The Indo-European Verb

The Indo-European Verb

Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Los Angeles 1315 September 2010

Edited by H. Craig Melchert

Wiesbaden 2012 Reichert Verlag

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet ber http://dnb.ddb.de abrufbar.

2012 Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag Wiesbaden ISBN: 978-3-89500-864-1 www.reichert-verlag.de Das Werk einschlielich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschtzt. Jede Verwertung auerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulssig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere fr Vervielfltigungen, bersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Speicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Gedruckt auf surefreiem Papier (alterungsbestndig pH7 , neutral) Printed in Germany

Table of Contents
Foreword BENEDETTI, Marina: Valency Alternations with Perception Verbs in Indo-European Languages BOZZONE, Chiara: The PIE Subjunctive: Function and Development DAHL, Eystein: Towards an Account of the Semantics of the PIE Imperative DAUES, Alexandra: Hittite Verbs in -a-: Can a Function Be Recognized? DI GIOVINE, Paolo: The Function of *o-Ablaut in the PIE Verbal System ESKA, Joseph F.: Absolute and Conjunct, Cowgill and Apocope GARCA CASTILLERO, Carlos: The Old Irish Paradigm of Clause Types GARCA RAMN, Jos Luis: Aspect and Mood in Indo-European Reconstruction HACKSTEIN, Olav: When Words Coalesce: Chunking and Morphophonemic Extension HILL, Eugen, and Michael FROTSCHER: The Accentuation of Old Indic Reduplicated (3rd Class) Presents HOCK, Hans Henrich: Phrasal Prosody and the Indo-European Verb JASANOFF, Jay H.: Long-vowel Preterites in Indo-European KIM, Ronald I.: Unus testis, unicus testis? The Ablaut of Root Aorists in Tocharian and Indo-European KLOEKHORST, Alwin: Hittite /e-ablauting Verbs KOCHAROV, Petr: Perfect Reduplication in Late Indo-European KLLIGAN, Daniel: Patterns of Suppletion in Classical Armenian: The Case of Motion Verbs KRASUKHIN, Konstantin G.: Indo-European Conjugation: History and Pre-History KROONEN, Guus: Reflections on the o/zero-Ablaut in the Germanic Iterative Verbs KMMEL, Martin Joachim: The Inflection of the Hittite Verb Class of mema/iLEHNERT, Christian: Anmerkungen zum homerischen Augment LHR, Rosemarie: Ereignistyp und Diathesenwechsel im Indogermanischen MAJER, Marek: An Archaic Indo-European Verbal Form in the Slavic Generalizing Particle *-do? MALZAHN, Melanie: Archaism and Innovation in the Tocharian Verbal System: The Case of Valency and the Case for a Conspiracy Theory OETTINGER, Norbert: Das Verhltnis von nominaler und verbaler Reduplikation im Indogermanischen und Anatolischen PEYROT, Michal: e-grade in Tocharian Verbal Morphology PINAULT, Georges-Jean: Interpretation of the Tocharian Subjunctive of Class III vii 1-6 7-18 19-28 29-41 43-50 51-59 61-72 73-85 87-104 105-114 115-126 127-135 137-149 151-160 161-165 167-177 179-189 191-200 201-208 209-212 213-224 225-234 235-240 241-246 247-256 257-265

vi POOTH, Roland A.: Zum Aufkommen transitiver Verben im frhen Vedischen am Beispiel
1

267-284 285-288 289-294 295-304 305-313 315-332 333-342 343-351

RASMUSSEN, Jens E.: The Origin of the Albanian Mediopassive REINHART, Johannes: Inheritance or Innovation in the Proto-Slavic Verb: the Ending -mo (1st Person Plural) SCHEUNGRABER, Corinna: Nasal Suffix Verbs in Germanic and KLUGES Law SOWA, Wojciech: The Phrygian Middle
DE VAAN,

Michiel: Latin Deverbal Presents in --

VILLANUEVA SVENSSON, Miguel: The Ablaut of the Middle Root Athematic Presents in Indo-European YOSHIDA, Kazuhiko: Notes on Cuneiform Luvian Verbs in *-ye/oZIEGLER, Sabine: Zur Konzeption moderner Wrterbcher: Probleme der Philologie und der Lexikographie dargestellt anhand der uridg. Wurzeln *h1esh2- antreiben, *h2essuchen und ihrer Fortsetzer im rigvedischen Sanskrit Contact Information of Contributors

353-363 365-367

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

Guus KROONEN (Copenhagen)

In a number of successive publications (Kroonen 2010; 2011a; 2011b; 2012), I have tried to collect evidence in favor of the etymological connection of the Germanic iterative verbs with the Proto-IndoEuropean *neh2-presents that were derived from primary aorists (cf. Osthoff 1882). This connection is of some importance, not just because it sheds light on the rise of the (from the Indo-European perspective) rather eccentric Proto-Germanic verbal system, but also because it gives a glimpse into the complexity of the Proto-Indo-European verb. The evidence that I have been able to gather consists of the following four elements: 1) the formal similarities of the Germanic iteratives with the nominal nstems, which points to a nasal suffix; 2) straightforward correspondences of Germanic iteratives with nasal presents in other Indo-European languages; 3) the systematic occurrence of the zero grade of the root; and 4) the durative-repetitive aspect of the iteratives being understandable from the punctiliar aspect of the aorist made presentic, i.e. durative (cf. Kroonen 2011a: 94ff). The connection of the Germanic iterative verbs with the PIE *neh2-presents relies on both internal and external evidence. Within Germanic itself, the formal typology of the iteratives is remarkably similar to that of the n-stems, both morphological categories displaying systematic gemination of the root-final consonant. Since it is clear that the gemination in the n-stems was triggered by Kluges law, i.e. the rise of Proto-Germanic voiceless long stops out of a Pre-Germanic sequence of a consonant and a pretonic nasal, it is only logical to assume that the gemination in the iteratives was caused by the same law (Osthoff 1882: 298). This clearly indicates that an n-suffix must have been at work in the prehistory of the Germanic iteratives. The parallelism between the two morphological categories is, in fact, more intricate and farreaching. The linguistic evidence shows that the n-stems and the iteratives do not merely share a high frequency of geminate roots, but that they actually show a similar alternation of geminated and nongeminated roots. This is the background of the wide-spread cross-dialectal variation of formally dissimilar yet closely related iterative variants. Compare, for instance, the two iterative formations belonging to the strong verb ziohan to pull < *teuhan- < PIE *duk-e-, i.e. OHG zockn, MDu. tocken to raid, MHG zocken to tear, pull < *tukkn- and OHG zogn to pull, jerk < *tugn-. This root alternation, as it turns out, is understandable as the result of Kluges law translating the PIE alternation of a zero-grade root with a full-grade suffix into a two-way paradigmatic opposition consisting of roots ending in single and double stops (cf. Kluge 1884): Sanskrit to grab 1p. 2p. 3p. 1p. 2p. 3p. gbhmi gbhsi gbhti gbhms gbhth gbhnti Greek to tame PGermanic to pull *tukk-mi *tukk-si *tukk-i *tug-umme *tug-unde *tug-unani *C_C-nh2-mi *C_C-nh2-si *C_C-nh2-ti *C_C-nh2-m(s) *C_C-nh2-th1 *C_C-nh2-nti PIE

192

Guus Kroonen

In dialectal Germanic, the root variation of both the n-stems and the iteratives has further been multiplied by the rise of two new, analogical root variants brought about by the generalization of a paradigmatic length opposition. In the case of the iterative verb under discussion, this concerns the additional variants MHG zochen to pull, tear, MDu. token to shove < *tukn- and ME toggen to tug < *tuggn-. Apparently, the original paradigm was split into two secondary paradigms in each of which the articulation of the root-final stop was leveled, thus simplifying the allomorphy to an opposition of consonant length only. The rise of this length opposition is reminiscent of the wellknown morphophonological alternations in the Finno-Ugric languages that are generally referred to as consonant gradation (Kroonen 2011a: 94-97): Paradigm 1 3sg. *tukki 3pl. *tugunani Paradigm 2a *tukki > OHG zockn *tukunani > MDu. token Paradigm 2b *tuggi > ME toggen *tugunani > OHG zogn

3sg. 3pl.

The theory that Germanic iteratives are derived from PIE *neh2-presents is supported by a substantial number of etymologically secure correspondences of Germanic iteratives with nasal presents in other IE languages, especially in Latin (Kroonen 2011a: 97-98), cf. OHG brockn to crumble < *brukki and Lat. frang to break < *bhrg-neh2-, OE liccian to lick < *likki and Lat. ling id. < *ligh neh2-, OE lapian, EDu. lappen, lappen, lapen to lick < *lappi, *labunani and Lat. lamb id. < *lHbh-n(e)h2-, OE accian to pat < *akki, *agunani and Lat. tang to touch < *th2g-n(e)h2-. Presumably, these examples have not been recognized before because of the relative unfamiliarity of Thurneysens law, i.e. the nasalization and subsequent pre-nasalization of stops before n in Latin as suggested by Thurneysen (1883), cf. unda f. wave < *ud-neh2-, fundus bottom < *bhudh-n- (cf. Skt. budhn- id.), mung < *muk-n(e)h2- (cf. Gr. to blow ones nose < *muk-ie-), pand to expand < *pt-n(e)h2- (cf. Gr. to spread out). Further important external evidence, in this context, consists of two Germanic-Baltic isoglosses, viz. ON lokka, OHG lockn, lohhn to entice, stroke, caress < *lukki, *lugunani and Lith. luginti (lnginti, luginti) to allure, fondle < *lug-n()h2-; and MDu. schrappen, schrapen, schraven, schrabben to scratch < *skrappi, *skrabunani and Latv. skrabint to gnaw < *skrobh-n(e)h2- (cf. Ru. skrest, 1sg. skreb to scratch). These two correspondences are informative about a number of different things. First, they seem to indicate that the iterative semantics of the *neh2-presents indeed is not a purely Germanic innovation, but must have arisen at a much older stage. This is in agreement with my hypothesis that the iterative aspect developed out of the aorist aspect when durative *neh2presents were created to punctiliar aoristic roots in late PIE (Kroonen 2011a: 99-101). Second, the evidence offered by the two potential isoglosses is in support of the view that the Latvian -in- suffix arose as a conflation of the Proto-Baltic zero-grade form *-in- < *-h2- (cf. Lith. -in-) with the fullgrade form *-n- < *-nh2- (Kortlandt 1989: 107; Schmalstieg 1992; contra Villanueva Svensson 2008). The Proto-Baltic suffix ablaut that follows from this reconstruction again offers an important parallel to the prehistoric inflection of the Germanic iteratives.1
1 In view of the connection with Proto-Germanic *luk(k)n-, the variation of Lith. luginti and lunginti might be used to back up Kortlandts claim (2007: 229; 2009: 74) that Thurneysens law was not operative in Italic alone, but actually already in Proto-Indo-European. According to Kortlandt, this process can thus be held responsible for turning the nasal suffix into the nasal infix, the element that because of the absence of any other infixes in PIE has always been the derivational odd one out. If Kortlandts scenario is correct, however, it seems logical to assume that infixation occurred in the singular of the nasal presents, where the full-grade nasal suffix came into direct contact with the root-final consonant, but not in the plural, where the nasal was in vocalization position. It thus appears that the dialectal difference of e.g. Skt. piti to adorn < *pi-n-k- vs. Lat. ping to paint < *pik-neh2- and Skt. mucti to release < *mu-n-k- vs. Lat. mung to blow ones nose

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

193

A final argument in favor of linking the iterative verbs to the PIE *neh2-presents concerns the ablaut pattern. Since most of these *neh2-presents in other IE languages appear with a zero-grade of the root, something that evidently is a result of the accent shifting between the suffix and the ending in this verbal class (see, for instance, Skt. gbhti and Gr. above), it seems hardly surprising that the vast majority of the Germanic iteratives have the same ablaut grade, cf. G stehlen to steal < *stelanvs. Rhnl. stollen to steal, hide < *stl-n(e)h2-. It can even be shown that the zero grade was productive in Germanic iteratives that were apparently derived from strong verbs. Thus, the strong verb ON steka, OHG stehhan < *stekan- to stick, which developed out of the tudti-verb / aorist present *stikan- < *stig-e- (cf. Lat. instig to prick) by a-umlaut, received a secondary iterative G stochen to poke < *stukn-. Since the *u-vocalism cannot possibly have developed out of PIE *i in a regular way, it is to be analyzed as having arisen as a productive zero-grade marker in this particular case. However, in spite of the dominance of the zero grade in the root of the Germanic iteratives, the corpus of a-grade iteratives is far from negligible (see appendix), and this poses a problem that cannot be ignored. What seems to be the issue here is not so much the mere existence of a-grade iteratives, but rather the fact that they so often appear to alternate with etymologically identical zero-grade iteratives. It is conceivable that, in a number of cases, the doublets arose by the introduction of a secondary zero grade in iteratives to class 6 strong verbs, i.e. the so-called intensives. ON skaka, OE sceacen to shake < *skakan-, for instance, is not only accompanied by the iterative ME shaggen id. (cf. Eng. to shag), implying a Proto-Germanic paradigm *skakki, *skagunani, but also by MHG schocken id., ME shocken, shoggen id. < *skukki, *skugunani. Since the *u-vocalism is phonetically irregular here, it must again be a secondary zero-grade marker. Similar solutions are also at hand for e.g. Norw. drag(g)a to trudge < *drag(g)n- vs. ME druggen, Norw. drugga, droga to trudge < *drug(g)nand MDu. grabben, grapen, LG grappen to grab < *grap(p)/bbn- vs. MDu. grobben to scramble, scrape < *grubbn-, which belong to the typically intensive strong verbs *dragan- and *graban-. It seems doubtful, however, that productive zero grades can account for all of the attested *a/zero alternations in Germanic. Given the close semantic and formal similarities of many of the existing iterative doublets, it is difficult to ignore the possibility that, at least in some cases, the two different ablaut variants split off from a single Proto-Germanic paradigm. Numerous doublets can be mentioned here, cf. Pal. grippen to grapple < *gribbn- vs. OE grpian, OHG greifn to grope < *graippn- (to *grppan- to grab); OE liccian, OHG leckn to lick < *likkn- vs. Goth. bi-laigon id. < *laign-; Sw. dunka to hit < *dunkkn- vs. ON danga to beat up, Nw. dakka to slam < *dankk/gn- (to OSw. diunga, ME dingen to beat, hit < *dingwan-), Du. dial. drobben to trot < *drubbn- vs. G traben, MDu. draven to trot, drabben to walk to and fro < *drab(b)n- etc. In the case of OHG suckn to drop, sag < *sukki, *sugunani vs. MDu. sacken, ME saggen id. < *sakki, *sagunani, the possibility of original paradigmatic unity seems especially difficult to avoid, because there is no adjacent strong verb from which either variant could have straightforwardly been derived.2 The possibility of reconstructing ablauting iteratives is a solution that has hardly been explored yet. It did seem to have crossed Wissmanns mind though, when he was writing his study of the Germanic n-verbs. In discussing the subcategory of the iteratives, he correctly established the fact that die
< *muk-neh2- may directly point to PIE paradigms *pingnh2ti, *pikh2nti and *mungnh2ti, *mukh2nti. For the sake of argument, note that the same alternation would occur if one assumes pure metathesis of the nasal rather than nasalization of a preceding stop (cf. Rasmussen 1990; Milizia 2004). Of course, the original distribution could easily have become obscured by different types of generalizations in the different dialects. For instance, it must be assumed in the two aforementioned cases that the non-nasalized roots were simply given up in favor of the nasalized ones in Latin, while the two allomorphs became conflated in Sanskrit, where the nasalization became dissociated from the following consonant by the intrusion of the original consonantism from the plural. In any case, I wonder whether it may prove worthwhile to also consider explaining the wavering nasal infix in Lith. lu(n)ginti by reconstructing a Proto-Baltic doublet *lungnti ~ *luginti from PIE 3sg. *lungnh2ti, 3pl. *lugh2nti. 2 A possible candidate would be the etymologically obscure *sinkwan- (cf. Go. sigqan, ON skkva etc. to sink), which then would have to be reconstructed as a rather far-fetched formation *sinkkwan- < *se-n-k-nu-.

194

Guus Kroonen

Wurzelsilbe fast nur a und u (resp. o) aufweist, aber nie die e-Stufe (1932: 46). He then goes on to explain, however, that dieser Wechsel a : u eben nicht identisch [ist] mit dem altererbten, auf Akzentwechsel beruhenden Ablaut, sondern er sich aus dem Bestreben der Sprecher [erklrt], verschiedene Gerusche mit den Mitteln der Sprache wiederzugeben (ibid.). Obviously, Wissmanns argument against reconstructing an ablauting paradigm can nowadays no longer be used. It is less evident, on the other hand, how exactly such a paradigm if it ever existed would have to be reconstructed. One option that can be considered is to reconstruct the paradigm as an athematic, hysterokinetic *neh2-verb. This reconstruction is based upon the well-established fact that the accent and hence the full grade of the verbal paradigm shifted between the suffix in the singular and the ending in the plural. If an o-grade ever occurred in this paradigm, it is to be expected in the singular, i.e. one position before the stressed syllable. This follows from the fact that o-grades in PIE usually occur in pre-tonic or post-tonic syllables, a distribution that has led to the hypothesis that the o-grade arose from an unstressed e-grade in a pre-stage of PIE: cf. Gr. acc. father vs. acc. having a good father (cf. Beekes 1985). With this principle in mind, the paradigm underlying the PGermanic iteratives could theoretically be set up as 3sg. *CoC-nh2-ti, 3pl. *CC-nh2-nti. In practice, however, this reconstruction remains highly problematic, because the rise of such a pretonic *o requires the introduction of an analogical full grade *e from elsewhere in the paradigm, while no such full grade is at hand. More importantly, there are hardly any traces of o-grades in *neh2-verbs in the other IE languages. A number of cases can be gleaned from Baltic (e.g. the aforementioned Latvian skrabint to Proto-Germanic *skrappi, *skrabunani), but since the iteratives were highly productive in this branch as well, these may simply be independent coinages to otherwise related o-grade intensives. This renders the reconstruction of ablauting nasal presents, e.g. PIE *skrobh-nh2-, rather conjectural. Another possible solution can be sought in the evidence for *o/zero alternations in the Hittite iconjugation. A Germanic iterative doublet with an especially close parallel in Hittite is Nw. dial. gurpa to devour, gobble, belch < *gurppn- and garpa, garva id. < *garpp/bn-, both verbs clearly being related to the i-verb 3sg. karpi, 3pl. kare/ipanzi to devour, consume < *ghrbh-ei, *ghbh-nti.3 Now, as it seems injudicious to deny the formal and semantic parallelism between these Germanic and Hittite verbs, this lexical correspondence appears to offer an important clue about the origin of the ablaut of the iteratives. Still, the clear presence of gemination in gurpa and garpa as opposed to the lack of a nasal suffix in Hittite remains a critical obstacle to assuming a direct connection. Alwin Kloekhorst in his Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon (2008) draws attention to a small group of n-presents belonging to the i-conjugation, primarily amanki, ame/inkanzi to tie; betroth, which he reconstructs as 3sg. *h2m-on-gh -ei, 3pl. *h2m-n-gh -enti (cf. Gr. h to tie up, strangle, Lat. ang to throttle, choke < *h2emg -). With this class in mind, one could hypothesize that the Germanic iterative doublet continued a similar i-conjugated n-present. A reconstruction *ghrbh-n-ei, *ghbh-n-nti, for instance, would under Kluges law regularly acquire a root doublet *garb-/*gurpp-. It is clear, however, that the i-conjugation cannot simply be transferred from Anatolian to Proto-Indo-European, let alone Germanic. Moreover, the amank-/ame/ink-class appears to continue perfects created to older nasal presents (Kortlandt 2010), not nasal presents to old perfects. As a consequence, the amank-/ame/ink-class must be analyzed as a purely Anatolian innovation that has nothing to do with the Germanic iteratives. The parallelism of Nw. gurpa, garpa, garva with Hitt. karpi, kare/ipanzi, on the other hand, seems to be genuine, the only remaining gap to bridge being the origin of the gemination in this verbal class. Probably the least complicated way around this problem is to abandon the idea that the ablaut doublets split off from a single paradigm, e.g. 3sg. *garppi, 3pl. *gurbunani.4 It would be more straightforward to
3 Kloekhorst (2008: 442-444) derives the root as *gherbh1- on the basis of the (received) comparison with Skt. gbhnti to seize and ON grpa id.. Although the semantic shift from grab to eat is far from inconceivable (cf. E snack to bite vs. MDu. snacken to snatch), the link with the Norwegian forms is more straightforward. It is further clear that ON grpa continues < *grpp- < *ghrbh-n- rather than *ghrb-. 4 The expected full grade **grapp/bn- was apparently replaced by *garpp/bn- under the influence of the zerograde forms.

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

195

instead regard the o/zero-ablaut iterative doublets as a vestige of either the so-called iterative-intensive verbs like PGermanic *gangan- ~ *gungan- to go < PIE *gh ngh-ti, *gh gh-nti (cf. Mottausch 1996) or of primary perfects, both classes having the same vowel alternation. Now since the meaning of the root *gh(o)rbh- clearly points to an iterative-intensive formation of the well-known type PGermanic *malan-/Lith. mlti, it seems logical to assume that the variants *gurppn- and *garpp/bn- demonstrate the pre-existence of an intensive verb *ghrbh-ti, *ghbh-nti rather than a primary perfect *ghrbh-e, *ghbh-r. It thus appears that the Hittite karpi, kare/ipanzi continues an intensive verb that was incorporated into the i-conjugation, probably because it had the same ablaut as i-verbs that were created to primary perfects. The origins of the iterative-intensive verbs with o-grade are, of course, highly debated. A common view is that they were derived from de-reduplicated formations, as a stressed reduplication syllable could theoretically explain the rise of *o in an unstressed root (cf. Stang 1966: 333; Klingenschmitt 1982: 146; Rasmussen 1989: 247; Kortlandt 1994). Most promising, in this respect, are the IndoIranian intensive verbs of the type Skt. jghanti strikes violently < *gwhen-gwhon-, since the ablaut as well as the semantic aspect dovetail with the typology of the o-grade presents in other languages. The ablaut-theoretic argument was refuted by Kmmel (2004: 144), however, who argued that no IndoIranian intensives are attested for roots that emerge in iterative-intensives in e.g. Balto-Slavic or Germanic. He therefore suggested at least temporarily reconstructing plain mi-verbs with o/zero-ablaut (Kmmel 2004: 148), a suggestion that I will follow here. The alternative, to reconstruct a Proto-Indo-European h2e-conjugation with paradigmatic o/e-ablaut as per Jasanoff (1979; 2003), seems less attractive. The postulation of this verbal category hinges upon the comparison of the alleged e/o-ablaut of some Hittite i-verbs with the occasional dialectal alternation of o-grade iterative-intensives with related e-grade thematic verbs elsewhere. However, the Germanic evidence in the form of the doublet Proto-Germanic *garpp/bn- ~ *gurppn- clearly points to o/zero-ablaut in the formation underlying the Hitt. i-verb karpi, kare/ipanzi, thus indicating that this formation must be reconstructed as *ghrbh-e/ti, *ghbh-r/nti rather than *ghrbh-e, *ghrbh-(s) (-ti). In combination with the reinterpretation of the e/i-vocalism in the plural of the i-verbs as a secondary zero grade (Kloekhorst, this volume), the evidence for a PIE verbal class with primary o/eablaut thus seems to be decumulating.5 Within Germanic itself, the derivation of *neh2-presents from presents with o/zero-ablaut is demonstrated by the preterit-presents, i.e. unreduplicated perfects of the otherwise unique -type. It seems clear, for instance, that the preterit-present *kanne, *kunnun to can (quasi *g(o)nh3-n-) arose as a back-formation to the de-aoristic nasal present *kunni, *kununani < *gnh3-nh2-ti, *gnh3-nh2nti (cf. Skt. jnti, Lith. inti to know < *gh3-nh2-).6 It thus reveals that there must have been a reverse derivational pathway from presentic o/zero-verbs to nasal presents. This is further corroborated by the fact that the same preterit-present appears to have given rise to the o-grade medial factitive ON kanna to explore (i.e. to make oneself familiar with) < *kannn- (quasi-PIE *gonh3-n-neh2-), just like the preterit-present attested as Goth. lais, *lisum to know produced the zero-grade medial factitive OS lnn, OFri. lirna, lerna, OE leornian to learn (i.e. to make oneself know). The ablaut difference of these two factitives may, in parallel to the derivation of the iterative doublets, be a reflection of the vowel alternation in the paradigm of the original perfects. Chronologically, the derivation of the *neh2-presents must have taken place before the loss of the original *a/zero-ablaut in the class 6 and 7 strong verbs with a-grades. In practice, this means that, for instance, the a- and zero-grade iteratives OSw., Nw. drabba to hit < *drappi, *drabunani and Nw. drubba to give a blow < *druppi, *drubunani can probably be traced back to an iterativeintensive *drab-ti, *drubini < *dhrbh-ti, *dhbh-nti, a formation surfacing as the strong verb ga-draban*
5 The material is in keeping with Mottauschs (l.c.) intermediate configuration, on the other hand, in which regular e/zero-presents co-occur with reduplicated h2e-presents with o/zero-ablaut. 6 Here, I differ from Hararson (1993: 80-81), who derives the root form *kunn- from a present with a nasal infix, viz. *g--nh3-. According to Hararson, Skt. jnti continues the same formation through remodeling of a proto-form *janti. However, the neh2-present *gh3-nh2- gives jnti straight away.

196

Guus Kroonen

to hew out in Gothic. This scenario is in agreement with the rise of the related strong verb *drepan-, cf. ON drepa to strike, kill, OHG treffan to hit, which logically follows from the fact that the ablauting iterative *druppi, *drubunani had become orphaned after the loss of the zero grade in the pertaining strong verb. The secondary origin of *drepan- is further confirmed by the fact that the verb shows clear signs of de-iterativization, the root-final consonant *p being abstracted from the iterative geminate (see Kroonen 2011a: 106-112). Orphaned iteratives are likely to have triggered the coinage of a considerable body of secondary strong verbs in Germanic. It can be claimed with certainty, for instance, that ON, Icel. hrjta to fall, fly, be slung, Nw. rjota to fall down < *hreuttan- was back-formed from the zero-grade iterative Norw. rta to slide down < *hrutn-, which in combination with MHG hurzen to rush < *hurttnand ON hrata to fall, OE hratian, hradian to rush < *hratti, *hradunani points to a PIE root *kret- (not *kreud-!), cf. Lith. krsti (krita, kreta) to fall, drop, die (< *kr-n-t- with secondary zerograde -i-). Fully parallel is the derivation of Sw. dial. grjopa to hollow out < *greuppan- from the iterative MDu. grobben to scramble, scrape, MLG gropen to hollow out < *gruppi, *grubunani, which apparently had become dissociated from the a-grade variant MDu. grabben, grapen, LG grappen to grab after the loss of ablaut in the strong verb *graban- to dig < *ghrbh-ti, *ghbh-nti. Note that the back-formation from the iterative is not only apparent from the root-final consonant of grjopa, which does not continue a root *ghreub- (pace Falk/Torp 1909: 146), but also from the iterative semantics to hollow out. A third interesting case consists of OE screpan, MDu. schrepen to scrape < *skrepan-. The strong verb is listed in combination with e.g. Ru. skrest id. as an example of a verb with o/e-ablaut by Kmmel (2004: 152), and thus potentially classifies as an example of Jasanoffs h2e-conjugation. However, the Germanic verb can hardly be used to substantiate a PIE root *skreb-,7 but is like OE sceorfan and sceorpan id. < *skerban-, *skerpan- more likely to be a backformation to the iterative *skurppi, skurbunani, cf. MDu. schorpen, schurpen to cut open. This formation seems to have coexisted beside the o-grade iterative *skrappi, *skrabunani cf. the already mentioned MDu. schrappen, schrapen, schraven, schrabben to scratch, and thus points to the pre-existence of an old iterative-intensive verb *skraban- < *skrbh-ti, *skbh-nti, cf. Latv. skrabt id.. I conclude that the egrade of the strong verb *skrepan- is unrelated to the one of e.g. Ru. skrest, and arose within the parameters of Proto-Germanic derivational history. Summarizing, I assume that the problematic a/zero-alternations occurring in a large body of Germanic iteratives do not necessarily imply a prehistoric paradigm with root ablaut, e.g. *CoC-nh2-ti, *CC-nh2-nti. A more probable scenario is that they echo the old o/zero-ablaut of the iterativeintensives, from which they seem to have been derived. The origin of this category is still debated in Indo-European studies, but it seems clear that the Germanic verbal system offers important evidence regarding the ablaut as well as the original derivation of this type.

References
Beekes, Robert S.P. 1985. The Origins of the Indo-European Nominal Inflection. Innsbruck: Institut fr Sprachwissenschaft der Universitt Innsbruck. Delbrck, Berthold G.G. 1869. Review of Anton Scherer, Zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache. Zeitschrift fr deutsche Philologie 1.124-128. Falk, Hjalmar, and Alf Torp. 1909. Wortschatz der germanischen Spracheinheit. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Hararson, Jn Axel. 1993. Studien zum urindogermanischen Wurzelaorist : und dessen Vertretung im Indoiranischen und Griechischen. Innsbruck: Institut fr Sprachwissenschaft der Universitt Innsbruck.
7 Lhr (1988: 359) has already pointed out earlier that the root-final stop of *skrepan- must be secondary.

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

197

Jasanoff, Jay. 1979. The position of the i-conjugation. In Erich Neu and Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch, 79-90. Innsbruck: Institut fr Sprachwissenschaft der Universitt Innsbruck. . 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Klingenschmitt, Gert. 1982. Das altarmenische Verbum. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kloekhorst, Alwin. 2008. Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill. Kluge, Friedrich.1884. Die germanische Consonantendehnung. Beitrge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 9.149-186. Kortlandt, Frederik. 1989. Lithuanian statti and related formations. Baltistica 25/2.104-12. . 1994. The Germanic sixth class of strong verbs. North-Western European Language Evolution 23.69-73. . 2007. Miscellaneous remarks on Balto-Slavic accentuation. In Mate Kapovi and Ranko Matasovi (eds.), Tones and theories: Proceedings of the international workshop on Balto-Slavic accentology, 229-235. Zagreb: Institut za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje. . 2009. Baltica and Balto-Slavica. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. . 2010. Hittite hi-verbs and the Indo-European perfect. Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic, 17, 373-382. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. Kroonen, Guus. 2010. On Gothic iup and the Germanic directionals. North-Western European Language Evolution 58/59.367-80. . 2011a. The Proto-Germanic n-stems: A study in diachronic morphophonology. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. . 2011b. False exceptions to Winters Law: On the effects of Kluges law on the Proto-Germanic consonantism. In Tijmen Pronk and Rick Derksen (eds.), Accent Matters (= Studies in Slavic and General Linguistics 37), 251-261. Amsterdam/New York: Rodopi. . 2012 (forthcoming). Consonant gradation in the Germanic iterative verbs. In Thomas Olander (ed.), Proceedings of the Sound of Indo-European conference held in Copenhagen 2009. Lhr, Rosemarie. 1988. Expressivitt und Lautgesetz im Germanischen. Heidelberg: Winter. Milizia, Paolo. 2004. Proto-Indo-European Nasal Infixation Rule. Journal of Indo-European Studies 32.337-359. Mottausch, Karl-Heinz. 1996. Germanisch gangan gehen und die starken Verben mit a aus *o. Historische Sprachforschung 109.76-109. Osthoff, Hermann. 1882. ber Aoristpraesens und Imperfectpraesens. Beitrge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 8.287-311. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegrd. 1989. Studien zur Morphophonemik der indogermanischen Grundsprache. Innsbruck: Institut fr Sprachwissenschaft der Universitt Innsbruck. . 1990. Zur Abbauhierarchie des Nasalprsens vornemlich im Arischen und Griechischen. In Heiner Eichner and Helmut Rix (eds.), Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie, Jakob Wackernagel und die Indogermanistik heute, 188-201. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Schmalstieg, William R. 1992. Lithuanian verbs with the infinitive suffixes -in- and -y-. Litanus 38/2.52-61. Stang, Christian S. 1966. Vergleichende Grammatik der baltischen Sprachen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget. Thurneysen, Rudolf. 1883. Urspr. dn, tn, cn im lateinischen. Zeitschrift fr vergleichende Sprachforschung 26.301-14. Villanueva-Svensson, Miguel. 2008. Lithuanian inti to know. Baltistica 18/2.175-199. Wissmann, Wilhelm 1932. Nomina postverbalia in den altgermanischen Sprachen, nebst einer Voruntersuchung ber deverbative -verba. Teil 1: Deverbative -Verba. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

198

Guus Kroonen

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

PGermanic strong verb *btan-: Goth. beitan, ON bta, OE btan, OHG bzzan to bite *brekan-: Goth. brikan, OE brecan, OHG brehhan to break *brehan-: ON brj, MHG brehen to shine ---

zero-grade iterative *bit(t)n-: OHG bizzn to grind, gnash / OE grist-bitian to gnash the teeth *brukkn-: OHG brockn to crumble

a-grade iterative *baitn-: OE grist-btian to gnash the teeth *brakn-: ON braka, OS brakon to make noise *bragn-: ON braga to shine

---

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

*dabbn-: Du. dial. dabben to stamp (of horses), to root, Eng. dab to strike, peck *dantn-: ON datta to beat

*dintan-: ON detta to fall, smack *dingwan-: OSw. diunga, ME dingen to beat, hit ---

*duntn-: Norw. dutta to push repeatedly *dunkkn-: Sw. dunka to hit, smack

*dankk/gn-: ON danga to beat up / Norw. dakka to slam *drab(b)n-: G traben, MDu. draven to trot / drabben to walk to and fro *drab(b)n-: OSw., Nw. drabba to hit / ODa. drabe to hit, kill

*drubbn-: Du. dial. drobben to trot

*draban-: Goth. ga-draban to hew out / *drepan- to hit: ON drepa to strike, OHG treffan to hit *dragan-: Go. dragan to carry, ON draga, OE dragan to pull, OHG tragan to carry *dreup(p)an-: ON drjpa to drip; to droop, OE dropan, OHG triofan to drip *kerran-: OE ceorran to cry, OHG kerran to squeak, cry *graban-: Go. graban, ON grafa, OE grafan, OHG graban to dig / *greuppan-: Sw. dial. grjopa to hollow out *grppan-: Go. greipan to catch

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

*drug(g)n-: ME druggen, Nw. drugga to trudge, stumble / Nw. droga to trudge *drup(p)/bbn-: Du. dial. drubben to hang ones head, be downcast / MDu. drup(p)en to sag, drip *kurrn-: ON kurra to babble, shout (of birds) *grup/bbn-: MDu. grobben to scramble, scrape / MLG gropen to hollow out

*drag(g)n-: Nw. drag(g)a to trudge

*drauppn-: OE drapian to drip

*karrn-: Icel. karra to shout (of birds), MHG karren to cry *grap(p)/bbn-: MDu grabben, grapen, LG grappen to grab

*gribbn-: G Pal. grippen to grapple

*graippn-: OE grpian, OHG greifn to grope

Reflections on the o/zero-Ablaut in the Germanic Iterative Verbs *krimman-: OE crimman to insert, OHG krimman to hurt; to disembowel *kring/kkan-: OE cringan / crincan to fall *krum(m)n-: Nw. krum(m)a to itch

199

*kram(m)n-: OSw. krama to press / MHG krammen to grab, OE crammian to cram *krankk/gn-: OHG krankoln to stumble / ON kranga to creep *raubn-: Goth. bi-raubon to rob, ON raufa to break open; to rob, OHG roubn to rob *jakk/gn-: OHG jagn, EDu. jakken to rush *hand(l)n-: OHG hantaln, OSw. hanna, handa to touch *hlam(m)n-: OHG hlamn to roar / ON hlamma to give a dull sound *hlauppn-: OHG hlouffn to run different ways

*krunkkn-: MDu. kronken to turn, wind

*reufan-: ON rjfa, OE rofan to break

*rupp/bbn-: MHG ropfen to pluck / Icel. rubba to scrape, G Als. roppen to pluck *jukk/gn-: G Swab. jucken to leap

---

*hinan-: Goth. hinan to catch, ON hinna to get *hlimman-: OE hlimman to sound

*hunttn-: OE huntian to hunt

---

*hlauppan-: Go. hlaupan, ON hlaupa, OE hlapan, OHG hlffan to leap, run *hreuttan-: Nw. rjota to fall down ---

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

*hurtn-: MHG hurzen to rush / *hrutn-: Nw. rta to slide down *likkn-: OE liccian, OHG leckn to lick *futn-: Nw. dial. fta to go, trod

*hrat/dn-: ON hrata to fall, OE hratian, hradian to rush *laign-: Goth. bi-laigon to lick *fat(t)n-: ON fata to step, OE fatian to fetch, MDu. vat(t)en to catch *sakk/ggn-: MDu. sacken / ME saggen to sag *skarrn-: MHG scharren to jut out *skarbn-: OE scearfian schrapen, OHG scarbn concidere / *skrap(p)/b(b)n-: MDu. schraven / schrabben / schrappen / schrapen to scratch *snaitt/dn-: OHG sneitn to shave MHG sneize ~ sneite cut out road in the woods

*fetan-: ON feta to step

---

*sukk/ggn-: OHG suckn to drop, sag

---

*skur(r)n-: OE scorian to project, jut / MHG schorren to jut out *skrubb/p(p)n-: MHG schruffen to cleave, MDu. schruppen to cut open / MDu. schrobben, schrubben to scratch / *skurppn-: MDu. schorpen, schurpen to cut open

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

*snan-: Goth. sneian, ON sna, OE sndan, OHG sntan to cut

*snittn-: OHG snizzn to cuttle

200
*stelan-: Goth. stilan to steal, ON stela, OE,OHG stelan to steal; to sneak *stautan-: Goth. stautan, OHG stzzan to bump *strkan-: OE strcan, OHG strhhan to wipe, stroke *swban-: ON svfa to move, turn, wander *swerban-: Goth. swairban to wipe, ON sverfa to whirle around, OE sweorfan to rub, to scour, to file *rfan-: ON rfa to grasp

Guus Kroonen *stulln-: Nw. dial. stulla to walk slowly, G Rhinel. stollen to steal, conceal *stuttn-: G Pal. stutzen to hit *staln-: OE stalian to steal; to sneak

*stautn-: OHG stzn to hit

---

*straikn-: OE strcian, OHG streihhn to stroke *swaibn-: OHG sweibn to turn *swarpp/bn-: Norw. dial. svarpa to thrust, push; to be dizzy / ON svarfa to roam; to tumble, fall down *raibn-: ON reifa to touch

*swipp/bbn-: Norw. svippa to make a turn / G schwibben to curve *swurpp/bn-: Norw. dial. surpa to shove, move / surva to be drowsy

*ripp(l)n-: Nw. dial. tripla to touch lightly *rummn-: MDu. drommen to crowd

*rimman-: OS thrimman to become heavy *wegan-: Goth. gawigan to move

*rammn-: ON ramma to trample *wakk/gn-: Icel. vakka to roam / ON vaga, OE wagian to move / Icel. vagga to wag, rock *wandn-: OE wandian to turn aside *wlaitn-: Goth. wlaiton to look around < *wlaitn-

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

*windan-: OE windan to wind, turn *wlt(t)an-: Goth. wleitan, ON lta to look

---

*wlit(t)n-: ON lita to watch, MHG lizzen to shine