Miguel Villanueva Svensson - Anticausative-Inchoative Verbs in The Northern Indo-European

Anticausative-inchoative verbs in the
northern Indo-European languages
1. Baltic, Slavic and Germanic have a productive class of

anticausative and inchoative verbs prototypically characterized by a
Historical Linguistics downloaded from www.vr-elibrary.de by GÖTEBORGS UNIVERSITET on August, 3 2018
nasal present, e.g. Lith. lìp-ti, pres. li--p-a, pret. lìp-o “stick to”, OCS
pri-l(p)-nǋ-ti, pres. -l(p)-ne-tъ, aor. -lp-e “id.”, Go. af-lif-na-n, pres.
-lif-ni-þ, pret. -lif-no-da “be left over”. In this article I will address the
origin and early development of this “northern Indo-European” class.
Two assumptions underlie this study. First, the functional value of
nasal presents in Baltic, Slavic and Germanic contrasts markedly with
that of the rest of Indo-European (where nasal presents are
characteristically transitive) and is thus likely to rest on a common inno-
vation. It follows that the facts of these languages should necessarily be
discussed together. Through this article I will systematically refer to
For personal use only.
“Northern Indo-European” as an intermediate node between Proto-Indo-

European and Balto-Slavic and Germanic. Although such an approach is
bound to be controversial, I hope to show that it can be a fruitful one.
Second, it is important to view the northern anticausative-inchoative
verbs as a class, clearly defined not only by its morphology, but also by
its meaning and by a specific set of derivational patterns. As a con-
sequence, due attention is paid not only to the nasal presents as such, but
also to other formations regularly associated to this class (specially the
Slavic thematic aorist), as well as to other present stem formations that
occasionally take the place of nasal presents (most notably an archaic
layer of inchoative e/o-presents in Slavic).1
2. Baltic anticausative-inchoative verbs. In Baltic nasal presents are in
complementary distribution with another present stem formation: the
sta-presents. Together they conform a single and productive class of
anticausative-inchoative verbs, there being no difference in function or
derivational patterns between nasal presents like plìsti, pliñta “spread
–––––––
1
For reasons of space, no effort is made to discuss in detail the vast literature on these
issues. In this article I will only be concerned with the productive anticausative-
inchoative nasal presents, not with relics of “normal” transitive nasal presents like Lith.
jùngti, jùngia “yoke, unite” (with -n- resegmented as part of the root), ORu. kriti, krnju
“buy” (: Ved. krīṇti, OIr. crenaid “id.”), or Gmc. *winnan “win” (: Ved. vanóti “id.”).
Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

© Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen 2011 [2012]
34 Miguel Villanueva Svensson
(intr.)” (: plsti, plẽčia “widen”), pa-bùsti, -buñda “wake up” (: budti,

bùdi “be awake”) and sta-presents like liñkti, liñksta “bend (intr.)” (:
leñkti, leñkia “bend (tr.)”), pra-žýsti, -žýsta “begin to bloom” (: žydti,
žýdi “bloom”). The morphology of nasal and sta-presents is otherwise
identical: both formations regularly show zero-grade of the root, the
infinitive is attached directly to the root, and both select the ā-preterit
(e.g. tìk-ti, ti-ñ-k-a, tìk-o “be fit”, diñg-ti, diñg-sta, diñg-o “disappear,
vanish”).
2.1. The following distribution between nasal and sta-presents can be
reconstructed for Proto-Baltic (cf. Villanueva 2010: 206ff., with

references):
T(R)ET- and T(R)EUT-roots made nasal presents (e.g. Lith. tàpti,
tapa “become”, lìpti, lipa “stick to”, roots *tep-, *leip-),
TERT- and TER-roots made sta-presents (e.g. tipti, tipsta “melt,
grow numb”, rìmti, rìmsta “calm down”, roots *terp-, *h1rem-).
This is basically the distribution of standard Lithuanian, with two
exceptions:
i) Unlike roots ending in a nasal, TER-roots ending in a liquid make
nasal presents: bìrti, bỹra < *binra “pour out (intr.)”, šìlti, šỹla < *šinla
“grow warm” (southern Žemaitian bina, šina). In northern Žemaitian

and Latvian we regularly find sta-presents: NŽem. bìrsta, šìlsta, Latv.
bist, sist. The acute intonation of the infinitive bìrti, šìlti (contrast beti
“strew, scatter”, šitas “warm”) is best explained as taken from an
original sta-present, later replaced by a nasal present in most Lithuanian
dialects. That Ter/l-roots built sta-presents is confirmed by the irregular
miti, mìršta, mìr÷ “die”, the only sta-present that preserves the effects
of the RUKI-rule.
ii) T(R)ET- and T(R)EUT-roots with a long vowel make sta-presents
(e.g. tõlti, tõlsta “move away”). sta-presents with lengthened zero grade
y, ū to diphthongal roots with acute intonation frequently present
variants with normal zero grade and nasal present, e.g. skýsti, skýsta
“liquify” ~ skìsti, skiñda “become flimsy” (: skíesti, skíedžia “dilute,
separate”), trkti, trksta “be lacking, burst” ~ trùkti, truñka “last,
continue” (: tráukti, tráukia “pull, draw”). Both variants are best inter-
preted as levelings of an original paradigm *skýsti, skiñda, skýdo,
*trkti, truñka, trko (with unclear metatony in the present). That roots
with a long vowel built nasal presents in Proto-Baltic is confirmed by
Old Prussian pres. act. ptcp. sindats, syndens, pret. act. ptcp. sīdons,
sīdans “sitzend”, probably from *sḗstwei, *señda (: OCS sěsti, sędǋ “sit
down”).

Anticausative-inchoative verbs in the northern Indo-European languages 35
2.2. I will not deal extensively with the Baltic sta-presents in this
article. Whatever the ultimate origin of this suffix might be, it is
generally acknowledged that it belongs to a younger chronological layer
than nasal presents (although the existence of a reasonable example in
Slavic, *orstı, *ȏrstǋ “grow” [OCS rasti, rastǋ etc.], suggests that it was
a Balto-Slavic rather than an exclusively Baltic formation).2 I refer to
Villanueva (2010: 212ff.) for a survey of the different proposals and a
new theory.
As far as nasal presents are concerned, for our present purpose it is
sufficient to stress the fact that nasal presents are regularly infixal in
Baltic. Their identity with Indo-European nasal presents of the type
*u-né-g-ti/*u-n-g-énti “yoke” (Ved. yunákti/yuñjánti, Lat. iungō, -ere)
has never been in doubt. From a functional point of view, however, a
closer comparandum is provided by the suffixal nasal presents of
Germanic and Slavic.
3. Germanic, Baltic and Slavic agree not only in the productive anti-
causative-inchoative value of nasal presents, but also in their position in
the verbal system. Nasal presents in these languages typically have the
status of derived verbs. Most of them belong to one of the three
following derivational patterns:

i) Anticausatives to transitive-terminative verbs, typically strong verbs
in Germanic (Go. us-bruknan “be broken off” : (ga-)brikan “break,
crush”) and full-grade e/o-presents in Baltic (Lith. kìsti, kiñta “change
(intr.)” : keĩsti, keĩčia “change (tr.)”). This is the most common type in
Baltic and is well-represented in Germanic as well. In Slavic it is very
rare, being restricted to some lexicalized cases like OCS u-vęznǋti “be
caught” : vęzati, vęžǋ “bind”. Given the agreement of Baltic and Ger-
manic, the rarity of this pattern in Slavic is likely to reflect a secondary
loss.
ii) Inchoatives to stative or durative verbs. This type is common in all
three branches, e.g. Lith. už-mìgti, -miñga “fall asleep” (: miegóti,
–––––––
2
The motivation for the expansion of the Baltic sta-presents was clearly of a
phonological nature. It permitted deriving anticausative-inchoative verbs from TER-
roots, which did not allow for an infixal nasal present, as well as from TERH- and
TERT-roots, where a nasal present was perfectly possible in Northern Indo-European
(T-n-H-é/ó-, T-n-T-é/ó-), but not after TERH- and TER-roots had merged and after
syllabic resonants were vocalized (T-n-T-é/ó- > †Ti/uR-n-T-é/ó-; a resallybification
TR--T-é/ó- > TR-i/un-T-é/ó- would have violated the general rule that the nasal infix
did not present a syllabic variant, cf. Praust 2004: 374ff.). In Germanic and Slavic the
nasal infix was replaced by a suffix *-ne/o- (see below §5-6), thus dispensing with
whatever root-structure constraints these languages might have inherited.

miẽgti/miẽga “sleep”), Go. ga-waknan “wake up” (: wakan, -aiþ “be

awake”), OCS vъz-bъ(d)nǋti “wake up” (: bъděti, bъždǋ “be awake”).
iii) Denominatives to adjectives, more rarely nouns. These are well-
attested in Baltic and Germanic, somewhat less in Slavic, e.g. Lith.
šlùbti, šluba “become lame” (: šlùbas “lame”), Go. (ga-)fullnan
“become filled” (: fulls “full”), ON hitna “become hot” (: heitr “hot”),
OCS o-glъxnǋti “become deaf” (: gluxъ “deaf”). Slavic and Old Norse
show that denominatives originally presented zero grade of the root.
iv) Beside these derived types primary verbs do of course occur, but
most of them are suspect of being secondary, reflecting either loss of the
base verb (e.g. Lith. lìpti, lipa “stick to” beside OCS pri-l(p)nǋti
“cling, cleave to” : pri-lpěti “cling to”), or the tendency of inchoative
verbs to adopt the morphology of the dominant class (e.g. Lith. snìgti,
sniẽgti/sniẽga → snìgti, sniñga “snow”). More examples of “secondary”
nasal presents will be discussed below (§11).
4. In contrast to their functional and derivational coherence,
anticausative-inchoative nasal presents present a slightly different
morphology in every branch. Beside the archaic-looking Baltic para-
digm Lith. lìpti, lipa, lìpo, Germanic and Slavic present nasal suffixes
not restricted to the present stem:

i) Gothic and Old Norse diverge in the present stem (Go. af-lif-ni-þ,
inf. -lif-na-n < *-na/i- vs. ON lif-na-r, inf. lif-na < *-nō-), but agree in
attaching the dental preterit to a suffix *-nō- (Go. -lif-no-da, ON
lif-na-ði). Germanic nasal verbs of the 4th weak class are almost uni-
versally derived from Indo-European n(á)h2-presents of the type Ved.
gbh-ṇ-ti/gbh-ṇ-ánti “seize” (e.g. Bammesberger 1986: 42, Ringe
2006: 176ff., among others). The Gothic thematic present is usually
explained as back-formed to a 3rd pl. *-nanþ(i), either directly from
*-nanti < *-n-h2-énti or from PGmc. *-nōnti through Osthoff’s law.
ii) Slavic verbs of Leskien’s Class II like pri-l(p)nǋti, -l(p)nǋ, -lpъ
show a present suffix -ne- pared with an infinitive -nǋ-. The infinitive
-nǋ- (< *-nū(n)-, cf. Andersen 1999) obviously stems from Indo-Euro-
pean n(é)u-presents. The thematic present suffix -ne- has been variously
traced back to Indo-European n(á)h2-presents (e.g. Stang 1942: 58f.), to
a (very dubious) class of Indo-European ne/o-presents (e.g. Vaillant
1966: 223f.), or, finally, has been derived through metathesis from an
earlier infixal *limpeti to be equated with Lith. lipa (e.g. Aitzetmüller
1978: 208).
It thus seems that each branch has exploited a different Indo-European
nasal present formation (infixal, *-nā-, *-neu-, perhaps even *-ne/o-).

This formal disparity probably explains why the anticausative-in-
choative nasal presents of these languages tend to be treated in isolation
from each other and are rarely mentioned among the exclusive iso-
glosses uniting Balto-Slavic and Germanic. The original morphology of
the northern Indo-European anticausative-inchoative nasal presents has
been recently studied in detail by Gorbachov (2007), who conclusively
argues that Germanic and Slavic must have inherited nasal presents of
the Baltic type, with a nasal infix restricted to the present stem. In the
following two sections I will summarize Gorbachov’s findings.3
5. Germanic. The following evidence points to a relatively recent

origin of the paradigms Go. waknan, waknoda, ON vakna, vaknaði:
i) Some verbs present strong inflection and a present suffix *-ni/a-,
e.g. *fregnan, *frah “ask” (ON fregna, frá, Go. fraihnan, frah),
*waknan, *wōk “wake up” (OE -wæcnan, -wóc). In other cases (mostly
roots ending in a vowel) -n- has been extended to the entire paradigm,
e.g. *skīnan, *skain “shine” (Go. skeinan, skain, OE scínan, scán),
*kīnan, *kain “sprout” (OE -cínan, -cán, Go. weak keinan, keinoda)
*murnan, *marn “mourn” (OE murnan, mearn), etc.
ii) *standan, *stōd “stand” (Go. standan, stoþ, ON standa, stóð)
presents strong inflection with nasal infix restricted to the present stem.
In other cases the nasal infix was extended through the entire paradigm,
sometimes giving rise to two different verbs. Thus, *klimban, *klamb
“climb” (OE climban, clamb, OHG klimban, klamb) beside *klīban,
*klaib “cleave, adhere” (OE clífan, cláf, OHG klîban, kleib) look like
alternative levelings of an earlier *klimban, *klaib. Similarly *slinkan,
*slank “crawl, slink” (OE slincan, slanc) ~ *slīkan, *slaik “creep,
crawl” (OHG slîhhan, sleih), *blinkan, *blank “blink, wink, twinkle”
(Du. blinken, blank) ~ *blīkan, *blaik “shine, glitter, twinkle” (ON
blíkja, bleik), etc.
iii) A number of adjectives in *-a/inaz look like lexicalized strong past
participles to nan-verbs: Go. gaþaursans “dry, shriveled (of a limb)” (:
ga-þaursnan “dry up”), uskijans “having germinated” (: us-keinan
“germinate, sprout”), ON vakinn “awake” (: vakna “wake up”), sofinn
“sleeping, asleep” (: sofna “fall asleep”), þrútinn “swollen; oppressed”,
OE á-þrúten “pompous, swollen with pride, anger” (: ON þrútna “swell,
increase”, OE þrútian “swell with pride, anger”), visinn “wizened,
–––––––
3
Gorbachov’s views were partly anticipated by other scholars. That Germanic
inchoative nasal presents originally presented strong inflection was argued at length by
Annerholm (1956: 29ff., 111ff.), who, however, stuck to the traditional derivation from
nā-presents (116ff.). The internal history of Slavic nasal presents given by Gorbachov is
basically the same as that of Stang (1942: 54ff.).

withered”, OHG wesan “weary” (: ON visnan, OHG wesnên “wither”),

etc.
The formations just surveyed are most naturally interpreted as a series
of offshoots left by the gradual formal renewal of this class. The original
paradigm is still preserved in the exclusively Germanic *standan, *stōd.
Relics of Verner’s law like OE liornian, OHG lirnên, lernên < *liznan
“learn” indicate an original accent on the thematic vowel. A strong verb
with infixal present must soon have been felt as aberrant and was re-
placed with a present suffix *-ni/a-. Some verbs like *klimban preserved
the infix and generalized it through the whole paradigm. The resulting
paradigm *waknan, *wōk was still unsatisfactory, as suffixal presents
are otherwise disfavored among strong verbs. In some cases the
anomaly was solved by extending -n- to the other forms (e.g. *skīnan,
*murnan). The majority of old nasal inchoatives that ended up as strong
verbs regularized the present vocalism according to the regular ablaut
patterns (*skinan → *skīnan, *frugnan → *fregnan). For the most part,
however, nasal verbs were simply converted into weak verbs by
adopting *-nō- from the 2nd weak class denominatives of the type Go.
aljanon “be diligent” (: aljan “diligence”), OE fæʒ(e)nian “rejoice” (:
fæʒ(e)n “rejoicing”). This is the situation we find in Gothic. To judge

from the abundance of adjectives of the type vakinn in Old Norse, the
past participle seems to have resisted this change for a longer time.
Finally, in northern Germanic (perhaps already in North-Western Ger-
manic) the present suffix *-ni/a- was replaced with *-nō-, thus ef-
fectively converting nasal verbs into a subtype of the 2nd weak class.
6. Slavic. As is well known, in Old Church Slavonic two subclasses of
nasal presents can be distinguished:
i) roots ending in a vowel, with nasal suffix -nǋ-/-nov- through all
non-present forms: inf. ri-nǋ-ti, pres. ri-ne-tъ, aor. ri-nǋ-xъ, past pass.
ptcp. ri-nov-enъ “cast, push”.
ii) roots ending in a consonant, with -nǋ- confined to the infinitive and
supine and thematic aorist: inf. dvig-nǋ-ti, pres. dvig-ne-tъ, aor. dviž-e,
past pass. ptcp. dviž-enъ “move (tr.)”.
Some verbs ending in a consonant inflect according to the type rinǋti
from the earliest texts (where short non-present forms are otherwise well
preserved): drъznǋti “dare”, vъz-dъxnǋti “take a breath”, tlъknǋti
“knock, push”, u-sěknǋti “cut, hew”, i(s)-sęknǋti “dry up, run dry”,
pri-kosnǋti (sę) “touch”.

It has long been recognized that the purely formal distribution of Late
Common Slavic is partially secondary, as the types rinǋti/drъznǋti and
dvignǋti show different functions:
i) verbs of the type rinǋti/drъznǋti are perfective and can be both
transitive and intransitive. This is the type that became productive in
Slavic.
ii) verbs of the type dvignǋti are typically imperfective (when un-
prefixed) as well as intransitive and inchoative. This type, which
corresponds to the Baltic and Germanic anticausative-inchoative nasal
verbs, is not productive in Slavic.

This suggests that Slavic nasal presents descend from two historically
different sources. The type rinǋti/drъznǋti evidently stems from Indo-
European n(é)u-presents. The original paradigm must have been pres.
*ri-nǋ-t (or *ri-nъ-t), inf. *ri-ti, aor. *ri-nǋ[-t]. The aorist *ri-nǋ-
continues the original imperfect. The infinitive adopted -nǋ- from the
aorist. As for the present, the thematic suffix *-ne- must have been taken
from the type dvignǋti.
The possibility suggests itself that the infinitive of the type dvignǋti
has taken the suffix *-nǋ- from the type rinǋti/drъznǋti. The original
paradigm must thus have been *dvig-ti, *dvig-ne/o-, *dvig-e/o-. The

“short” infinitive is preserved in the irregular stati, stanǋ, staxъ “stand
up” (: OPr. po-stātwei, -stānai “become”).4
As in the case of Germanic, there is internal Slavic evidence in-
dicating that the present *dvig-ne/o- must have substituted an earlier
infixal *dvi-n-g-e/o-. The putative (pre-)Slavic paradigm *dvig-ti,
*dvi-n-g-e/o-, *dvig-e/o- is preserved intact in four verbs: OCS sěsti,
sędǋ, sědъ “sit down”, lešti, lęgǋ, legъ “lie down”, byti, bǋdǋ “will be”,
ob-rěsti, -ręštǋ, -rětъ “find” (< *rēntje-; ORu. ob-rjatú, SCr. ob-rètēm
apparently preserve an older present *rēnte-). In some cases the in-
herited nasal infix has been generalized through the entire verb: OCS
–––––––
4
A further relic is perhaps found in a series of “short” infinitives beside “long”
infinitives in *-nǋ-, mostly to roots ending in a velar. These are particularly prominent in
Serbo-Croatian, but are also attested in other languages, e.g. SCr. d(v)ȉći (< *dvig-ti) and
d(v)ȉgnuti (OCS dvignǋti), nȉći and nȉknuti (OCS vъz-niknǋti “arise”), -bjeći and
-bjegnuti, Pol. bieć and biegnąć (OCS -běgnǋti “run”), stȉći and stȉgnuti, Ru. po-stíč' and
po-stígnut' (OCS po-stignǋti “reach”), etc., cf. Vaillant (1966: 257) and, specially for
East Slavic, Sigalov (1961: 95). Short infinitives, however, are attested only from the
14th century and it remains unclear whether they are necessarily to be regarded as
archaisms. Vaillant, for instance, considers them secondary coinages on the model of the
new type pasti, padne- “fall”, lešti, legne- “lie down” (with present renewed from older
pade-, lęge-).

gręsti, grędǋ “come, arrive” (: Lith. grìdyti “go, travel”), Pol. za-strząć,
-strzęgę “get stuck” (: Lith. strìgti, striñga “stick”), etc.
7. Except for the thematic aorist, we can thus reach an original
paradigm of the Slavic type dvignǋti virtually identical to the Baltic type
lìpti, lipa, lìpo.
In Slavic the thematic aorist is the norm among inchoative verbs of the
type dvignǋti, both those with a ne-present (e.g. vъz-bъ(d)nǋti, -bъ(d)nǋ,
-bъdъ “wake up”), and those with an old je-present to be studied below
§11 (e.g. po-gybnǋti, -gyblǋ/-gybnǋ, -gybъ “perish”). It is also found
beside the few nasal infixal presents still preserved in Slavic (sědъ, legъ,
-rětъ) as well as in the semantically akin pasti, padǋ, padъ “fall”. The
thematic aorist was clearly the regular type of aorist to anticausative-
inchoative verbs, irrespective of the present stem.
The remaining Slavic thematic aorists continue displaced imperfects,
not old aorists. From the list given by Vaillant (1964: 239) this is self-
evident for idъ (iti, idǋ “go”), jadъ (jaxati, jadǋ “go, ride”), kradъ
(krasti, kradǋ “steal”), pasъ (pasti, pasǋ “pasture”), rastъ (rasti, rastǋ
“grow”) and tręsъ (tręsti, tręsǋ “shake (tr.)”), which depend on a
characterized present stem (see LIV s.v. *h1ei-, *eh2-, *kreh2-, *peh2-,
*h3er-, *tres-), as well as for mogъ (mošti, mogǋ “be able”) and trъ
(tr(j)ǋ, trъti “rub”), which are built to presential roots (LIV s.v.
*magh-, *terh1-). The prehistory of the two remaining thematic aorists
not built to inchoative verbs, lězъ (lěsti, lězǋ “climb”) and vrъgъ (vrěsti,
vrъgǋ “throw”), is unclear.
It thus seems that the thematic aorist was not only systematically
linked to anticausative-inchoative verbs, but that this was an exclusive
relationship as far back as Slavic internal evidence allows us to re-
construct.
7.1. As often assumed (e.g. Stang 1942: 190, 1966: 340), there is
every reason to project the thematic aorist of Slavic into Balto-Slavic,
where the original paradigm of OCS vъz-bъ(d)nǋti, Lith. pa-bùsti “wake
up” can thus be reconstructed as inf. *bustēi, pres. *bundeti, aor. *budet.
In Baltic the thematic aorist was predictably substituted with the ā-
preterit.
The original Germanic strong preterit is basically uninformative for
comparative purposes. Given the undeniable identity of the anti-
causative-inchoative nasal presents of Germanic and Balto-Slavic, it
seems a reasonable steep further to project the thematic aorist back in
time and reconstruct an original, northern Indo-European paradigm pres.
*bhundhéti : aor. *bhudhét (: perf. *bhebhóudhe?).

7.2. Although, strictly speaking, this cannot be proved, this view may
provide an important clue for the prehistory of the northern Indo-Euro-
pean anticausative-inchoative class. The semantics of nasal presents like
*bhundhéti “wake up” must rest on some type of secondary development
that will perhaps never be recovered in detail, but we are on a better
position to understand the “middle” value of their associated aorist type
*bhudhét.
It is now generally accepted that the thematic aorist is a post-Indo-
European replacement of older athematic aorists. According to a major
theory, they originated as back-formed to an obsolete 3rd sg. middle *-e

recharacterized with act. *-t (*id-h2é, *ids-th2é, *id-é → *id-h2é,
*ids-th2é, *id-é-t → *id-ó-m, *id-é-s, *id-é-t), a view supported by
the frequent “middle” functional and/or paradigmatic profile of thematic
aorists in Vedic and Greek, in spite of their almost exclusive active in-
flection in Vedic, e.g. Ved. aor. -dat : pres. -datte “take”, áhuvat :
huvé, hávate “invoke”, ákhyat : cáṣṭe “look”, Gk. ἔτραφον : τρέφοµαι
“grow up”, ἔτραπον : τρέποµαι “turn”, ἤριπον : ἐρείποµαι “fall down”,
to mention just a few.5
It is curious that the Slavic evidence has not usually been taken into
account in general discussions of the thematic aorist. Its functional value

clearly points to a middle origin, a view that finds comparative support
in at least some cases: legъ “lay down” (: Gk. ἔλεκτο “id.”), sědъ “sat
down” (: Ved. ásādi, ásadat, Gk. ἕζετο “id.”), vъz-bъdъ “awoke” (:
Ved. ábodhi “id.”, Gk. ἐπυθόµην “became aware of, learned”), pri-lpъ
“stuck to” (: Ved. alipsata “id.”), pro-mъkъ sę “spread (intr.)” (: Ved.
ámoci “became free”), vykъ “got used to, learned” (: Arm. owsaw
“learned”), stigъ “arrived” (: Gk. ἔστιχον “came, went”), *svtъ
“dawned”, implied by ORu. svnuti, SCr. svànuti (: Ved. śvitāná-
“bright”). Independent confirmation comes from the anomalous pre-
servation of the original strong o-grade among some verbs to TET-roots:
padъ “fell” ~ Ved. pdi “id.” (< *pód-e), u-topъ “sank, drowned” ~
Ved. átāpi “became hot” (< *tóp-e), u-gasъ “went out, was ex-
tinguished” (with vocalism from the causative gasiti “put out, ex-
tinguish”) ~ TB kessante “id.” (< *gwós-e), cf. Villanueva (2006).6
–––––––
5
I cannot here argue at length for the correctness of this theory. See Watkins (1969:
100ff.), Hollifield (1977: 57ff.) for the middle origin of the thematic aorist, and Peters
(2004: 268f.) for criticism of the widespread view that explains the thematic aorist from
a 3rd pl. *-ont replacing earlier *-ent (*éids-t/*id-ént → *éids-t/*id-ónt →
*id-é-t/*id-ó-nt).
6
In my view (Villanueva 2006, 2007/08-2010/11, partly following Jasanoff 2003:
150ff.), Indo-European middle root aorists were characterized by ablaut and 3rd person

8. While the “middle” value of Slavic (northern Indo-European)

thematic aorists is predicted by one of the main theories on its origin, we
find ourselves on very different ground when addressing the anti-
causative-inchoative value of the northern Indo-European nasal
presents.7
In Indo-European nasal presents were employed to derive presents
from active root aorists and were typically transitive, frequently in
opposition to an intransitive middle root aorist pared with a different
present stem. The pattern is well known from Vedic examples like
riṇákti “leaves” : rícyate “leaves (intr.)” (aor. raik : reci), punti

“purifies” : pávate “flows pure” (s-aor. apāvīt : apaviṣṭa), kṣiṇti
“destroys” : kṣyate “perishes” etc., which certainly goes back to the
parent language (cf. e.g. Hollifield 1977: 136ff.). In Baltic, Slavic and
Germanic, on the other hand, we have a class of anticausative and
inchoative verbs that could be freely derived from transitive-terminative
or stative primary verbs as well as from adjectives.
A major functional and derivational gap thus separates the northern
nasal presents from the Indo-European nasal presents from which they
evidently derive. Beside the inherent difficulties in trying to join two
essentially different systems, we have to deal with the problematic

nature of the evidence. We have a limited number of reliable ety-
mologies to start with, and the very productivity of the northern Indo-
European anticausative-inchoative verbs renders most potential
equations automatically suspicious. Put it otherwise, the original nucleus
of anticausative-inchoative nasal presents is basically undeterminable.
As it stands, I believe it is advisable to exploit the few paradigmatic
features we have already established:
i) The thematic aorist was a constitutive part of the original paradigm
of the northern Indo-European anticausative-inchoative class.
–––––––
endings akin to those of the perfect: *bhóudh-e/*bhudh-ré (Vedic “passive” aorist
ábodhi/ábudhran). If this is correct, middle root aorists must have eliminated ablaut
before adopting the regular 3rd person middle endings *-to, *-nto. The whole process can
be exemplified with the middle aorist of *deh3- “give”: *dóh3-e/*dh3-ré (Hitt. dā-hhi) →
*dh3-é(/*dh3-ré) (Ved. -dat) → *dh3-tó/*dh3-tó (Ved. ádita, Gk. ἔδοτο).
7
Two major theories can be distinguished: i) from the middle of Indo-European
transitive nasal presents, ii) secondary paradigmatization with (thematic) intransitive
aorists. See Gorbachov (2007: 188ff., 204ff.) for a critical review and Meiser (1993:
292f.) for a brief, but useful presentation. As correctly observed by Meiser, the two
theories do not necessarily exclude each other. Gorbachov (209ff.) postulates a new
Indo-European nasal present type *bhu-n-dh-é, characterized by “h2e-conjugation” and
intransitive inchoative semantics. In my view, the few comparanda he gives (Lat.
in-cumbō “lie down”, OIr. ·glen “cleave, stick”, Ved. tmpáti “eat one’s fill”) do not
suffice to establish a new present type for the parent language.

ii) This class was made up of derived verbs; leaving denominatives
aside, the major derivational patterns are anticausatives to transitive-
terminative verbs and inchoatives to statives.
In what follows I will study anticausatives and inchoatives separately.
It is theoretically possible that both types had a partially different
prehistory and go back, in the last instance, to two different Indo-Euro-
pean conjugational patterns. As we will see, such a working hypothesis
is to a certain degree confirmed by the facts.
9. Origin of the anticausative type. Somewhat paradoxically, the
functional value of anticausative nasal presents provides a rationale for

their derivation from the Indo-European transitive-terminative nasal
presents. As it has often been proposed, they can be reasonably derived
from the middle of active transitive nasal presents. We can exemplify
with the root *meuk- “release” (LIV 443f.).
9.1. In Vedic we find an opposition of voice that involves two
different present stems: act. tr. pres. muñcáti “releases, frees”, aor. ámok
AV, ámucat RV vs. mid. intr. pres. múcyate “becomes free, is released”,
pass. aor. ámoci. Both presents are inherited, cf. Lat. ē-mungō “blow
(the nose)”, Gk. ἀπο-µύσσοµαι “id.”. The Vedic paradigm can thus be
projected back into Indo-European as *mu-né-k-ti, *méuk-t :

*muk-é-tor, *móuk-e.
What may have happened to such a paradigm at an early stage of
northern Indo-European must necessarily remain speculative, but I
believe it is reasonable to postulate two important changes: i) the
original middle present *muk-é-toi was replaced by the middle of the
nasal present (*mu-n-k-tói), ii) the original middle root aorist *móuk-e/
*muk-ré generalized the zero grade of the root and eventually became a
thematic aorist *muk-é-t. The active anticausative thematic aorist
*muk-é-t must soon have been ceased to be felt as the middle
counterpart of the active transitive *méuk-t and gave rise to an in-
dependent paradigm that was still in a transitivity opposition to the
active system. The original middle nasal present *mu-n-k-tói was
thematized and probably activized, thus yielding the characteristic
northern Indo-European anticausative paradigm pres. *munkéti : aor.
*mukét. In due time the transitive system *mu-né-k-ti : *méuk-t was
replaced by other formations (e.g. pres. *méuk-e-ti : aor. *méuk-t or
*méuk-s-t).
This basically yields the Baltic system Lith. maũkti, maũkia “pull off”
: mùkti, muñka “fall out, come out”. Transitivity oppositions like these
were generally disfavored in Slavic. In this case only the anticausative

counterpart survived: OCS pro-mъknǋti sę “spread (intr.)” (with back-

formed transitive *mъknǋti > Ru. za-mknut' “lock up”, Pol. mknąć
“push, impel” etc.).
9.2. A similar scenario can be envisaged for *skeid- “split” (LIV 547),
with an Indo-European paradigm identical to that of *meuk-: act. tr.
pres. *ski-né-ds-ti (Ved. chinátti, Lat. scindō), aor. *skéids-t (Ved. 1 pl.
chedma) : mid. intr. pres. *skid-é-tor (Ved. chídyáte, Gk. σχίζω, -οµαι),
aor. *skóid-e (Ved. pass. aor. áchedi). The Baltic system tr. skíesti,
skíedžia “separate, dilute” : Lith. skìsti, skiñda “become flimsy”, skýsti,
skýsta “liquefy” (< *sksti, *skiñda) can be derived from a “northern

Indo-European” tr. pres. *skéid-e-ti, aor. *skéid(-s)-t : intr. pres. *ski-n-
d-é-ti, aor. *skid-é-t. With displaced semantics, the transitive
counterpart is continued in Gmc. *skītan “defecate” (ON skíta etc.). In
Slavic only the causative cěditi “strain, filter” is found, perhaps derived
from an earlier anticausative nasal present.
9.3. The remarkable equation OHG linên, OS hlinōn, OE hlinian “lean
(intr.)” (< *hlinan, not *hlinai-, cf. Gorbachov 2007: 86f.) ~ Lith. šlýti,
šlỹja (< *šliñja) “lean against” (: tr. šliẽti, šliẽja) ~ OCS caus. kloniti
“incline” (implying a lost intransitive nasal present) guaranties a
“northern Indo-European” intr. *kli-né/ó- (aor. *k-é/ó- or *kl(i)-é/ó-)

in contrast with the Indo-European transitive *k-né-i-ti “leans” (YAv.
-sirinaoiti, Gk. κλῑzνω; see the detailed treatment by Praust 2004).
Although the nasal present has been lost, Vedic once again reflects most
faithfully the Indo-European paradigm: act. tr. pres. śráyati, aor. áśret :
mid. intr. pres. śráyate, aor. áśrāyi.
9.4. Few roots allow for such a clear reconstruction of the Indo-
European averbo. We can mention some further cases in which a
northern anticausative nasal present has cognates pointing to an Indo-
European transitive-terminative nasal present:
Go. tr. brikan “break” : intr. us-bruknan “be broken off” ơ Lat. frangō,
frēgī “break” (LIV 91f.).
OE dwínan “dwindle, fade away” ơ Ved. act. tr. kṣiṇti “destroys”
(aor. kṣidh SV) : mid. intr. kṣyate “perishes” (aor. kṣāyi TS, kṣeṣta
AV), Gk. intr. φθῑzνω “decay, perish” (aor. ἔφθιεν, ἔφθιτο) (LIV 150ff.).
Go. tr. giutan “pour” : intr. us-gutnan “get spilled, run out” ơ Lat.
fundō, fūdī “pour” (LIV 179f.).
Lith. tr. kélti, kẽlia “lift, raise; move” : intr. kìlti, kỹla/kìlsta “rise” ơ
Toch. pres. A källāṣ, B källāṣṣäṃ, pret. A śäl, B śala “bring” (<
*k-né-h1-ti : *kélh1-t “move (tr.)”), Lat. ex-, prae-cellō “surpass, excel”
(< *k-né-h3-ti “lift, raise”), cf. Seržant (2008).

Go. tr. ga-/us-lūkan “close / open” : intr. ga-/us-luknan “become shut /
opened” ơ OIr. in·loing “imposes”, fo·loing “bears, endures” (LIV 416).
Ru. dial. lúnut' “shoot”, Br. lúnuc' “fall, die” ơ Ved. lunti “cuts off”,
TA lun[āmäs] “we send” (aor. lyu), Gk. λύω “loosen” etc. (LIV 417).
ON intr. morna “waste away” (caus. merja “beat, break”) ơ Ved.
mṇti “crush”, Gk. µάρναµαι “fight”, µαραίνω “destroy” (cf.
Annerholm 1956:84f.).
Go., OE rinnan “run”, ? OCS rinǋti sę “rush, dash”8 ơ Ved. rinti
“release, sit in motion” : ryate “flow”, Gk. ὀρῑzνω “excite, irritate, set in
motion” (LIV 305f.).

ON tr. rjóða “redden, dye (with blood)” : intr. roðna “turn red” ơ OIr.
roindid “reddens, dyes (with blood)”.
ON tr. rjúfa “break” : intr. rofna “break”, Lith. tr. raũpti, -ia “hollow
out, dig off” : intr. rùpti, rupa “became rough (about skin)” (if not
denominative to rupùs “coarse, rough”), Latv. rupt, -stu “crack” ơ Lat.
rumpō, rūpī “break”, Ved. lumpáti “damages, tears” : lúpyáte “be
damaged, torn” AV+ (post-Vedic pass. aor. vi-lopi “perish”), rúpyati
“suffer a (stomach) pain” TB+ (LIV 510f.).
OHG intr. scrintan “split (intr.), burst” (← *skrundan), Lith. tr. kisti,
keta “hew, slash” : intr. kisti, kista “turn bitter, sour”, RuCS tr. črsti,
črtǋ “hew, slash” ơ Ved. kntáti, aor. áktas “cut”, YAv. kǩrǩṇtaiti “id.”
(LIV 559f.).
9.5. Uncertainties of a different sort can be exemplified with the root
*(h1)reip- “throw down, tear down” (LIV 504f.). ON rifna “be turn
asunder” (: tr. rífa “tear”) and Ru. dial. répnut' “burst, crack, split” point
to a northern Indo-European anticausative nasal present *(h1)rimpéti. A
verbal cognate is found only in Greek: tr. pres. ἐρείπω, aor. ἤρειψα
“throw down, tear down” : intr. pres. ἐρείποµαι, aor. ἤριπον, perf.
κατ-ερήριπα “fall down, be thrown down”. The thematic aorist Gk.
ἤριπον “fell down”, Sl. *rpъ (implied by Ru. répnut') can be traced
back to a middle root aorist. The Greek present ἐρείπω can easily be an
innovation (Greek has not preserved well the paradigm type pres.
*mu-né-k-ti : aor. *méuk-t). An Indo-European paradigm act. tr. pres.
*(h1)ri-né-p-ti / aor. *(h1)réip-t : mid. intr. *(h1)rip-é-tor (?) / aor.
*(h1)róip-e is thus in principle possible, but of course not assured.
Similarly, verbal formations of *pleth2- (Gk. πλατύς, Ved. pthú-
“broad”) are found only in Baltic (tr. plsti, plẽčia : intr. plìsti, pliñta
–––––––
8
Sl. *rinǋti “push, shove” (Ru. ot-rínut', SCr. rȉnuti etc.) is transitive and perfective.
It is unclear to me whether the transitivity of *rinǋti is to be explained as back-formed to
the reflexive *rinǋti sę or as continuing a transitive nu-present *ri-nu-.

“spread”) and Indo-Iranian: Ved. mid. intr. pres. práthate “spreads”,

aor. prathāná-, aprathiṣṭa, perf. tr. paprtha, intr. paprathé. The
transitive present is expressed wit the causative pratháyati (act. tr.
práthati is secondary, cf. Jamison 1983: 129). One could assume that
the root was intransitive and that Lith. tr. plẽčia is an innovation (as
implied in LIV 486). However, it is also conceivable that Vedic has lost
a transitive system characterized by a nasal present indirectly preserved
in Lith. pliñta.
9.6. There is no point in insisting on the correctness of all examples
(few of the northern anticausatives are inherited with certainty). The

pattern that emerges is in any case clear. In a number of prototypical
verbs a new paradigm type *munkéti : *mukét “be released”, skindéti :
*skidét “split (intr.)” developed beside a different type of transitive
paradigm. The original core need not have been large, and is in any case
unrecoverable. Once established in the system, the type *munkéti :
*mukét could spread as a distinctive anticausative deverbative type, later
extended to fientive denominatives.
10. Origin of the inchoative type. Whereas anticausative nasal
presents can be reasonably derived from Indo-European transitive nasal
presents, the case of inchoative nasal presents is entirely different. Pairs

like Go. ga-wakniþ : wakaiþ, OCS vъz-bъ(d)netъ : bъditъ, Lith.
pa-buñda : bùdi (“wakes up” : “is awake”) clearly belong to what
Jasanoff (2003: 155ff.) has called the “stative-intransitive system”, an
Indo-European derivational pattern centered around a middle root aorist
denoting entry into a state (GAv. maṇtā, Ved. ámata “remembered”)
and including, in addition, a stative perfect (Gk. µέµονε, Go. man
“intend”, Lat. meminī “remember”), and two possible middle presents, a
e/o-present (Ved. mányate, OIr. do·moinethar “think”, Gk. µαίνοµαι
“rage”) and a “duhé-present” (Go. munaiþ “intends”, Lith. mìni
“remembers, mentions”, OCS mnitъ “thinks”).
We can exemplify with *bheudh- “awake, notice” (LIV 82f.) and
*leip- “stick to, be left over” (LIV 408f.). Both present a clear “stative-
intransitive” profile and an apparently well-established northern in-
choative nasal present that has, in addition, potential comparanda
elsewhere in the family (Gk. πυνθάνοµαι, Ved. limpáti).
10.1. *bheudh-. Balto-Slavic presents a typical opposition stative inf.
*bud-ē-tēi, pres. *bud-i-, aor. *bud-ē-s- “be awake” (Lith. budti, bùdi,
OCS bъděti, bъdi-) : inchoative inf. *bus-tēi, pres. *bu-n-d-e/o-, aor.
*bud-e/o- “wake up” (Lith. pa-bùsti, -buñda, -bùdo, OCS vъz-bъ(d)nǋti,
-bъ(d)nǋ, -bъdъ).

From the point of view of Balto-Slavic the inchoative *bundeti is a
derivative of the stative *buditi, which must thus be old on internal
grounds (< IE *bhudh-ór?). If it is assumed that the inchoative is equally
old, the thematic aorist OCS vъz-bъde- can be derived from an Indo-
European middle root aorist (Ved. ábodhi “awoke”, Gk. ἐπυθόµην
“became aware of, learnt”). Its associated nasal present *bundeti has
traditionally been equated with Gk. πυνθάνοµαι “become aware of,
learn” and OIr. ad·boind “gives notice”. But πυνθάνοµαι (2x in Homer)
looks like an inner-Greek replacement of πεύθοµαι (16x in Homer).
Whether OIr. ad·boind alone suffices to establish a nasal present for the
parent language is of course very doubtful (Lith. -buñda, OCS -bъ(d)nǋ
have by themselves no probative value).9
Beside OCS bъditъ/-bъ(d)netъ, Lith. bùdi/-buñda we have a
(synchronically unrelated) thematic present OCS bljusti, bljudǋ “watch,
observe”, Lith. baũsti, baũdžia “punish” (with displaced semantics,
formally renewed as a ia-present). This is strongly reminiscent of the
Vedic contrast between bódhati “observe, notice” (aor. ni-bodhiṣat,
perf. subj. bubodhati) and búdhyate “awake” (aor. ábodhi/ábudhran,
perf. bubudhāná-), cf. Gotō (1987: 219f.). The parallelism between
Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian can be pushed even further. The Vedic

paradigm pres. búdhyate (YAv. būiδiia-te) : aor. ábodhi looks inherited.
If preserved in northern Indo-European it would have given rise to pres.
*bhudh-é- : aor. *bhudh-é- > Bl.-Sl. *budeti : *budet. Replacement of a
“Vedic-type” inchoative present *b(h)ud(h)éti by the “northern-type”
*b(h)und(h)éti would only be expected. Such a scenario, speculative in the
case of *bheudh-, is virtually certain for *leip-.
10.2. In Slavic we find an opposition between stative pri-lpěti, -lpljǋ
“cling to” and inchoative pri-l(p)nǋti, -l(p)nǋ, -lpъ “cling, cleave to”.
In Baltic only the inchoative Lith. (pri-)lìpti, (-)lipa “stick to”
survives. In Germanic the stative verb has been specialized with the
meaning “to live” (3rd weak class Go. liban, ON lifa etc.). The old
meaning is represented by the strong verb *bi-līban “remain, stay” (Go.
bi-leifan, OE bi-lífan, OHG bi-lîban). The inchoative Go. af-lifnan, ON
lifna “be left over” is a derivative of *bi-līban, not of the inherited
stative *libaiþ.
–––––––
9
The meaning of OIr. ad·boind “give notice” recalls that of Cretan Greek πεύθω
“make notice” (Gortyn), probably a back-formed active to πεύθοµαι. I wonder whether
OIr. ad·boind cannot be taken as a post-Indo-European factitive nasal present to
*bhéudh-e-tor. Note that the well attested thematic present *bhéudh-e/o- never means
“awake” and that OIr. ad·boind patterns semantically with Ved. bódhati “observe,
notice”, Go. ana-biudan “order” etc., not with Bl.-Sl. *budētēi or IIr. *bhúdhyatai.

The stative Gmc. *libaiþ, OCS -lpěti is certainly inherited, cf. TB

class III lipetär “is left over” (IE *lipó-r). The inchoative thematic aorist
OCS pri-lpъ can be derived from a middle root aorist *lóip-e/*lip-ré (:
TB class V subj. lipātär). The Slavic nasal present pri-l(p)ne- is not
old. As shown by Tedesco (1948: 361f., 378f.), it is an inner-Slavic
replacement of an older e/o-present pri-lple-, still reliquary attested in
Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian. There is every reason to believe
that Lith. lipa reflects a parallel prehistoric replacement of *lip-e-ti
(e/o-presents are characteristically transitive in Baltic). We can thus
reach a Balto-Slavic inchoative paradigm inf. *lip-tēi, pres. *lip-e/o-,

aor. *lip-e/o-.
It is tempting to go even further and postulate a northern Indo-
European opposition stative *lip-ói : inchoative *lip-é-ti, *lip-é-t. If the
inchoative was preserved in Germanic, it would have given rise to
*libjan, *laib, a paradigm that called forth for regularization as *līban,
*laib (perhaps through an intermediate stage *liban, *laib). The stative
meaning “remain” can be trivially derived from an earlier processual “is
being left over”. It follows that Sl. lple-/l(p)ne-, Lith. lipa
correspond to Gmc. *līban, not to *libnan, which is an inner-Germanic
creation. If old, the Vedic transitive nasal present limpáti “smears” is

certainly unrelated to its apparent northern comparanda. The “northern”
e/o-present *lipéti may be directly equated with Ved. lipyáte “stick, be
smeared” (probably also lípyate, cf. Kulikov 2001: 161), but given the
productivity of ya-presents in Vedic this is uncertain.
11. Before presenting our scenario for the inchoative nasal presents it
will be convenient to take a closer look at the intransitive e/o-presents
of the northern Indo-European languages.
OCS/ORu. pri-lple- is not an isolated example. In the late forties
Tedesco (1948) and Vaillant (1948: 279ff., 307f.) demonstrated the
existence of a residual layer of Slavic intransitive je-presents like OCS
po-gyble- “perish”, i-sъše- “dry (intr.)” or ORu. u-sъple- “fall asleep”.
Presents like po-gyble- do not differ in function (inchoative and imper-
fective) and paradigm (infinitive -nǋ-, thematic aorist) from ordinary ne-
presents like -bъ(d)nǋ, by which they were very soon replaced (the
“normal” paradigm is gybnǋti, gybnǋ, gybъ). It would not be too sur-
prising that Slavic kept some Indo-European intransitive e/o-presents
into historical times, but the number of je-variants in Leskien’s class II
(mere irregularities by the time of our oldest texts) is unexpectedly high,
nearly a twenty. Although not as salient as in Slavic, relics of in-
transitive e/o-presents are also found in Germanic (ON liggja “lie”, Go.

þaursjan “be thirsty” etc.) and even in Baltic, where some unexpected
intransitive ē-preterits like Lith. miti, mìršta, mìr÷ “die” or guti, gùla,
gùl÷ “lie down” (< Bl. pret. *miriā, *guliā) can be interpreted as built
to original ia-presents *miria, *gulia (cf. Barton 1980: 257ff.,
Villanueva 2005: 248ff.).
11.1. In what follows I present a list of all northern Indo-European
anticausative-inchoative e/o-presents I have been able to found. They
are classified into the derivational patterns proper to anticausative-
inchoative nasal presents (§3).10
11.1.1. Anticausatives to transitive-terminative verbs. All examples

are synchronically isolated:
OCS gaše- “go out, be extinguished” (: caus. gasiti “put out,
extinguish”), Latv. tr. dzèst, dzešu “put out” : intr. dzist, dziẽstu “go out”
(Lith. gèsti, gẽgsta “id.”) ← Bl.-Sl. tr. pres. *gés-e-ti, aor. *gḗs-s-t : intr.
pres. *gas-é-ti : aor. *gas-é-t, cf. Villanueva (2006: 303ff.).
Lith. tàpti, tapa, dial. tãp÷ (standard tãpo) “become” : tr. Lith. tèpti,
tẽpa “smear”, OCS teti, tepǋ “beat” ← Bl.-Sl. tr. *tép-e-ti : intr. *tap-
é-ti, cf. Villanueva (2006: 297f.).
OCS po-gyble- “perish” (< *“bend down”) : Sl. *gъ(b)nǋti “bend
(tr.)” (ORu. gъ(b)nuti, SCr. gànuti), Lith. gaũbti, gaũbia “cover, bend
(tr.)” : gùbti, guba “bend (intr.)”.
?ORu. pro-zęble- “germinate” (Lith. žémb÷ti, žámb÷ti “spring,
sprout”), if related to OCS zęti, zębǋ “tear”, Lith. žebti, žebia “cut,
sever” (*ĝembh- “bite”, cf. LIV 162, with reference to Mumm).
11.1.2. Inchoatives to stative verbs:
Lith. guti, gùla, gùl÷ “lie down” : gulti, gùli “lie” TB kuletär, TA
kulatär “subside, slacken” (cf. Jasanoff 1978: 39f.).
OCS pri-lplje- “cling, cleave to” : pri-lpěti “cling to” “Stative-
intransitive” root, see above §10.2.
?OPruss. is-migē “fell asleep” : meicte, moicte “sleep” Lith. už-mìgti,
-miñga : miegóti, miẽgti/miẽga, ORu. mgnuti “blink” : mžati “doze”.
Lith. miñti, mẽna, mìn÷ “remember, recall” : minti, mìni “remember,
mention” “Stative-intransitive” root, see above §10.
ORu. za-mrъže- “freeze” : OCS mrъzěti “be hateful”, Slvn. mrzẹkti
“freeze”.
ORu. u-styžde- “get cool” : OCS styděti sę “be ashamed”.
–––––––
10
Except for OCS Zo., Mar. u-mr͡etъ, Slvn. mrjèm beside u-mrěti, -mrǋ “dies”, all
Slavic je-presents belong to the paradigm po-gybnǋti, -gyblǋ (-gybnǋ), -gybъ. I thus give
only the je-present. I refer to Tedesco (1948), Vaillant (1964: 292ff.) and Sigalov (1961)
for a detailed treatment of the evidence. I have included systematically the facts of the
northern branches. Evidence from other languages is only selective.

ORu. u-sъple- “fall asleep” : sъpati, sъpi- “sleep” ON sofa, OE

swefan “sleep” Ved. aor. ptcp. svapánt-, perf. suṣvpa “sleep” (cf.
Villanueva 2007/08: 206ff.).
11.1.3. Probable denominatives:
ORu. o-krěple- “become strong” (: krěpъ “strong”).
ORu. o-slple- “go blind” (: slěpъ “blind”).
11.1.4. Synchronically isolated verbs:
?Go. brūkjan “need” Lat. fruor, -ī “enjoy” (< *bhruHg-é/ó-, LIV
96).
ON deyja “die” (< *dawjan) Ved. dhvati, dhávate, Gk. θέω, θείω
“run” (< “molō-present” *dhó-ei/*dhé-s, cf. Jasanoff 2003: 75).
Lith. dial. diti, dẽla, dìl÷ “wear out; vanish” (standard dìlti, dỹla,
dìlo).
Go. fraþjan “understand” Lith. su-pràsti, -prañta “id.” (cf. Villa-
nueva 2006: 300f.).
Lith. giti/gìmti, gẽma/gìmsta, gìm÷ “be born” OE cuman, Go.
qiman “come” Gk. βαίνω, Lat. ueniō (< *gw-é-ti).
OCS u-glble- “get stuck” Gmc. *klimban, *klaiŠ “cleave, adhere”
(see above §5) : OHG klebēn “be stuck”, Latv. gliêbtiês, gliêbjuôs
“attach oneself”.11
ORu. po-gręže- “sink, submerge” ? Lith. grizti, grizta, grizdo
“sink”.
OCS vъs-krše- “rise”.
ON liggja, OE licgan “lie” OCS ležati, ležǋ “lie” : lešti, lęgǋ “lay
down” “Stative-intransitive” root: Gk. aor. ἔλεκτο, perf. λελοχυῖα
Hsch., Hitt. lagāri “fall down” (< *legh-ór), cf. Jasanoff (2003: 160).
ORu. za-męče- “become soft” ? Bl. *mìnkti, *mìnkšta (Lith.
mìnkštas, Latv. mîksts “soft”, cf. Smoczyński 2007: 402); caus. OCS
mǋciti “torture”, Lith. mánkyti, mìnkyti “knead”, OE mengan “mix”.
OCS u-mr͡etъ, Slvn. mrjèm, Lith. miti, mìršta, mìr÷ “die” Ved.
mriyáte, Lat. morior (< *m-é-tor).
?Latv. nãkt, nãku, nãcu “come” Lith. nókti, -sta, -o “ripen”.
OCS niče- “spring up, appear”12 Lith. -nìkti, -niñka “thrust oneself
forward” Hitt. nini(n)k-mi “set in motion” (causative nasal present?, cf.
Kloekhorst 2008: 607).
–––––––
11
The derivational status of OCS glble-/glbne- and Gmc. *klimban is uncertain.
Latv. gliêbtiês may point to an opposition tr. *gléibheti : intr. *glibhéti (→ *glimbhéti),
but may also be a secondary creation. OHG klebên “adhere”, OE clifian “cleave” (beside
strong OHG klîban, OE clífan, same meaning) may continue a Germanic weak class III
*klib-ai- or be the replacement of a secondary inchoative *klib-ni/a- to *klīban. The
existence of a Slavic stative glběti is doubtful, cf. Tedesco (1948: 361).

Lith. pùlti, púola, púol÷ “fall” Gmc. *fallan “id.” < *pōl-ne/o- Arm.
aor. pɈlaw “fell”, Gk. aor. ὄλετο “perished”, perf. ὄλωλα “be dead,
undone”, cf. Neri (2007), Villanueva (2009: 395ff.).
?OS an-sebbian, OHG int-seffen < *safjan “notice” Lat. sapiō, -ere
“have taste, know” (< *sh1p-é/ó-, LIV 519).
OCS i-sęče- “dry up” Lith. sèkti, señka “sink; be drained out”, Latv.
sîkt, sîkstu “dry up, vanish” Gk. aor. ἔσκετο φωνή Il. 17,696 “his voice
broke down”, Ved. perf. á-saścuṣī- “inexhaustible” (cf. Kümmel 2000:
542).
ON sitja, OE sittan “sit” OCS sěděti, Lith. s÷dti “sit” : OCS sěsti,
sędǋ, Lith. ssti, sda “sit down”13 “Stative-intransitive” root, cf. Ved.
aor. ásādi, ásadat, perf. sasda, Gk. aor. ἕζετο, Lat. sedeō, -ēre (< *sed-
ór), cf. Jasanoff (2003: 160).
Lith. skàsti, skañta, dial. skãt÷ “spring, hop” (standard pret. skãto)
Lat. scateō, -ēre, scatō, -ere “gush forth”.
OCS i-sъše- “dry (intr.)” Lith. sùsti, sū sta “wither” Ved. śúṣyati
“dry up”, Gk. αὕω “dry (tr.)” (< *h2sus-é/ó-, LIV 285).
Lith. dial. sviti, svẽla, svìl÷ “scorch” (standard svìlti, svỹla, svìlo) OE
swelan “burn (intr.)”.
OHG swizzen “sweet” Latv. svîst, svîstu “id.” TB sya-, ?Ved.

svidyati ṢB+ “id.” (< *sid-é/ó-, LIV 607).
ON þiggja, OE þicgan “receive” Lith. tèkti, teñka “fall to (the lot
of)”, Ukr. tjàknuty “touch”.
Go. þugkjan, pret. þuhta “seem”.
Go. þaursjan “be thirsty” Go. ga-þaursnan, ON þorna “dry up” :
OHG dorrên “id.” Ved. pres. tṣyant-, aor. tṣāṇá-, perf. tātṣúr “be,
become thirsty”.
Go. wahsjan “grow” Ved. úkṣant- “growing”, GAv. uxšiieitī
“grows”, Gk. αὔξω “increase (tr.)”, -οµαι “grow” (< *h2uks-é/ó-).14
ORu. u-vęžde- “wither”, pri-svę(d)nǋti “id.” OHG swintan “fade,
pine away”.
–––––––
12
The stative ničati “bend, stoop” (ORu. ničati, OCz. ničěti, Slvn. níčati) has a
different meaning.
13
Lith. sda has replaced the Baltic present *señda still preserved in OPruss. ptcp.
sindats (nasal presents to roots in a long vowel are not possible in East Baltic, see above
§2.1). OLith. sdmi “I sit down” [Ruhig+] is a secondary neologism, as indicated by its
late attestation and by the absence of the expected cluster reduction *sēdmi > †smi (as
in *dōdmi > dúomi “I give” etc.).
14
The o-grade of Gmc. *wahsijan is problematic. See LIV 288, Jasanoff (2003: 75,
133), Villanueva (2006: 30112) for different solutions.

ORu. vyče- “get used to” Lith. jùnkti, jùnksta “get used to”, Go.
bi-ūhts “used to” < *unk-tó- Arm. aor. owsaw “learnt”, Ved. pres.
-ucyati “become used to”, perf. uvóca.15
Lith. vìrti, vérda, vìr÷ “boil (tr./intr.)” OCS vrěti “boil (intr.)” Hitt.
urāni “burn (intr.)” < *urāri (< *H-ór), cf. Villanueva (2010/11: 8f.).
11.2. Unlike nasal presents (always suspect of being recent), in-
transitive e/o-presents are a strongly recessive class in all three
branches.16 Only one verb is attested in two languages (OCS u-mr͡etъ,
Lith. pret. mìr÷ “die”). The tendency to replace e/o-presents with other
formations, typically nasal presents (and sta-presents in Baltic), but also

simple thematic presents, can be observed in the historical period in
Slavic (OCS po-gyble- → po-gybne- etc.) and Germanic (ON sitja vs.
Go. sitan, Go. wahsjan vs. OHG wahsan).17 It was evidently a much
older tendency (notice the archaic morphology of renewed nasal
presents like Sl. lęgǋ, sędǋ or Gmc. *klimban, *fallan).
Intransitive e/o-presents are a well-established Indo-European
formation, as shown by equations like Ved. jyate = OIr. gainithir “is
born”, Ved. mriyáte = Lat. moritur “dies”, Ved. mányate “thinks” = Gk.
µαίνοµαι “I rage” etc. The Slavic paradigm pres. pri-lplǋ, i-sъšǋ,
u-sъplǋ : aor. pri-lpъ, i-sъxъ, u-sъpъ immediately recalls Vedic pairs of
an intransitive ya-present and a middle root aorist (mányate : ámata
“think”), a “passive” aorist (pádyate : pdi “fall”), or a thematic aorist
(tāmyati : tamat “be, become exhausted”). It is clear that northern
inchoatives like pres. *legéti, aor. *legét “lie down” directly continue a
recurrent Indo-European intransitive paradigm entailing a middle e/o-
present and a middle root aorist. Some of them have reasonable
cognates elsewhere in the family (including cases whose inclusion in the
–––––––
15
The reconstruction of an Indo-European nasal present *h1u-né-k-ti (e.g. LIV 244) is
very dubious. The Armenian present owsanim is easily understood as secondarily built
to the aorist owsaw (as in meanim, meaw “die” etc.). Baltic and Germanic certainly
have generalized the nasal from a present *unkéti, but this may easily be a replacement
of an older e/o-present *ukéti (ORu. vyče-).
16
A curious case is that of OCS i-sęče- “dry up”, with a e/o-present built to a neo-
root *senk- (cf. caus. CS sǋciti “dry up, dry out”, Gmc. *sangijan “singe” > OE sengen,
OHG bi-sengen) extracted from a nasal present *senkéti (Lith. sèkti, señka). It is unclear
to me whether i-sęče- implies that intransitive e/o-presents still kept some productivity
in the prehistory of Slavic, or whether it is to be explained as an occasional analogy to
semantically akin e/o-presents like i-sъše- “dry (intr.)”, u-vęžde- “wither”.
17
Old inchoative e/o-presents have frequently acquired stative value in Germanic, the
inchoative being expressed with prefixes or with a new nan-present, e.g. Go. sitan “sit”
(: Go. ga-sitan “sit down”), ON sofa “sleep” (: sofna “fall asleep”). The evolution of
presents denoting the gradual entrance into a state into plain statives is unremarkable
from a typological point of view.

northern anticausative-inchoative system is open to doubt, e.g. Lith.
pret. gìm÷ “was born”, Go. brūkjan “need”), but it can hardly be the
case that all of them are inherited. It rather seems that intransitive e/o-
presents (which, it cannot be emphasized enough, we know only in statu
moriendi!) still enjoyed a considerable productivity at an early stage of
Northern Indo-European, later superseded by the spread of nasal
presents as the productive anticausative-inchoative present stem for-
mation. A glimpse at our list immediately suggests that the relationship
between *-e/o- and nasal presents should not be framed exclusively in
terms of archaism vs. innovation, as both formations seem to occupy

different slots in the anticausative-inchoative system. The vast majority
of intransitive e/o-presents are inchoatives to statives and, specially,
synchronically isolated verbs, some of them certainly going back to a
northern inchoative : stative opposition (e.g. Gmc. *ligjan, *sitjan)
and/or to an Indo-European “stative-intransitive system”.18
12. We can now return to the inchoative nasal presents of the type
Lith. pa-buñda, OCS vъz-bъ(d)netъ.
12.1. It is doubtful whether Indo-European nasal presents could play a
relevant role in the formation of the northern “stative-inchoative
system” *bhudhói “is awake” : *bhundhéti, *bhudhét “wake up”. Pairs like
these usually go back to intransitive roots in which nasal presents were
in principle not at home. Potential comparanda are few in number and,
generally, of poor quality. We have already seen that equations like
Lith. pa-buñda ~ Gk. πυνθάνοµαι, Lith. lipa ~ Ved. limpáti, Gmc.
*fallan ~ Arm. pɈlanim, or Lith. jùnksta ~ Arm. owsanim (which rank
among the most frequently quoted) are probably false, or at least very
questionable. There is no point in discussing in detail even more
dubious candidates like Lith. švìsti, šviñta, ORu. svnuti “dawn” (:
stative Lith. švitti, OCS svitěti sę “shine”) ~ Skt. śvíndate Dhātupāṭha
–––––––
18
All four anticausative e/o-presents I have been able to find are synchronically
isolated from their putative transitive counterparts. Two of them (OCS gaše-, Lith. pret.
tãp÷) are involved in an aberrant opposition between an e-grade transitive thematic
present and an o-grade anticausative, ultimately going back to an Indo-European
paradigm tr. pres. *gwés-e-ti, aor. *gwḗs-s-t, intr. pres. *gwes-é-tor, aor. *gwós-e (cf.
Jasanoff 2008, with a different account of the Balto-Slavic facts). OCS gaše- is probably
inherited, cf. Ved. ní jasyati “disappears”, dásyati “becomes exhausted”. If Bl.-Sl. *tep-
“smear” is identified with *tep- “warm” (LIV 629f.), Ved. act. tápati “heats, burns”
(aor. tāpsīt) : mid. tápyáte “is vexed, pained” (aor. átāpi) points to a paradigm like that
of *gwes- and to an equally inherited character of Bl.-Sl. *tapéti (Lith. tãp÷, OCS
to(p)nǋti “sink, drown (intr.)”). The prehistory of OCS po-gyble- and ORu. pro-zęble- is
too obscure to permit any firm conclusions. Finally, the possibility that the apparent
denominatives ORu. o-krěple-, o-slple- are actually old primary verbs can hardly be
excluded.

1.10 “shines” (with Middle Indic treatment *nt > nd, cf. Tedesco 1948:
349), Go. af-linnan “leave off, depart”, OE linnan “come to an end,
cease” ~ Gk. λίναµαι· <ἐκ>τρέποµαι Hsch., Ved. (Gramm.) linti
“disappears” (λιάζοµαι “withdraw, recoil; sink”, Ved. lyate “gets
dissolved”, LIV 406), or OHG (h)rimpfan, Lith. skreba, Ru. skórbnut'
“wrinkle” ~ Gk. κραµβός “wrinkled” (LIV 557). Finally, cases like Go.
skeinan “shine” ~ SCr. sínuti “flash, start shining”, OE gínan ~ OCS
zinǋti “yawn” (: OHG weak class III gîên “gape, yawn”), or ON púna ~
Lith. pti, pū va/psta “rot” (: Ved. pyati, YAv. puiieti “id.”) may well
go back to Northern Indo-European, but in the lack of comparative

support they should not be projected back into Proto-Indo-European.
12.2. Matters look different if we focus on the e/o-presents nasal
presents are often known to have replaced. Pairs like *lip-ói : lip-é-ti,
*lip-é-t (OCS pri-lpi- : pri-lplje-, -lpe-) or *legh-ói : *legh-é-ti,
*legh-é-t (OCS leži- : lęze-, leze-; Gmc. *ligjan) make a particularly
archaic impression. It is reasonable to suppose that it was in verbs like
these where the characteristic northern Indo-European “stative-in-
choative system” arose. Both roots clearly belong to Jasanoff’s “stative-
intransitive system”. The Indo-European middle root aorist *lóip-e/
*lip-ré “clang to” (TB subj. lipātär “will be left over”), *lógh-e/*legh-ré
“lay down” (Hitt. lāk-hhi “bend”,19 Gk. ἔλεκτο) gave rise to a thematic
aorist *lip-é-t, *legh-é-t (OCS pri-lpe-, leze-). “duhé-presents” like
*lip-ór (TB lipetär “is left over”), *legh-ór (Hitt. lagāri “fall down”, Fal.
<lecet> “lies”) were specialized as statives. It must be emphasized that
this was an innovation, as Indo-European duhé-presents cannot be
characterized as exclusively or even predominantly stative in meaning.
In Anatolian and Indo-Iranian, the only two branches in which
duhé-presents are still directly preserved, some examples may be so
qualified (e.g. Hitt. dukkāri “is visible, is important”, wakkāri “is
lacking”, GAv. sruiiē “is famed”), but most of them certainly not (e.g.
Hitt. išduwāri “becomes evident”, lagāri “falls down”, urāni “burns
(intr.)”, kištāri “perishes”, Ved. cité “appears”, duhé “gives milk”). The
numerous Tocharian presents of class III and IV are likewise very rarely
stative. The specialization of duhé-presents as statives of course recurs
in Italic, which shares with the northern languages the tendency to
associate them morphologically with the denominative “ē-statives”.
Both may well be early “Western” tendencies (the path taken by Greek
was entirely different).
–––––––
19
The transitivity of Hitt. lāk-hhi is secondary, cf. Jasanoff (2003: 172), Villanueva
(2010/11: 7f.).

The specific northern Indo-European innovation, I submit, was that
this process triggered a paradigmatic split. Thematic aorists like *lip-é-t,
*legh-é-t kept their inherited inchoative value and gave rise to a new
paradigm of their own, now in systematic opposition to the
duhé-presents with which they were once paired (cf. GAv. sruiiē :
srāuuī, Ved. cité : áceti). It was only natural for e/o-presents, the
second member of the “stative-intransitive system”, to become the
present stem regularly associated to the aorists *lip-é-t, *legh-é-t. As in
the case of anticausative nasal presents like *munkéti (← *munktói), the
association of mostly middle e/o-presents to active thematic aorists

probably triggered a general tendency to adopt active inflection.
Unfortunately, the original core of inchoative e/o-presents is almost
as indeterminable as that of the anticausative nasal presents. Of the
northern intransitive e/o-presents that are certainly inherited, cases like
OCS u-mr͡etъ “will die”, i-sъšetъ “dry (intr.)”, Go. wahsjan “grow” or
OHG swizzen “sweet” were probably never in opposition to a stative
verb. Inchoatives like Lith. pret. mìn÷ “remembered” (: minti) or Go.
þaursjan “be thirsty” (: OHG dorrên “dry up”?) are certainly inherited
(cf. Ved. mányate, tṣyant-), but the Indo-European antiquity of archaic-
looking cases like Gmc. *ligjan, *sitjan, OCS pri-lplje- or ORu.
u-sъple-/Gmc. *suban (← *subjan) is uncertain. OIr. laigid “lie”,
directly compared with Gmc. *ligjan by Jasanoff (2003: 160), is derived
from a thematic present by Kümmel (LIV 398, with reference to
McCone). Gmc. *sitjan can be compared with OIr. saidid “sit” and
Arm. aor. hecaw (pres. hecanim “mount, ride”), but OIr. saidid may
continue a thematic present, and the possibility that Arm. hecaw con-
tinues a sigmatic aorist can hardly be discarded (cf. LIV 513). A cognate
of OCS pri-lplje- is found only in Ved. lípyáte “stick, be smeared”,
which could be a Vedic innovation, whereas ORu. u-sъple-, Gmc.
*sub[j]an lack extra-northern cognates altogether. No matter how these
examples are actually judged, the principles underlying the formation of
northern inchoative presents like *lip-é/ó- or *legh-é/ó- are certainly
Indo-European in date. It is thus not particularly problematic to suppose
that intransitive e/o-presents underwent a secondary productivity in the
northern area (as demanded, on the other hand, by the large number of
examples we still have).
13. An important corollary of this scenario is that inchoative nasal
presents like *bhundhéti (aor. *bhudhét) are to be regarded as a secondary
import from the anticausative type *munkéti.

The northern class of anticausative-inchoative nasal presents, I

propose, originated among anticausatives like *munkéti “is released” (:
*méuketi “releases”), skindéti “splits (intr.)” (: *skéideti “splits (tr.)”),
aor. *mukét, skidét. The type rapidly became productive for deverbal
anticausatives and, later, for fientive denominatives. By this time a class
of oppositional inchoatives like *lipéti “sticks to, is left over” (: *lipoi
“sticks to, remains”), *bhudhéti “wakes up” (: stative *bhudhói “is
awake”), aor. *lipét, *bhudhét, had already developed. Unlike in Indo-
Iranian, however, in Northern Indo-European e/o-presents were not
specialized as intransitives alone. At a relatively early date e/o-presents

began to be replaced by nasal presents. The motivation was evidently
the closeness in meaning between anticausatives and inchoatives and
their shared (and central) aorist formation. This basically yields the
productive northern anticausative-inchoative class we can reach through
internal reconstruction, preserved with more or less extensive modi-
fications in Baltic, Slavic and Germanic. Finally, nasal presents could be
used to renew morphologically primary verbs with the appropriate
semantics.
Although it is of course impossible to prove that nasal presents like
Lith. šviñta / ORu. svnuti “dawn”, Go. skeinan / SCr. sínuti “start
shining”, or OE liornian “learn” (: stat. Go. lais “know”) are secondary,
the scenario just sketched squares well with a number of facts. The nasal
present of *munkéti and other anticausatives can be motivated in an
Indo-European perspective. The same does not hold true for inchoatives
like *bhundhéti. For these, an old e/o-present is not surprising and is
actually still attested in historical times. The meaning of the thematic
aorist associated to both types is predicted by the middle origin of this
formation. It is reasonable to suppose that it played an important role in
the constitution of the northern anticausative-inchoative class at an early
date, when the verbal system had not yet switched from one governed
by aspect to one governed by tense. The distribution between nasal and
e/o-presents we have postulated and the relative chronology of the
spread of nasal presents over e/o-presents is basically confirmed by the
preponderance of e/o-presents among inchoatives and derivationally
isolated verbs, and by their rarity among anticausatives and denomi-
natives.

References
Aitzetmüller, Rudolf (1978): Altbulgarische Grammatik als Einführung in die slavische

Sprachwissenschaft. Freiburg: Weiher.
Andersen, Henning (1999): The Western South Slavic Contrast Sn. sah-ni-ti // SC
sah-nu-ti. Slovenski jezik – Slovene Linguistic Studies 2, 47-62.
Annerholm, Hjalmar (1956): Studier över de inkoativa verben på na(n) i gotiskan och de
nordiska fornspråken. Lund: Carl Bloms Boktryckeri.
Bammesberger, Alfred (1986): Der Aufbau der germanischen Verbalsystems.
Heidelberg: Winter.
Barton, Charles R. (1980): Notes on the Baltic Preterite. IF 85, 246-278.
Gorbachov, Yaroslav (2007): Indo-European Origins of the Nasal Inchoative Class in

Germanic, Baltic and Slavic. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University.
Gotō, Toshifumi (1987): Die "I. Präsensklasse" im Vedischen: Untersuchung der
vollstufigen thematischen Wurzelpräsentia. Wien: Österreichische Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Hollifield, Patrick Henry (1977): On the System of Conjugation in Indo-European. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Harvard University.
Jamison, Stephanie (1983): Function and Form in the -áya-Formations of the Rig Veda
and Atharva Veda. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Jasanoff, Jay H. (1978): Stative and Middle in Indo-European. Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck
— (2003): Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford-New York: Oxford University
Press.
— (2008): *gwes-, *(z)gwes- or *(s)gwesh2-? The PIE root for "extinguish/go out". In: C.
Bowen, B. Evans, L. Miceli (eds.), Morphology and Language History. In honour of
Harold Koch. Amsterdam-Philadelphia: Benjamins, 155-166.
Kloekhorst, Alwin (2008): Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon.
Leiden-Boston: Brill.
Kulikov, Leonid (2001): The Vedic -ya-presents. Dissertation, Leiden University.
Kümmel, Martin (2000): Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.
LIV: Lexicon der indogermanischen Verben. Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstamm-
bildungen, unter Leitung von Helmut Rix und der Mitarbeit vieler anderer bearbeitet
von Martin Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp, Brigitte Schirmer. Zweite,
erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von Martin Kümmel und Helmut Rix.
Wiesbaden: Reichert, 2001.
Meiser, Gerhard (1993): Zur Funktion des Nasalpräsens im Urindogermanischen. In: G.
Meiser (ed.), Indogermanica et Italica. Festschrift für H. Rix. Innsbruck: Institut für
Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, 280-313.
Neri, Sergio (2007): cadere e abbatere in indoeuropeo. Sull’ etimologia di tedesco fallen,
latino aboleo e greco ἀπόλλυµι. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der
Universität Innsbruck.
Peters, Martin (2004): On Some Greek nt-Formations. In: J. H. W. Penney (ed.), Indo-
European Perspectives: Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies. Oxford-New
York: Oxford University Press, 266-276.
Praust, Karl (2004): Zur historischen Beurteilung von griech. κλῑzνω, der altindischen 9.
Präsensklasse und zur Frage grundsprachlicher „ni-Präsentien“. In: P. Anreiter, M.
Haslinger, H. D. Pohl (eds.), Artes et Scientiae. Festschrift für Ralf-Peter Ritter zum
65. Geburtstag. Wien: Edition Praesens, 369-390.
Ringe, Don (2006): A Linguistic History of English. Volume I: From Proto-Indo-
European to Proto-Germanic. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press.

Seržant, Ilja A. (2008): Die idg. Wurzeln *kelh1- "etw. bewegen" und *kelh3- "sich
erheben". IF 113, 59-75.
Sigalov, P. S. (1961): O strukture glagolov s suffiksom -nu-/-n- v russkom jazyke.
Vestnik leningradskogo universiteta 20, 89-101.
Smoczyński, Wojciech (2007): Słownik etymologiczny języka litewskiego. Vilnius:
Vilniaus universiteto leidykla.
Stang, Christian S. (1942): Das slavische und baltische Verbum. Oslo: Dybwad.
— (1966): Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo-Bergen-Tromsö:
Universitetsforlaget.
Tedesco, Paul (1948): Slavic ne-Presents from older je-Presents. Language 24, 346-387.
Vaillant, André (1948): Manuel du Vieux Slave, I: Grammaire. Paris: Institut d’Études
slaves.
— (1964): Manuel du Vieux Slave, I: Grammaire. Seconde édition revue et augmentée.

Paris: Institut d’Études slaves.
— (1966): Grammaire comparée des langues slaves. Tome III. Le verbe. Paris:
Klincksieck.
Villanueva Svensson, Miguel (2005): The Baltic ē-Preterit revisited. Baltistica, VI
Priedas, 239-252.
— (2006): Traces of *o-Grade Middle Root Aorists in Baltic and Slavic. HS 119, 295-
317.
— (2007/08): Indo-European Middle Root Aorists in Anatolian (Part I). Sprache 47,
203-238.
— (2009): review of S. Neri (2007). Baltistica 44, 393-397.
— (2010): Baltic sta-Presents and the Indo-European Desiderative. IF 115, 204-233.
— (2010/11): Indo-European Middle Root Aorists in Anatolian (Part II). Sprache 49, 6-
25.
Watkins, Calvert (1969): Indogermanische Grammatik. III/1. Geschichte der indoger-
manischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Winter.
Vilnius University Miguel Villanueva Svensson

Universiteto g. 5
LT-01513 Vilnius
Lithuania
e-mail: miguelvillanueva@yahoo.com


Miguel Villanueva Svensson - Anticausative-Inchoative Verbs in The Northern Indo-European

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

Miguel Villanueva Svensson - Anticausative-Inchoative Verbs in The Northern Indo-European

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anticausative-inchoative verbs in the

northern Indo-European languages

1. Baltic, Slavic and Germanic have a productive class of

“Northern Indo-European” as an intermediate node between Proto-Indo-

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

(intr.)” (: plsti, plẽčia “widen”), pa-bùsti, -buñda “wake up” (: budti,

reconstructed for Proto-Baltic (cf. Villanueva 2010: 206ff., with

“grow warm” (southern Žemaitian bina, šina). In northern Žemaitian

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

following derivational patterns:

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

miẽgti/miẽga “sleep”), Go. ga-waknan “wake up” (: wakan, -aiþ “be

not restricted to the present stem:

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

5. Germanic. The following evidence points to a relatively recent

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

withered”, OHG wesan “weary” (: ON visnan, OHG wesnên “wither”),

fæʒ(e)n “rejoicing”). This is the situation we find in Gothic. To judge

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

verbs, is not productive in Slavic.

paradigm must thus have been *dvig-ti, *dvig-ne/o-, *dvig-e/o-. The

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

theory, they originated as back-formed to an obsolete 3rd sg. middle *-e

account in general discussions of the thematic aorist. Its functional value

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

8. While the “middle” value of Slavic (northern Indo-European)

riṇákti “leaves” : rícyate “leaves (intr.)” (aor. raik : reci), punti

essentially different systems, we have to deal with the problematic

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

functional value of anticausative nasal presents provides a rationale for

projected back into Indo-European as *mu-né-k-ti, *méuk-t :

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

counterpart survived: OCS pro-mъknǋti sę “spread (intr.)” (with back-

skýsta “liquefy” (< *sksti, *skiñda) can be derived from a “northern

“northern Indo-European” intr. *kli-né/ó- (aor. *k-é/ó- or *kl(i)-é/ó-)

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

motion” (LIV 305f.).

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

“spread”) and Indo-Iranian: Ved. mid. intr. pres. práthate “spreads”,

(few of the northern anticausatives are inherited with certainty). The

presents, the case of inchoative nasal presents is entirely different. Pairs

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian can be pushed even further. The Vedic

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

The stative Gmc. *libaiþ, OCS -l pěti is certainly inherited, cf. TB

reach a Balto-Slavic inchoative paradigm inf. *lip-tēi, pres. *lip-e/o-,

creation. If old, the Vedic transitive nasal present limpáti “smears” is

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

11.1.1. Anticausatives to transitive-terminative verbs. All examples

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

ORu. u-sъple- “fall asleep” : sъpati, sъpi- “sleep”  ON sofa, OE

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

OHG swizzen “sweet”  Latv. svîst, svîstu “id.”  TB sya-, ?Ved.

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

formations, typically nasal presents (and sta-presents in Baltic), but also

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

terms of archaism vs. innovation, as both formations seem to occupy

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

go back to Northern Indo-European, but in the lack of comparative

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

association of mostly middle e/o-presents to active thematic aorists

Hist. Sprachforsch. 124, 33-58, ISSN 0935-3518

paradigm must thus have been dvig-ti, dvig-ne/o-, *dvig-e/o-. The

projected back into Indo-European as mu-né-k-ti, méuk-t :

skýsta “liquefy” (< sksti, skiñda) can be derived from a “northern

“northern Indo-European” intr. kli-né/ó- (aor. k-é/ó- or *kl(i)-é/ó-)

The stative Gmc. *libaiþ, OCS -lpěti is certainly inherited, cf. TB

reach a Balto-Slavic inchoative paradigm inf. lip-tēi, pres. lip-e/o-,

ORu. u-sъple- “fall asleep” : sъpati, sъpi- “sleep” ON sofa, OE

OHG swizzen “sweet” Latv. svîst, svîstu “id.” TB sya-, ?Ved.