The verbal system of the Proto-Indo-European language (PIE) was a complex system, with verbs categorized according to their aspect — stative, imperfective, or perfective. The system utilized multiple grammatical moods and voices, with verbs being conjugated according to person, number and tense. The system of adding affixes to the base form of a verb (its root) allowed modifications so that it could form nouns, verbs, or adjectives. The verbal system is clearly represented in Ancient Greek and Vedic Sanskrit, which closely correspond in nearly all aspects of their verbal systems and are two of the most well-understood of the early daughter languages of Proto-Indo-European. Aside from the addition of affixes, vowels in the word could be modified in a process called ablaut. This is still visible in the Germanic languages (among others)—for example, the vowel in the English verb to sing varies according to the conjugation of the verb: sing, sang, and sung.
The system described here is known as the "Cowgill-Rix" system and, strictly speaking, applies only to what Don Ringe terms "Western Indo-European" (Western IE), i.e. IE excluding Tocharian and especially Anatolian. The system also describes Tocharian fairly well, but encounters significant difficulties when applied to Hittite and the other Anatolian languages. In particular, despite the fact that the Anatolian languages are the earliest-attested IE languages, much of the complexity of the Cowgill-Rix system is absent from them. In addition, contrary to the situation with other languages with relatively simple verbal systems, such as Germanic, there is little or no evidence of the "missing" forms having ever existed. Furthermore, many of the forms that do exist have a significantly different meaning from elsewhere. For example, the PIE perfect/stative conjugation shows up simply as a present-tense conjugation known as the ḫi-present, with no clear meaning; on the other hand, the PIE nu-present, which in other languages is a primary verb suffix with no clear meaning, is in Hittite a productive secondary verb suffix that forms causative verbs. (On the other hand, Germanic, among others, has a class of present-tense verbs derived from PIE perfect/stative verbs, and both Germanic and Balto-Slavic have a class of secondary n- verbs with a clear meaning, derived originally from nu- and/or neH- verbs, so it is possible that many of the Anatolian differences are innovations.) It is generally accepted that the Anatolian languages diverged from other IE languages at a point somewhat before the Cowgill-Rix system was fully formed; however, there is no consensus concerning what the inherited system looked like, and which Anatolian differences are innovations vs. archaisms.
Contents |
Proto-Indo-European verb lexemes belonged to one of two aspect classes: stative (verbs that depict a state of being; also known as the perfect system) and eventive, the latter of which is broken down into imperfective (verbs depicting ongoing, habitual or repeated action; also known as the present system) and perfective (verbs depicting a completed action or actions viewed as an entire process; also known as the aorist system).
The terminology around the stative, perfective and imperfective aspects can be confusing. The use of these terms here is based on the reconstructed meanings of the corresponding forms in PIE and the terms used broadly in linguistics to refer to aspects with these meanings. In traditional PIE terminology, the forms described here as stative, perfective and imperfective are known as the perfect, aorist and present systems. The present/imperfective system in turn can be conjugated in two tenses, described here as present and past but traditionally known as present and imperfect. The traditional terms are based on the names of the corresponding forms in Ancient Greek (also applied to Sanskrit), and are still commonly encountered. Furthermore, there is a separate secondary-verb form commonly known as the "stative" and marked by a suffix *-eh₁-, which has no connection with the stative/perfect described here.
The following table shows the two systems of terminology.
| Process | Aspect | Aspect (traditional name) | Tense | Tense (traditional name) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stative | Stative | Perfect system | (unmarked) | Perfect tense |
| Eventive | Perfective | Aorist system | (unmarked) | Aorist tense |
| Imperfective | Present system | Present | Present tense | |
| Past | Imperfect tense |
Each verbal lexeme, especially eventive verbs, took on its own "root aspect", ostensibly according to the semantics of the root, although there are numerous unexplained surprises. Verbal roots whose default meaning was durative, ongoing, or iterative were generally imperfective, while roots whose meaning was punctiliar or discrete were perfective. Affixation of various types was used both to root certain verbs into their default aspects and to switch their aspects. A verb needed no derivational markers when functioning within its own root aspect, but many, if not most, roots were hyper-characterized with an aspect marker in order to emphasize their root aspects: the s-aorist, retained most notably in Greek, in which an -s- is affixed between the root and the personal ending is an example of a marker that typically characterized an aorist. Examples of aspect switching affixes include -éye/o, sk' e/o, and the nasal infix, all of which were used to derive present and imperfect verbs from non-present tense verbs. Importantly, the Indo-European verb was not durchkonjugiert ("through-conjugated"); several aspect switchers were available to be added to the root, but while certain roots show a preference for the same markers in multiple daughter languages, it nonetheless appears that particular markers were not exclusively assigned to any root.
For example, the basic word for "stand", *steh2-, was a root aorist; therefore, the word in its default aspect had the sense of "come to a standing position; to rise from a sitting position". In order to speak about "standing" in a present, durative sense ("be in a standing position"), the root aorist required a derivational marker to put it into the imperfective aspect. Most often, this aspect switcher was reduplication (cf. Greek ἵστημι, Sankskrit tíṣṭhati), although Germanic suggests a nasal infix or suffix was also used for this root (Gothic present ik standa vs. preterite ik stoþ), at least by a later period.
In the indicative mood an imperfective verb was conjugated in two tenses: present and past. If the perfect developed before the end of the common PIE period, it was near the end. Verbs had at least four moods: indicative, imperative, subjunctive and optative, as well as possibly the injunctive, reconstructible from Vedic Sanskrit and Homeric; two voices: active and mediopassive; three persons: first, second, and third; and three numbers: singular, dual, and plural. Verbs were also marked by a highly developed system of participles, one for each combination of tense and mood, and an assorted array of verbal nouns and adjectival formations.
The stative aspect signified a current state of being. It was traditionally known as perfect, a name which was assigned based upon the Latin tense before the stative nature of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) form was fully known. While Latin conflated the concept with tense, in PIE there was no association with any particular tense. The stative aspect was marked formally with its own personal endings, which differed from the eventives by a root in the singular in o-grade, but elsewhere in zero-grade, and typically by reduplication.
In many daughter languages, the stative took on a meaning that implied a previous action that had caused the current state, a meaning which resulted in the Greek perfect. Eventually, by shifting emphasis to the inchoative action, an action that was just started or a state that was just begun prior to the resulting state, the stative generally developed into a past tense (as in Germanic, Latin, and later, Greek). The original present sense of the IE stative is seen in the Germanic preterite-present verbs such as Gothic wait "I know" (< PIE *woidh₂e, originally "I am in a state resulting from having seen/found"; cf. Latin vidēre "to see", Sanskrit vinátti "he finds", with exact cognates in Sanskrit veda and Greek οἴδα, all of which retain their essentially present tense meaning "I know".
The perfective and imperfective aspect classes are together known as eventive, or verbs that depict events, to distinguish them from stative (verbs that depict a state of being). The perfective aspect, also known as perfectus (Latin "finished") or the aorist, was used for completed actions or actions viewed as an entire process. The imperfective aspect was used to describe continuous, durative actions. These eventive aspects were originally not marked for tense; however, the option arose to mark current action with the (later grammaticalized) addition of the hic-et-nunc (Latin "here and now") particle -i to the personal endings of verbs of imperfective aspect. This created a tense contrast among eventive verbs: the unmarked past (durative imperfect tense and non-durative, punctiliar aorist) vs. the present tense marked with terminal affixation of -i in the singular or -s in the plural.
The moods of PIE included indicative, imperative, optative, and subjunctive.
| Indicative | Imperative | Optative | Subjunctive | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Function | action described as fact | commands | wishes, hopes | action described as completely theoretical |
| Characteristics | default mood | personal endings differing from indicative; not conjugated in the first person | ablauting -ih1~yeh1- affixed to root; personal endings the same as imperfect/aorist indicative verbs (no -i) | thematic (e/o) suffix affixed to root; personal endings the same as present indicative verbs (with suffixed -i) |
The place of the injunctive mood, of obscure function, is debated. It takes the form of the bare root in e-grade with the omission of the augment and the hic et nunc particle, which were both tense markers. This causes Fortson (among others) to suggest that the use of the injunctive was for gnomic expressions (as in Homer) or in otherwise timeless statements (as in Vedic).
PIE, like many languages, had a set of conjugational classes for verbs, called "conjugations". In many modern languages, and to a fair extent in Latin, each verb lexeme belongs to a particular conjugation which determines all verb forms. In PIE, however, a verb lexeme would belong to one conjugation for each of the three aspects (imperfective, perfective, stative), with no clear relations among them. This leads to the system of describing a verb by its principal parts, one for each of the conjugational classes that a verb belongs to. (Latin has four principal parts, Ancient Greek six, and Sanskrit at least ten.)
For example, in Sanskrit, there are at least ten present conjugations, seven aorist conjugations, and five perfect conjugations, and in general, knowing the present conjugation of a verb does not help in identifying the aorist or perfect conjugation, and vice-versa. Furthermore, especially in Greek and Sanskrit, many verbs are missing some principal parts, and some verbs can be conjugated in some aspects according to multiple conjugations, sometimes with different meanings (see the above example with the Greek verb peithō).
This can also be seen in the third conjugation of Latin, which includes most verbs directly inherited from PIE. In the Latin third conjugation, verbs in the present tense can be either normal or i-stem, while verbs in the perfect can be formed in any of six or so different ways, and there is no general relation between the two.
A fundamental distinction in PIE was between primary and secondary verbs, although it is not always clear whether a particular verb was originally primary or secondary. Primary verbs were formed directly from PIE roots, while secondary verbs were formed either from primary verbs (so-called deverbal verbs) or from nouns (denominal verbs or denominative verbs) or adjectives (deadjectival verbs). (In PIE, nouns and adjectives had the same markings, and the same processes were used to form verbs from both nouns and adjectives, so the term denominative verb is often used to incorporate formations based on both nouns and adjectives.) Particular processes of forming secondary verbs had particular meanings such as causative, intensive, and desiderative. The formation of secondary verbs was part of the derivational system rather than the inflectional system, as they existed only for certain verbs and did not necessarily have completely predictable meanings (compare the remnants of causative constructions in English — to fall vs. to fell, to sit vs. to set, to rise vs. to raise and to rear). The above-mentioned verbal nouns and adjectives were likewise part of the derivational system (compare the formation of verbal nouns in English, using -er, -ing, etc.), although in many daughter languages they were incorporated into the inflectional system.
In PIE, secondary verbs existed only in the imperfective system, and had no stative or perfective forms. Even some of the primary verbs were missing stative or perfective forms, or had forms with unpredictable meanings, and many primary verbs had multiple ways of forming some or all of their aspects, sometimes with differences of meaning among the different forms. Furthermore, evidence from the Rig Veda (the earliest attestation of Sanskrit) indicates that secondary verbs in PIE were not conjugated in the subjunctive or optative moods.
Collectively, all of this indicates that in PIE, especially earlier on, all of the aspects and moods were part of the derivational rather than inflectional system. That is, the various "tenses", moods and such were originally independent lexical formations, similar to the way that verbal nouns in English are formed unpredictably from different suffixes, sometimes with two or more formations that may differ in meaning: e.g. reference vs. referral, transference vs. transferral, recitation vs. recital, or delivery vs. deliverance. Furthermore, a basic constraint in the verbal system prohibited applying a derived form to an already-derived form.
Only later, and gradually, were these various derivational forms combined into a single set of inflectional paradigms. This process proceeded in steps:
The gradual tendency in all of the daughter languages was to proceed through the stages just described, creating a single conjugational system that applied to all tenses and aspects and allowing all verbs, including secondary verbs, to be conjugated in all inflectional categories. Generally, the primary verbs were largely all lumped together into a single conjugation (e.g. the Latin -ere conjugation), while different secondary-verb formations produced all other conjugations; for the most part, only these latter conjugations were productive in the daughter languages. In most languages, the original distinction between primary and secondary verbs was obscured to some extent, with some primary verbs scattered among the nominally secondary/productive conjugations. Germanic is perhaps the family with the clearest primary/secondary distinction: Nearly all "strong verbs" are primary in origin while nearly all "weak verbs" are secondary, with the two classes clearly distinguished in their past-tense and past-participle formations.
NOTE: A blank space means the reflex of the given class in the given language is undetermined. If no reflexes exist, put "no" in the space.
| PIE | Sanskrit | Greek | Latin | Germ | OCS | Lith | OIr | Arm | Alb | Toch | Hitt |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1: -mi | class II (130) | two-syllable -mi verbs (9) | 4 or 5 verbs | "to be" | Class V (4 -mĭ verbs) | -mi verbs in OLith. | 3 verbs | class I | common | ||
| 2: -oh₂ | 2a: class I; 2b: class VI | many -ō verbs | many -ere verbs | most strong verbs | class I | class B I | class II; class III, IV (deponent) | very few verbs | |||
| 3a: Ci-CéC-mi | class III | a few prominent -mi verbs | |||||||||
| 3b: Ci-CC-oh₂ | relics | relics | a few verbs | ||||||||
| 4a: CR̥-néC-mi | class VII | CV-n-C-ánō verbs | CV-n-Cō verbs | relics | relics | n-infix verbs | class B III | -an- verbs | class VII | causative -nin- verbs? | |
| 4b: CR̥-néH-mi | class IX | -nēmi verbs | a few -n verbs | 4th weak (fientive) | class II (semelfactive -nǫ- verbs) | class B IV | class VI | no? | |||
| 4c: CR̥-néu-mi | class V, VIII | -nūmi verbs | relics | relics | class B V | causative -nu- verbs | |||||
| 5: primary -yoh₂ | 5a: class IV; 5b: passive verbs | many *-Cyō verbs | 3rd decl. i-stem; part of 4th decl. | strong verbs with -j- present | a few -ī/ī verbs | many verbs? | class B II | 5b: passive -i- verbs | |||
| 6a: denom. -Cyoh₂ | -yáti verbs | many *-Cyō verbs (e.g. -ainō, -izdō, -eiō); -iō, -uō | class XII from n-nouns | ||||||||
| 6b/c: factitive/denom. -eh₂-yoh₂: usually very productive | -āyati verbs | -aō contract verbs | -āre verbs (1st decl.) | 2nd weak in -ō- | -aj/a- verbs (class III Aa) | weak a-verbs (class A I) | 6b: athem. factitive | ||||
| 6d: factitive -o-yoh₂? | -oō contract verbs? | factitive 3rd weak verbs? | "a class of Anatolian denominatives"?[1] | ||||||||
| 6e: denom. -e-yoh₂: usually very productive | class X; denom. -a-yáti verbs | many -eō contract verbs | many -īre, a few -ēre verbs | denom. 1st weak | denom. -ī/ī verbs | denom. weak i-verbs (class A II) | |||||
| 7: caus./iter. CoC-é-yoh₂ | caus. verbs (very productive) | CoC-eō verbs: some iter., a few caus. | -ēre caus. verbs | caus. 1st weak (common) | caus./iter. -ī/ī verbs | caus. weak i- verbs (class A II) | |||||
| 8: stative -eh₁- | -(th)ē- aorist passive | most 2nd decl. verbs | most 3rd weak verbs | -ěj/ě- verbs; impf. -ě- > -a- suffix | |||||||
| 9a,b: primary -sḱ- | 9a: 13 -cchati verbs | 9a: relics; 9b: several verbs | 9a: several verbs; 9b: only discō "learn" | ||||||||
| 9c: -eh₁-sḱ- | stative inchoative in -ēscere (productive) | a few -oh verbs | |||||||||
| 9d: other -sḱ- | Homeric habitual past -esk- verbs | inchoative in -(ī)scere (productive) | c`-aorist, -ic`-subjunctive | class IX in B; causative in -ṣṣ- (very productive) | habitual, durative in -šk- (very productive) | ||||||
| 10a,b: desiderative -(h₁)s- | esp. 10b: desid. verbs (productive) | 10a: future tense | relics | no? | 10b: future tense | ||||||
| 10c: desid. -(h₁)sy- | future tense | no? | no? | relic: byšęštĭ | future tense | Gaulish future tense | |||||
| 11: -s- | relics | relics | relics | relics | relics | relics | relics | relics | relics | class VIII esp. in A |
NOTE: A blank space means the reflex of the given class in the given language is undetermined. If no reflexes exist, put "no" in the space.
| PIE | Sanskrit | Greek | Latin | Germ | OCS | Lith | OIr | Arm | Alb | Toch | Hitt |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1: root | class I (predominant in early Vedic; c. 130 attested verbs) | root aorist: well-attested | no | no? | a few aorists? | a few presents | |||||
| 2: -s- | classes IV, V, VI, VII | first aorist | s-perfect (to many primary -ere verbs) | no | sigmatic, productive aorist | no | s- and t-preterite; in subj., s-subjunctive | possibly -sh- aorist | |||
| 3: thematic | class II (more common in later Vedic) | second aorist | "aorist-present" verbs (relics) | "root aorist" to class I, II | some aorists | ||||||
| 4: redup. | class III (to causatives) | aorist to causatives | in Toch. A, aorist to causatives |
NOTE: A blank space means the reflex of the given class in the given language is undetermined. If no reflexes exist, put "no" in the space.
| PIE | Sanskrit | Greek | Latin | Germ | OCS | Lith | OIr | Arm | Alb | Toch | Hitt |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| perfect: Ce-CoC- | perfect tense (in Vedic, with present meaning) | perfect tense (often with present meaning, esp. in Homer) | reduplicated perfect (many verbs); a few perfect-presents | preterite tense; preterite-presents (15 verbs) | no? | no? | redup. preterite | no | only in perfect ptc. | ḫi-presents | |
| imperfect | imperfect tense (in Vedic, with aorist meaning) | imperfect tense | no? | only dō- "do" | no? | no? | no? | aorist, imperfect | singular imperfect | no? | preterite tense? |
| subjunctive | subjunctive (future meaning) | subjunctive | future of 3rd, 4th decl. | no | no? | a-subj.?; s-subjunctive < aorist subj. | no? | ||||
| optative | optative | optative | im-subj. to athematic verbs | subjunctive; also wiljan "want" | imperative | imperative ("permissive"?) | no | optative; plural imperfect | imperfect in B | no | |
| imperative | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | no | no | yes | yes | yes | yes |
| -nt- participle: usually active present ptc. | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | yes | only relics | no | meaning like a t-participle | ||
| -mh₁n- participle: usually mediopassive present ptc. | yes | yes | only relics | no? | present passive ptc. in *-mo- | yes in OPrus; present passive ptc. in *-mo- | only relics | present passive ptc. in *-m-? | |||
| -wos- participle: usually active past ptc. | yes | yes | -v- perfects | no | yes | yes | no | yes | |||
| -t- past participle (passive for trans. verbs, active for intrans.) | to most verbs | yes, adjectival force? | yes | to weak verbs | yes | yes | passive preterite | no | no | ||
| -n- past participle (same meaning as t-participle) | to some verbs | only relics | to strong verbs | yes | only relics | only relics | no? | no | |||
| -l- past participle | no | no | no | no | active "resultative" | no | no | passive | no | Toch. A gerundive | no |
| middle voice | in -i- | in -i- | in -r-, passive meaning | in -i-, passive meaning | no? | no? | in -r- | in -i- | in -i- | in -r- | in -r- |
| deponent (middle-only) verbs | yes | yes | yes | "to call" (innovative) | yes | ||||||
| dual verbs | yes | 2nd/3rd person only | no | 1st/2nd person only | yes | yes | no (nouns only) |
The primary distinction in verbs between the different ways of forming the present tenses was between thematic (ō) classes, with a thematic vowel o or e before the endings, and athematic (mi) classes, with endings added directly to the root. Traditional accounts say first-person singular is the only form where the endings differed, except for the presence or absence of the thematic vowel. Newer accounts by Sihler (1995) and Fortson (2004) are similar, with the proto-forms modernized using laryngeal notation. Sihler, however, notes that many of the most archaic languages have third-person singular forms missing a t and proposes an alternative t-less thematic ending along with the standard ending. Greek and Balto-Slavic have t-less forms in thematic actives, whereas Vedic and Hittite have t-less athematic middle forms. Beekes (1995), uses the t-less forms as the starting point for a radical rethinking of the thematic endings, based primarily on Greek and Lithuanian. These proposals are still controversial, however.
| Buck (1933) | Sihler (1995) | Fortson (2004) | Beekes (1995) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Athematic | Thematic | Athematic | Thematic | Athematic | Thematic | Athematic | Thematic | ||
| Singular | 1st | *-mi | *-ō | *-mi | *-oh₂ | *-mi | *-oh₂ | *-mi | *-oH |
| 2nd | *-si | *-esi | *-si | *-esi | *-si | *-esi | *-si | *-eh₁i | |
| 3rd | *-ti | *-eti | *-ti | *-eti/-ei | *-ti | *-eti | *-ti | *-e | |
| Dual | 1st | -? | -? | *-wos | *-owos | *-we- | *-owe- | *-ues | *-oues |
| 2nd | -? | -? | *-th₁es | *-eth₁es | *-to- | *-eto- | *-tHes/-tHos | *-etHes/-etHos | |
| 3rd | -? | -? | *-tes | *-etes | *-to- | *-eto- | *-tes | *-etes | |
| Plural | 1st | *-mos/-mes | *-omos/-omes | *-mos | *-omos | *-me- | *-ome- | *-mes | *-omom |
| 2nd | *-te | *-ete | *-te | *-ete | *-te(-) | *-ete(-) | *-th₁e | *-eth₁e | |
| 3rd | *-nti | *-onti | *-nti | *-onti | *-nti | *-onti | *-nti | *-o | |
A third conjugation has been proposed in Jay Jasanoff's h₂e-conjugation theory.
This twofold differentiation of personal endings (see below) was later fully grammaticalized as tense markers. Misleadingly, the earlier Indo-European grammarians named the clearly derived present endings "primary endings".
The following is an example paradigm, based on Ringe (2006), of the verb *leykʷ-, "leave behind" (athematic nasal-infixed present, root aorist, reduplicated perfect). Two sets of endings are provided for the primary medio-passive forms (subjunctive and primary indicative) — the central dialects (Indo-Iranian, Greek, Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Albanian, and Armenian) use forms ending in *y, while the peripheral dialects (Italic, Celtic, Hittite, and Tocharian) use forms ending in *r, which are generally considered the original forms.
Ringe makes certain assumptions about synchronic PIE phonology that are not universally accepted:
The effects of the generally-accepted synchronic boukólos rule whereby *kʷ becomes *k next to *u or *w are shown.
| Present stem, active | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1ary indic. | 2ary indic. | subjunctive | optative | imperative | |
| 1 sg. | *linékʷmi | *linékʷm̥ | *linékʷoh₂ | *linkʷiéh₁m | — |
| 2 sg. | *linékʷsi | *linékʷs | *linékʷesi | *linkʷiéh₁s | *linékʷ, *linkʷdʰí |
| 3 sg. | *linékʷti | *linékʷt | *linékʷeti | *linkʷiéh₁t | *linékʷtu |
| 1 du. | *linkuós | *linkué | *linékʷowos | *linkʷih₁wé | — |
| 2 du. | *linkʷtés | *linkʷtóm | *linékʷetes | *linkʷih₁tóm | *linkʷtóm |
| 3 du. | *linkʷtés | *linkʷtā́m | *linékʷetes | *linkʷih₁tā́m | *linkʷtā́m |
| 1 pl. | *linkʷm̥ós | *linkʷm̥é | *linékʷomos | *linkʷih₁mé | — |
| 2 pl. | *linkʷté | *linkʷté | *linékʷete | *linkʷih₁té | *linkʷté |
| 3 pl. | *linkʷénti | *linkʷénd | *linékʷonti | *linkʷih₁énd | *linkʷéntu |
| participle | *linkʷónts, *linkʷn̥tés; *linkʷóntih₂, *linkʷn̥tyéh₂s | ||||
| Present stem, mediopassive | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1ary indic. (central) | 1ary indic. (peripheral) | 2ary indic. | subjunctive (central) | subjunctive (peripheral) | optative | imperative | |
| 1 sg. | *linkʷh₂éy | *linkʷh₂ér | *linkʷh₂é | *linékʷoh₂ey | *linékʷoh₂er | *linkʷih₁h₂é | — |
| 2 sg. | *linkʷth₂éy | *linkʷth₂ér | *linkʷth₂é | *linékʷeth₂ey | *linékʷeth₂er | *linkʷih₁th₂é | ? |
| 3 sg. | *linkʷtóy | *linkʷtór | *linkʷtó | *linékʷetoy | *linékʷetor | *linkʷih₁tó | ? |
| 1 du. | *linkuósdʰh₂ | *linkuósdʰh₂ | *linkuédʰh₂ | *linékʷowosdʰh₂ | *linékʷowosdʰh₂ | *linkʷih₁wédʰh₂ | — |
| 2 du. | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| 3 du. | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| 1 pl. | *linkʷm̥ósdʰh₂ | *linkʷm̥ósdʰh₂ | *linkʷm̥édʰh₂ | *linékʷomosdʰh₂ | *linékʷomosdʰh₂ | *linkʷih₁médʰh₂ | — |
| 2 pl. | *linkʷdʰh₂ué | *linkʷdʰh₂ué | *linkʷdʰh₂ué | *linékʷedʰh₂ue | *linékʷedʰh₂ue | *linkʷih₁dʰh₂ué | *linkʷdʰh₂ué |
| 3 pl. | *linkʷn̥tóy | *linkʷn̥tór | *linkʷn̥tó | *linékʷontoy | *linékʷontor | *linkʷih₁ró | ? |
| participle | *linkʷm̥h₁nós | ||||||
| Aorist stem, active | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2ary indic. | subjunctive | optative | imperative | |
| 1 sg. | *léykʷm̥ | *léykʷoh₂ | *likʷyéh₁m | — |
| 2 sg. | *léykʷs | *léykʷesi | *likʷyéh₁s | *léykʷ, *likʷdʰí |
| 3 sg. | *léykʷt | *léykʷeti | *likʷyéh₁t | *léykʷtu |
| 1 du. | *likwé | *léykʷowos | *likʷih₁wé | — |
| 2 du. | *likʷtóm | *léykʷetes | *likʷih₁tóm | *likʷtóm |
| 3 du. | *likʷtā́m | *léykʷetes | *likʷih₁tā́m | *likʷtā́m |
| 1 pl. | *likʷmé | *léykʷomos | *likʷih₁mé | — |
| 2 pl. | *likʷté | *léykʷete | *likʷih₁té | *likʷté |
| 3 pl. | *likʷénd | *léykʷonti | *likʷih₁énd | *likʷéntu |
| participle | *likʷónts, *likʷn̥tés; *likʷóntih₂, *likʷn̥tyéh₂s | |||
| Aorist stem, mediopassive | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2ary indic. | subjunctive (central) | subjunctive (peripheral) | optative | imperative | |
| 1 sg. | *likʷh₂é | *léykʷoh₂ey | *léykʷoh₂er | *likʷih₁h₂é | — |
| 2 sg. | *likʷth₂é | *léykʷeth₂ey | *léykʷeth₂er | *likʷih₁th₂é | ? |
| 3 sg. | *likʷtó | *léykʷetoy | *léykʷetor | *likʷih₁tó | ? |
| 1 du. | *likwédʰh₂ | *léykʷowosdʰh₂ | *léykʷowosdʰh₂ | *likʷih₁wédʰh₂ | — |
| 2 du. | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| 3 du. | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| 1 pl. | *likʷmédʰh₂ | *léykʷomosdʰh₂ | *léykʷomosdʰh₂ | *likʷih₁médʰh₂ | — |
| 2 pl. | *likʷdʰh₂ué | *léykʷedʰh₂ue | *léykʷedʰh₂ue | *likʷih₁dʰh₂ué | *likʷdʰh₂ué |
| 3 pl. | *likʷn̥tó | *léykʷontoy | *léykʷontor | *likʷih₁ró | ? |
| participle | *likʷm̥h₁nós | ||||
| Perfect stem, active | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| indicative | subjunctive | optative | imperative | ||||
| 1 sg. | *lelóykʷh₂e | *leléykʷoh₂ | *lelikʷyéh₁m | — | |||
| 2 sg. | *lelóykʷth₂e | *leléykʷesi | *lelikʷyéh₁s | ?, *lelikʷdʰí | |||
| 3 sg. | *lelóykʷe | *leléykʷeti | *lelikʷyéh₁t | ? | |||
| 1 du. | *lelikwé | *leléykʷowos | *lelikʷih₁wé | — | |||
| 2 du. | ? | *leléykʷetes | *lelikʷih₁tóm | ? | |||
| 3 du. | ? | *leléykʷetes | *lelikʷih₁tā́m | ? | |||
| 1 pl. | *lelikʷmé | *leléykʷomos | *lelikʷih₁mé | — | |||
| 2 pl. | *lelikʷé | *leléykʷete | *lelikʷih₁té | ? | |||
| 3 pl. | *lelikʷḗr | *leléykʷonti | *lelikʷih₁énd | ? | |||
| participle | *lelikʷṓs, *lelikusés; *lelikʷósih₂, *lelikusyéh₂s | ||||||
The following is an example paradigm, based on Ringe (2006), of the verb *bʰer- "carry" in the simple thematic present tense. Two sets of endings are provided for the primary mediopassive forms, as described above.
The above assumptions about PIE phonology apply, in addition to a rule that deletes laryngeals which occur in the sequence -oRHC or -oRH#, where R stands for any resonant, H any laryngeal, C any consonant and # the end of a word. The most important effect of this rule is to delete most occurrences of *h₁ in the thematic optative.
| Present stem, active | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1ary indic. | 2ary indic. | subjunctive | optative | imperative | |||
| 1 sg. | *bʰéroh₂ | *bʰérom | *bʰérōh₂ | *bʰéroyh₁m̥ | — | ||
| 2 sg. | *bʰéresi | *bʰéres | *bʰérēsi | *bʰéroys | *bʰére | ||
| 3 sg. | *bʰéreti | *bʰéred | *bʰérēti | *bʰéroyt | *bʰéretu | ||
| 1 du. | *bʰérowos | *bʰérowe | *bʰérōwos | *bʰéroywe | — | ||
| 2 du. | *bʰéretes | *bʰéretom | *bʰérētes | *bʰéroytom | *bʰéretom | ||
| 3 du. | *bʰéretes | *bʰéretām | *bʰérētes | *bʰéroytām | *bʰéretām | ||
| 1 pl. | *bʰéromos | *bʰérome | *bʰérōmos | *bʰéroyme | — | ||
| 2 pl. | *bʰérete | *bʰérete | *bʰérēte | *bʰéroyte | *bʰérete | ||
| 3 pl. | *bʰéronti | *bʰérond | *bʰérōnti | *bʰéroyh₁end | *bʰérontu | ||
| participle | *bʰéronts, *bʰérontos; *bʰérontih₂, *bʰérontieh₂s | ||||||
| Present stem, mediopassive | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1ary indic. (central) | 1ary indic. (peripheral) | 2ary indic. | subjunctive (central) | subjunctive (peripheral) | optative | imperative | |
| 1 sg. | *bʰéroh₂ey | *bʰéroh₂er | *bʰéroh₂e | *bʰérōh₂ey | *bʰérōh₂er | *bʰéroyh₂e | — |
| 2 sg. | *bʰéreth₂ey | *bʰéreth₂er | *bʰéreth₂e | *bʰérēth₂ey | *bʰérēth₂er | *bʰéroyth₂e | ? |
| 3 sg. | *bʰéretoy | *bʰéretor | *bʰéreto | *bʰérētoy | *bʰérētor | *bʰéroyto | ? |
| 1 du. | *bʰérowosdʰh₂ | *bʰérowosdʰh₂ | *bʰérowedʰh₂ | *bʰérōwosdʰh₂ | *bʰérōwosdʰh₂ | *bʰéroywedʰh₂ | — |
| 2 du. | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| 3 du. | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? | ? |
| 1 pl. | *bʰéromosdʰh₂ | *bʰéromosdʰh₂ | *bʰéromedʰh₂ | *bʰérōmosdʰh₂ | *bʰérōmosdʰh₂ | *bʰéroymedʰh₂ | — |
| 2 pl. | *bʰéredʰh₂ue | *bʰéredʰh₂ue | *bʰéredʰh₂ue | *bʰérēdʰh₂ue | *bʰérēdʰh₂ue | *bʰéroydʰh₂ue | *bʰéredʰh₂ue |
| 3 pl. | *bʰérontoy | *bʰérontor | *bʰéronto | *bʰérōntoy | *bʰérōntor | *bʰéroyro | ? |
| participle | *bʰéromnos (< *-o-mh₁no-s) | ||||||
In Greek, the difference between the present, aorist, and perfect, when used outside of the indicative (i.e. in the subjunctive, optative, imperative, infinitive, and participles) is almost entirely one of grammatical aspect, not of tense. That is, the aorist refers to a simple action, the present to an ongoing action, and the perfect to a state resulting from a previous action. An aorist infinitive or imperative, for example, does not refer to a past action, and in fact for many verbs (e.g. "kill") would likely be more common than a present infinitive or imperative. (In some participial constructions, however, an aorist participle can have either a tensal or aspectual meaning.) It is assumed that this distinction of aspect was the original significance of the PIE tenses, rather than any actual tense distinction, and that tense distinctions were originally indicated by means of adverbs, as in Chinese. It appears that by late PIE, the different tenses had already acquired a tensal meaning in particular contexts, as in Greek. In later Indo-European languages, this became dominant.
The meanings of the three tenses in the oldest Vedic Sanskrit differs somewhat from their meanings in Greek, and thus it is not clear whether the PIE meanings corresponded exactly to the Greek meanings. In particular, the Vedic imperfect had a meaning that was close to the Greek aorist, and the Vedic aorist had a meaning that was close to the Greek perfect. Meanwhile, the Vedic perfect was often indistinguishable from a present tense (Whitney 1889). In moods other than the indicative, the present, aorist, and perfect were almost indistinguishable from each other.
The lack of semantic distinction between different grammatical forms in a literary language often indicates that some of these forms no longer existed in the spoken language of the time. In fact, in Classical Sanskrit, the subjunctive dropped out, as did all tenses of the optative and imperative other than the present; meanwhile, in the indicative the imperfect, aorist and perfect became largely interchangeable, and in later Classical Sanskrit, all three could be freely replaced by a participial construction. All of these developments appear to reflect changes in spoken Middle Indo-Aryan; among the past tenses, for example, only the aorist survived into early Middle Indo-Aryan, which was later displaced by a participial past tense.
|
||||||||||||||