suggests that

matter of discussion in Indic philology. Wackernagel & Debrunner (1954:760) distinguish

e.g., representsthe straightforwardre-interpretationof the structureROOT(bhar-) +

It might be suggested that the inconsistent third declension infinitives were

10. It appears that the many factors suggesting a chronological distinction in

general IE infinitival development (Brugmann-Delbriick 1906:11/1.639ff., Sgall

BOPP, F. 1816. Uber das Conjugationssystem der Sanskrit Sprache. Frankfurt.

You might also like