A N A R C H A I C VERBAL T E R M I N A T I O N I N E A R L Y INDO-ARYAN by

T. B U R R O W

Oxford
Before the discovery of Hittite there appeared to be no problems attached to the reconstruction of the terminations of the second and third singular active of the primary and secondary systems in Indo-European. The c o m m o n agreement of the various languages pointed to IE -si, -ti as the primary and -s, -t as the secondary endings. In Hittite, 1 in the present of the mi-conjugation (epmi, ep~i, epti) the normal IE system is represented, but in the preterite the situation is more complicated. There are on the one hand, among the vocalic stems of the mi-conjugation, a small number of cases in which the normal IE endings appear (e.g. 2 gallanu~, 3 gallanut, 2 hatrde~, 3 hatrdit; gallanu- " m a k e big", hatrdi- "write"), but such cases are exceedingly few. In the vast majority of cases the two persons are apparently formed in the same way, and the terminations -ta, -s, and -sta appear functioning indifferently for both persons: 2 e~ta, 3 egta (eg"to be"), 2 gakta 3 gakta (gak- "to know"), 2 ddY, 3 dd~(dd-"to take"), 2 tarnag, 3 tarnag (tarna "to put in"); 2 memiYta, 3 memigta (mema"to say"), 2 augta, 3 au~ta (au- "to see"). Various theories have been put forward to reconcile this system with the conventional pattern of IE grammar. The s-endings were explained ~ as relics of the s-aorist, with the assumption that in the second person -s stands for s ,'-- s and in the third person for s + t. The supposed elision of the final member of a consonant group can hardly be supported by other evidence, and it is difficult to reconcile with the fact that elsewhere it is assumed that the Hittite language could tolerate three-consonant groups in final position (e.g. ka-ra-ap-ta understood as karpt). As regards the ending-ta there are three main lines of interpretation: (1) In view of the ambiguity inherent in the syllabic system of writing, 1 The Hittite forms are quoted as given in J. Friedrich's Grammar and Dictionary. ~- E.H. Sturtevant and E. Adelaide Hahn, A Comparative Grammar of the Hittite Language, p. 143.

62

T. BURRO~,V

it is most usual to understand -ta in the 3rd. sg. preterite of verbs of the mi-class as representing - t : / e p t / " h e took", etc. In this way it is equated with the normal IE ending. In the second person singular of the mi-class it is read in the same way, /ept/ "you took", and its presence there is considered to be due to a tendency in Hittite to employ third singular forms in second singular use? The main argument in support of this reading (apart from the comparative one which no doubt supplies the most powerful motive) is the fact that in the vocalic stems of the m i conjugation third singular -t is unambiguously represented:-ar-nu-ut / a r n u t / " h e brought". There is also no doubt that -t as an ending of the second person in the vocalic stems is secondary, since the alternative s-termination (e.g. m e m i ~ k e g beside m e m i ~ k i t ) , which corresponds exactly to the usual IE termination, must be original. Consequently it is considered to be also secondary in the second person singular of the consonantal stems. (2) In the hi-conjugation the forms of the second person cannot be treated in the same way as those of the mi-conjugation, because there are forms which are written in such a way that the phonetic value must be -ta: e.g. ~ar-ra-at-ta "'you divided", d a - a - a t - t a "you took", etc. The usually accepted equation for this termination is the -tha which appears elsewhere as the second singular active ending of the perfect. There are also some such forms recorded for the third singular preterite of the /if-conjugation, but it is believed that these are either Luwian or due to Luwian influence? Consequently many authorities are inclined to read third singular ta a s - t in this conjugation also, for instance Sturtevant, 5 though he admits to feeling not very certain about it. On the other hand W. Krause, ~ accepting the equation with the IE perfect ending -tha, wishes to read -ta in both second and third person, on the assumption that the termination of the second sigular has come to be used also for the third singular. This development would be the opposite of what has happened in the case of vocalic stems of the mi-conjugation. Holger Pedersen 7 had also expressed the opinion that the termination of the third person was a transference from the second, but instead of equating this with the perfect active ending, he preferred to regard it as origin3 Ibid., p. 141 ; R. A. Crossland in Arehivum Linguisticum, VI, p. 113 (with bibliography); H. Kronasser, Vergleiehende Laut- und Formenlehre des Hethitischen, p. ! 49. 4 R.A. Crossland, op. cit., p. 117. 5 Op. eit., p. 144. KZ, L1X, pp. 159-60. 7 Hittitiseh und die anderen indoeuropiiischen Spraehen, pp. 159-160.

AN ARCHAIC VERBAL TERMINATION

63

ating in the secondary middle ending (i.e. the one which appears in a modified form in Skt. - t h 6 s ) . (3) In the most recent comparative study of Hittite s H. Kronasser prefers yet another alternative. In the mi-conjugation he reads -t in both persons in accordance with the usual theory, but in the hi-conjugation he reads in both persons -ta. This - t a he equates with the IE middle ending - t o (Gk. x~zo). Thus he agrees with Pedersen in seeking the origin of the Hittite active termination in the IE middle, but differs from him in choosing the third person rather than the second person termination. The difficulty with his theory, as with Pedersen's, is that the middle remained active in Hittite as a separate and distinctive category, so there is no very good reason why its terminations should come to be confused with those of the active. One could prolong such an account, but enough opinions have been cited to show how varied the theories are and how far agreement is fi'om being reached. The disagreement eentres round two issues, (1) the question of how the final -ta is to be read, and if in two ways, - t a and -t, what is the exact delimitation between them, and (2) if and when - t a is read, the problem to which IE ending it corresponds. On such lines the possible permutations and combinations of theory become very complicated, and unless some further decisive evidence is forthcoming it is difficult to foresee an end to the debate. Before attempting to produce, from the Indo-Aryan side some such evidence it will be advisable to point out that much of the complication may be unnecessary, since it remains a possibility that - t a where written should always be read -ta, and that this - t a is of unitary, not multiple origin. 9 It should also be pointed out that the main argument from Hittite itself for the conclusion that -ta in the mi-conjugation represents -t, namely the argument that -r was undoubtedly the ending of the vocalic stems, cannot be regarded as valid since it rests on the unproven assumption that the ending must have been the same in the vocalic and consonantal stems. In this connection it is important to notice that the vocalic stems of the mi-conjugation differ from the consonantal stems in the second person singular of the preterite, in having (in competition to and gradually yielding place to the -t borrowed from the third person) an ending-~which corresponds to the ordinary IE ending, and which is never found in the consonantal stems. Since
s Op. cit., p. 191

9 For the reading -ta, W. Petersen, AJP, LIII, p. 203 f., though assuming multiple origin, and W. Krause, op. cit., with the theory of transference of the second person termination to the third.

64

T. BURROW

the two classes of verbs (vocalic and consonantal stems of the mi-conjugation) thus differ in the matter of the terminations of the second person singular, it is not unlikely that they may have also differed in the third. In a previous article 1~ I showed that the original terminations of the Root Aorist Optative (which later develops into the Sanskrit Precative) show the same system which prevails in the preterite of the Hittite 0i-verbs when these take -7 as the termination of the second and third person singular. In both cases the -~f which terminates these two persons was absent from the rest of the paradigm: Skt. Sg. 1 bh@dm, 2 bh@ds, 3 bh@ds, PI. 1 bhgtydma, etc.; Hitt. Sg. 1 tarnaOOun, 2 tarnag, 3 tarnag, P1. 1 tarnummen, etc. By a comparison of the Indian and Iranian forms it was possible to demonstrate that in Indo-Iranian there had been no original -t after the -s of bhftyds, etc, in the third person singular. It thus became evident that the reconstruction of Sturtevant, namely 2sg. -g < s -,~ s, 3sg. -g < s t was without foundation, and that -s alone was present in both persons. So it appeared that at the early stage of IndoEuropean reached by the comparison of Sanskrit and Hittite there were verbal stems terminating in -s in the second and third persons indifferently. It was further argued that these s-forms of the second and third person singular were the nucleus from which the s-Aorist was developed, and the development of the Precative in Sanskrit was cited as an example of how this might happen. H. Kronasser 11 regards the forms in -7 of the second and third person singular of the Hittite preterite as forms of the s-aorist without termination. As far as these two persons are concerned this comes to much the same result as the analysis just mentioned, but he does not seem to be aware of its further implications. To assume such a primitive state of affairs is inconsistent with the view that the s-aorist was a fully developed category in Indo-European before the separation of Hittite and the Anatolian branch. He is also unaware of the evidence provided by the Vedic precative forms, since he speaks of the ambiguity attached to the forms terminating in -s in Sanskrit and other languages on account of phonetic developments. It is of course true that forms like ajais may according to Sanskrit phonetic rules represent ajais q- t, etc., but in the case of the precative third singular comparison with Iranian rules this out. One may also with reasonable certainty assume original final -s in 3sg. dh~s which occurs in the following passage: tat subh~tan3 virdd.
a0 " T h e Sanskrit Precative," Festsehrift Weller (1954), pp. 35-42. xl Op. eit., p. 191.

AN ARCHAIC VERBAL TERMINATION

65

annanj tan md k sdyi tan ms tan ma fojam, dh6s tat subh~tam (Hira.nyake~i-grhyasatra, l, 13, 15; el. Baudh. 1, 2, 57). In this case the third singular dh6s is formed from a root which inflects in the root aorist, not in the s-aorist, and therefore there can be no reason whatever for reconstructing an original dhds-t, since the paradigm into which it would fit did not exist. The only reasonable explanation is to assume that it corresponds originally to forms like Hittite dog (3 sg.). The form is archaic compared with the normal Vedic (a)dhdt, and it is interesting in this connection that we have another archaic form in this same mantra, namely 7gO,a, 3rd. sg. opt. mid. Oldenberg 1~ translates the phrase tan meAiya " m a y I obtain it", without comment, and presumably analysed it tan me 'i?ya. I f so there is a redundant me, since for " m a y I obtain it" one would expect simply tad adiya. The ,~.pastamba 18 version reads tasya te 'gO'a, presumably with the same meaning as above, but with dubious grammar, since the verb ad- "to obtain" takes the accusative. Consequently I would prefer to analyse it tan me i2iya, with irregular sandhi, ~ meaning " m a y that be in control of me," in which connection the use of virdt, as an epithet of food in this passage is to be noted. The form 7gTya will be discussed below. Thus a termination -s common to the second and third singular secondary inflection is established as ancient in Indo-European by the comparison of Hittite and Indo-Iranian. In the present paper a small number of forms will be discussed which show that the earliest Indo-Aryan still preserved traces of an ending -tha of the third singular active which in like manner demonstrates the antiquity of the Hittite ending -ta. In the Grhyasfitras of Apastamba and Baudhfiyana ~5 there occurs the following mantra to be recited in the marriage ritual: kanyal~ pitrbhyo yat~ patilokan.7 ava dTk.s~m ad~stha

A similar mantra is prescribed in the G.rhyasfitra of Gobhila, x6 the text of which reads as follows :~r
kanyald pit.rbhyah patilokan..7 yatiyam apa dik.sdm aya.sla

The Atharva Veda a8 provides yet another version:

a2 S B E , X X X , p. 175.

~3 ~4 ~5 ~" ~ ~s

Mantrapat.ha, II, 10, 16. MacdoneU, Vedic Grammar, pp. 64-65. Mantrapat.ha, I, 4, 4.; Baudhayana G.rhyasgtra, I, 4, 7. Gobhila G.rhyas~tra, II, 2, 8. Mantra-brOhmaoa, I, 2, 5. Atharva-veda, XIV, 2, 52.

66

T. BURROW u~at~l.z kanydld imd.h pit.rlokdt pdti.m yat~.h dva dik.sdm as!'k.sata

The general sense of these three versions is the same, and perfectly clear as emerges from the translation offered. Whitney translates the version of the Atharva Veda as follows: "Eager these young girls, going to a husband from a father's world, have let go the consecration." The fi~pastamba version is rendered by Winternitz: "Die Jungfrau, die vom Vaterhause in die Welt des Gatten tritt, hat die (jungfr~iuliche) Weihe abgelegt. ''19 On the same lines the version of the Mantra-brdhman. a would be: "This young girl going from her parents to her husband's world has got rid of the consecration by sacrifice." Of these versions the first two are closest together, and would seem to point to a common original. On the other hand the version of the Atharva Veda has the appearance of being a secondary elaboration of this, and it is in a metrical form into which the two G.rhya versions will not fit. If the form ad6stha can be justified grammatically, on the ground that it is a case of the rare preservation of an archaic form, then it is likely to belong to the original version, since there would be a natural tendency to substitute for such an anomalous form something more in accordance with ordinary grammar. The form addstha is admittedly something quite outside the range o f ordinary Sanskrit Grammar, but it is not to be ignored, and the fact that it has been handed down independently by two G.rhya schools speak~ for its being genuine. In his translation 2~ Winternitz does not attempt to analyse the form but merely remarks in his note that the Atharva Veda has the easier reading. Later, when editing the Mantra-pdt.ha, ~'1 he listed various linguistic peculiarities in his introduction, and among them "the difficult form ad6stha" which he quotes as "one of the grammatical forms which deserve to be mentioned." He does not offer an explanation, but neither on the other hand does he call the text into question. The only attempt at analysis which is available is that of the commentator Haradatta cited by Wimernitz :2,2diks. dl.n kanyakavratam av~ddstha I d~h k.saya iti asyantarbhdvitan.yarthasya luhi prathamapuru.sasyaikavacanam I tak6rasya thakdras chdndasah. ] avalc.siptavaff tyaktavatftyartha.h. That is to say he regards it as the third singular middle of the s-aorist of the root 19 Das Altindische Hochzeitsrituell nach dem .,~pastambiya G.rhyas~tra (Wien 1897), p. 55. so Das Altindische Hochzeitsrituell, p. 55. ~1 The Mantra-pat.ha or Prayer-book of the .'tpastambins, edited by M. Winternitz (Oxford, 1897), p. xxviii. 2., Das Altindische hrochzeitsrituell, p. 55, n. 1.

AN ARCHAIC VERBAL TERMINATION

67

di "to perish" with -tha a Vedic irregularity for -ta. An aorist addsta is in fact quoted by the dictionaries (BR. s.v. 4 d0 from this root, but only on the authority of the grammarians, and no such form, or indeed any of the other forms quoted as belonging to this root, apart from the participle dina-, appear in ordinary use. Apart from this one may object to the attribution of causative use to the simple verb, and even if this were allowed the meaning "abandon, give up" does not easily connect with that of "perish, fade away". On the other hand if one takes it to belong to ava dd, as Winternitz presumably did to judge by his translation, then the meaning "give up, lay aside, relinquish" appears natural enough. It is of course impossible to accept Haradatta's opinion that the final -tha of addstha is an irregular Vedic variant of the normal middle ending -ta. There is no basis for assuming the possibility of such a form, and addstha could only be interpreted in this way on the assumption that it was a textual corruption (for which *addsta should be restored), not on the grounds of its being chdndasa-. But we would be entitled to change the text only if the form as we have it were indefensible. This is not so, since it is capable of explanation now that we have Hittite forms with which it can be compared. We can explain addstha as third singular active of the aorist, with the derivation and meaning given above, containing a termination -tha, which is to be compared with the third singular active -ta in Hittite, where also it frequently appears in combination with -s-. Just as beside the normal Vedic (a)dhdt we found an archaic dhds, which is to be compared with Hittite formations having the same termination (dd~, etc.), so beside the regular addt we have an almost obsolete addstha, whose formation is to be explained by comparing similar forms in Hittite (augta "saw" from au- "to see", etc.). It has been widely believed that Hittite -ta of the second person,at any rate in the 0i-conjugation, represents IE -tha, a conclusion based on comparison with the -tha which appears in the perfect in Sanskrit and Greek. The comparison with the third person singular addstha in Sanskrit now makes it clear that Hittite -ta in the third person also represents IE -tha, and that the terminations of the second and third singular of the preterite, when -ta appears as the ending, are identical in reality and not merely in appearance. A single form in Sanskrit would admittedly be a somewhat slender basis for a conclusion of such significance, so it is necessary to see if any further such evidence is available from the same quarter. Fortunately this further evidence, though not very abundant (which is natural enough since we are dealing with essentially a survival from pre-Vedic grammar), is sufficient to be decisive.

68

T. BURROW

The correctness of the above interpretation is confirmed in the first place by the hitherto wholly obscure Vedic aorist form cdni.st.hat, which on these lines finds a natural and easy explanation. This form, the only one of its kind in the Rgveda, appears in the following passage (8.63.11); ydm. tvd gopdvano gird cdni.st.had agne a~girab [ sd pdvaka grudh~ hdvam, "Whichever (manifestation of) thee, O Agni Angiras, Gopavana should please with his song, as such, O purifier hear the call." The form cdni.st.hat is mentioned by Whitney) ~ who says it seems hopelessly corrupt, and by Renou who explains it as a corruption of a subjunctive *cani~at influenced by the neighbouring adjective cdni.st.hd (v. 8). 34 It is difficult to credit the Vedic poet with such a barbarous grammatical procedure, and not at all necessary, since the analysis made above of the form addstha, and the comparison of it with forms of the Hittite preterite, now opens the way for its interpretation. For this interpretation it is also necessary to take into account another development which took place in the Vedic verbal inflection, which, although not occurring on a large scale, is quite well established) 5 The Vedic language has a small class of verbs, ultimately having connection with the Hittite hi-conjugation, which inflect without -t- in the third person singular of the middle: gdye, duhd, ige, from ~i- "to lie", duh- "to milk", and ig- "to master". These verbs have corresponding forms in the imperative (duham, gaydm), and, though very rarely, in the imperfect: aduha, aiga. The rarity of these latter forms is due to the fact that as a general rule they have been masked by the secondary addition of-t, so that beside aduha we find more frequently aduhat, and dgayat has entirely replaced *dgaya as the imperfect ofgi-. In the same way the Vedic optative form duhfyat has replaced earlier duhiya, and it has been suggested above that such a form of optative actually occurs in the Hiran.yakegiG.rhyasatra. Similar extended forms can be cited from the aorist (ddat), zs and there is even one anomalous perfect form of the same kind: dnars.at TA. This development is part of a normalising tendency at work in the Vedic and pre-Vedic periods, which tended to the exclusion of alternative rare and archaic verbal forms, and which was responsible for the almost entire disappearance of the third singular endings -s and -tha (and their combination -stha). In the case of the middle forms quoted above the

23 Sanskrit Grammar, w906 b. ~.4 Grammaire Vddique, w 346. ~ L. Renou, Grammairede la Langue V$dique, w314. 26 Ibid., w339.

AN ARCHAIC VERBAL TERMINATION

69

result was highly anomalous, since apparently active forms appeared as part of a middle paradigm. Ultimately the type did not persist, no doubt for this reason, but the fact that it could come into existence at all, in spite of this inconvenience, shows how strong the tendency was to generalise certain prevailing terminations at the expense of their weaker competitors. The form cdni.st.hat is now capable of simple explanation. The final -t is to be considered as a secondary addition of the type just described. Just as aduhat appears beside aduha, and 6dayat has replaced original *dgaya, this Vedic form cdnis,t.hat represents a pre-Vedic form, third singular active *c6ni.s.tha. This form which can be reconstructed with certainty, on the basis of the parallels offered, contains the same -tha which is actually preserved in addstha, only in this case in combination with -is-. It is to be compared with such Hittite preterite forms as memi~ta and dali~ta, and as can be clearly seen the whole suffixal complex in the two languages corresponds exactly, letter for letter. The form is to be taken as third singular active (injunctive), not only because the corresponding Hittite forms are active, but also on account of its sense since the verb has a transitive meaning, "please (another)". Now that the genuineness of the form addstha, and the correctness of the proposed analysis, are confirmed by the light they throw on the otherwise inexplicable Vedic form cdni.st.hat, it is worth while examining another ancient formula which occurs in the Hiran.yakeii-G.rhyasfttra (1 18, 3.). This runs as follows: sandsthd stha, sm.nstha vo bhffydstha, acyutd stha md md cyod.hvam, mdham bhavatibhyad cyau.sfl.7. There are two obvious corruptions here, in the latter part, and there is no doubt that we should correct md md cyod.hvam to ma mac O'o.dhvam, and mdha,3.., o'au.s?l.7 to mf~ha,d.., cyo.si. On this both the editor and the translator are agreed. 27 Concerning the first part they propose different corrections, (1) sam.sthd no (or me) bh~ydsta (Kirste: "may you be our (or my) resting place"), and (2) smvstha vo bhOydsam (Oldenberg: " M a y I be your resting place"). In view, of what has been said above on the analysis of adastha and cdni.st.hat, there now emerges a third possibility, one that could not have been recognised either by the editor or the translator, namely that the text of the first part of this formula is perfectly correct as it stands. We can explain bhOydstha as third singular active of the aorist optative or precative, being an extended form of bhftyds just as addstha is an extended form of *adds, and just as Hittite has third singular preterites in -~ta beside the simpler formation in -L The whole formula
.~7 The G.rhyasOtra of Hirm.tyakedin, ed. T. Kirste, p. 38; H. Oldenberg, SBE,
XXX, p. 185.

70

T. BURROW

may therefore be translated: "You are a resting place, may there be of you a resting place, you are immovable, do not move from me, may I not move from you the blessed ones." This also seems to produce the most satisfactory sense. The householder first states that the cows are a sam.sthd, i.e. his saJ?Tstha, secure resting place or firm basis (which is what they were in the Vedic economy), and then expresses the wish that the cows themselves may also have a secure resting place. Further evidence for this type of secondary ending is furnished by the peculiar form of the aorist of the root as- "to throw". This verb forms an a-aorist, but in doing so inserts an unexpected -th- immediately after the root: sg. 1 dstham, 2 dsthas, 3 dsthat, etc. This form of the aorist of as"'to throw" is laid down by P~n.ini (vii, 4, 17), and it is attested in a number of places in the pre-classical literature (e.g. AT/. xiii, 1, 5, Kd.nv. Sat. Br. 2, 7, 1). No plausible explanation of this remarkable aorist form has so far been provided. Whitney (w 847) expresses the opinion that "dsthat regarded by the grammarians as aorist to as- 'throw' is doubtless a like formation from sthd- (like akhyat from khyd-)". This theory is excluded both by the meaning, which makes it quite clear that this aorist belongs to the root as- "throw", and by the explicit statement of P~.nini, to whom it was unequivocally the aorist of as-. Other theories (e.g. that of HiUebrandt, IF, V, 388) are equally unconvincing. The true explanation is to be sought on the lines of what has been said above. The secondary active termination -tha (Hitt. -ta) functioned both in the second person (this has long been widely agreed on the basis of more abundant evidence, from Greek, Tocharian, etc.), and in the third person as shown by the evidence given above. Consequently a root aorist of as- "throw", employing these terminations in the second and third persons, would originally have appeared as follows: sg. 1 dsam, 2 dstha, 3 dstha, pl. 1 dsma, etc. Evidence for the existence of a root aorist of this verb is provided by the unaugmented third plural active form asan (RV 4, 3, 11), which Grassmann calls imperfect, but which is obviously much better taken, since the present stem of this verb is asya-, as third plural active of the root aorist. Another unaugmented aorist form describing the same event (pdri .sadan) is employed in the same verse. A second plural middle from the same root aorist may be found in the form paryddhvam (Mantra-pdt.ha, 2, 14, 7), if in agreement with the commentator Haradatta (though in contradiction to the editor's opinion) we derive it from as"to throw". A third person singular of such an aorist, formed with -tha as given above, when treated like aiaya, aduha and similar forms listed above would result in an extended form dsthat, parallel to cdni.st.hat. In the

AN ARCHAIC VERBAL TERMINATION

71

same way the second person singular would be expected to become

dsthas. The inflection as we have it can be explained on the assumption that on the basis of these two forms a tense stem c/stha- was abstracted and
used as the foundation of the new paradigm. The otherwise inexplicable anomaly of the aorist stem of as- "to throw" is due to its havingincorporated this ancient and obsolete termination. The forms of this type that it is possible to collect from early Indo- Aryan, namely the above mentioned addstha, bh~ydstha, cdni.st.ha-tand astha-t c/stha-s, are exceedingly rare, but they are sufficient to be decisive, since they cannot be ignored or otherwise explained away, and the agreement they show with the corresponding Hittite forms is striking and clear. It is no doubt not an accident that the only two unaltered forms of this type which can be quoted occur outside the great Vedic collections (Rgveda, etc.). This literature was bound up with the establishment of strictly regulated standard literary language. From this accepted standard archaisms of the type discussed were obviously normally rigidly excluded. This did not prevent their continuing in use for some time locally and dialectally, and it is in the humbler manuals such as those connected with the domestic ritual that a few such forms have occasionally found admittance. An alternative possibility is that some of these domestic mantras are actually older than the Vedic hymns, an opinion expressed by Winternitz in connection with some sections of the Mantra-pfit.ha: "Such mantras.., belong to ancient popular tradition, and are probably older than the hymns of the Vedic bards". 2s There is a possibility that in the course of compiling the great Sa .mhitfis some such forms may have suffered alteration in the process. A case in point is the aorist form pdsta, from pc/- "to drink" which occurs in A V 12, 3, 43: kravydtpi~dcd ihd mdprdpdsta, "Let the flesh-eating pigfica not have a draught here." The form pdsta is comparable to the third singular middle h6sta from h6-, but whereas the latter is perfectly straightforward, since it forms part of a regular and well attested middle paradigm (ahdsi, ahdsta, hdsmahi, ahdsata, etc.), the form pdsta causes difficulty because it is completely isolated. Everywhere else pal- "to drink" forms a root aorist which conjugates in the active. The anomaly would be explained if we assumed that the text oriNnally contained an active pdstha, of the type illustrated above, for which this is a substitution. Some support for this view is got from the Paippalftda recension, which in Barret's transcription reads in the corresponding place prathapdthal.~. There is nothing in this to justify his restoration prathc/ti, but by omitting the
28 Mantra-pa.tha, p. xviii.

72

T. BURROW

redundant -tha- we get a form from the same root and prefix which can be taken as the Paippalftda reading, namely prapdtha.h. This is a valid grammatical form (second dual active root aorist subjunctive), but one which is syntactically inappropriate, from which we may conclude that it has replaced something else. As this form has -tha- in the final syllable, which could be preserved fi'om the original text, it may be used to support the proposed restoration *p6stha, which is thus got by combining the two texts and selecting what is appropriate fi'om each. Thus what the two versions present are not simple corruptions, but changes directed towards getting rid of an obsolete grammatical form which had ceased to be understood. The two recensions have achieved this end by different alterations. Although the Sanskrit forms dealt with in this paper are very few, they cover sufficient ground for it now to be possible to provide corresponding forms for every variety of Hittite preterit in the second and third person singular active. No less than six types can be enumerated. 1. The normal type in most Indo-European languages other than Hittite with -s in the second and -r in the third person: Hitt. 2 ~allamd, 3 gallanut. In most languages this type has been generalised at the expense of the alternative types. In Hittite on the other hand its use has suffered considerable diminution and it appears only rarely. 2. Second and third singular -tha (Hitt. 2 epta, 3 epta). This is continued in the developed forms of Sanskrit, 2 dsthas, 3 dsthat < 2 *dstha (unaugmented, 2 *astha, 3 *astha). 3. Second and third singular in -s (Hitt. 2 larnaL 3 tarnag). This system is abundantly represented by the Vedic aorist optative or precative: 2 bhuy6s, 3 bhuyds, etc. 4. Second and third singular in -is (Hitt. 3 daliJ; no second singular forms appear to be quoted, which may be accidental). This type is continued in Sanskrit only in the developed forms which form part of the i.s-aorist, with -t introduced into the third person: at6r?s, at~rit. Compare also Av. 2sg marancaini.f. 5. Second and third singular in -stha (Hitt. 2, 3 augta). For the third person this is represented in Sanskrit by the forms addstha and bhOyastha. For the second person Hittite is paralleled by forms in other IE languages (Gk. ~q~-q~0~,Toch. nekasta, etc.). 6. Second and third singular in -istha (Hitt. 2, 3 memigta). This type is attested in the third person by the Sanskrit form cani.s.tha-t, and in the second person by Latin v~nisH, etc., though in this case the final vowel has been modified.

AN ARCHAIC VERBAL TERMINATION

73

From this tabulation it can be seen that the Hittite language, as far as the form of these two persons is concerned, turns out to have been remarkably conservative, since all the various types can be established as original by means of direct comparisons with other languages. Consequently there is no reason for trying to explain any of these formations as Hittite innovation. At the same time when one examines the various formations it would seem an obvious conclusion that the forms -stha and -istha are compound forms made by adding -tha to -s and -is respectively, and therefore secondary. Such a secondary development can of course already have taken place in the Indo-European period. A further problem is presented by the identity of the forms for the two persons which now seems attested for Indo-European itself. As far as the termination -s is concerned it seems clear that this was from the beginning associated with the two persons indifferently. The case o f - t h a is not so simple, since as a perfect ending it is quite definitely associated with the second and not the third person. I f its use in both persons is secondary, then this secondary development must have already taken place in Indo-European, and the fact that the s-forms were used in common might have served as a model. The new evidence has considerable bearing on the theory mentioned above, namely that the sigmatic aorist originated by the extension of the sibilant from forms of the second and third person singular to other persons. It was established clearly that the sigmatie preterite forms of Hittite could not be regarded as fragments of a fully developed s-aorist system, since comparison with the Tocharian active s-preterite and the Vedic root aorist optative shows that the distribution of the forms with and without -g- in Hittite is original. The development of the precative in Indo-Aryan offered an obvious parallel to such an extension, and the beginning of the process could be seen in Hittite where the -~- may be extended to other terminations beginning with -t-. At the same time it was not quite clear why the extension should have taken place o n the basis of the typical paradigms quoted in that article. "~9 For instance, to take the precative to begin with, there is nothing in the paradigm offered sg. 1 bh~ydm, 2 bhuyds, 3 bhOyds, pl. 1 bh~ydma, 2 bh@dta, 3 bhfiyurto justify the precative extension (bhuydsam, bhuydsma, etc.), even though it is an indubitable fact that it has taken place. The precative extension can only have taken place on the basis of forms like the one quoted above, third singular bhOyOstha, since in this form there is an -s- before the termintion -tha, which by analogy could easily spread to other terminations atso (e.g. bh@ds-ma after bh@d-s-tha). The genuineness of the form
2~ Festschrift Weller, pp. 37-42.

74

T. BURROW

bhfo,dstha is confirmed by the precative extension, since without the

existence of such forms such a development would be incomprehensible. In the same way the point of departure of the sigmatic aorist may be seen in the forms of the second and third person singular ending in -stha, just as in Hittite we have nai~ten etc. based on nai~ta, etc. The question of the -is-aorist was dealt with on lines similar 30 to the proposed theory in a brief but significant article by Meillet. He argued that the -is- which appears in Hittite preterites of the type memi~ta, and which is identical with that appearing in Lat. v(nist~, etc. is also found in Vedic aorists of the type akrami.st.a (3 sg. aor. mid.). His argument was based on the important observation that just as in Hittite and Latin, so also in Vedic the -is- is not general throughout the paradigm, but is found along with forms without -is-: e.g. akramus, ak!'pran, agrabham, etc., beside krami.st.a, akrapi.st.a, grabhf.sta, etc.,just as Latin has v~nimus, rYnOre etc. beside vOnisti, v~nistis, etc., and Hittite has nehhun, etc. beside nai~ta, etc. He comes to the conclusion that this -is- is not aorist in origin, but was an element which at an early period in Indo-European tended to be inserted before terminations beginning with -t-. He also observed that from an early period it was prominently associated with modal forms, by comparing Lat. ~gero, ~gerim, ~gerit, etc. with Vedic t6ri.sat, t6ri.s?mahi, etc., and by pointing out that in the Veda modal forms with -is- are more widely used than the corresponding indicative forms. The last point is outside the scope of the present discussion, but Meillet's other point, the connection o f - i s - with the t-endings, deserves to be examined in view of what has been said above. What emerges is that it is now possible to make a much fuller statement about this point than Meillet did. It has been established that -is was used as an independent termination of the second and third person singular, and that at an early period it came to be combined with another termination so used, producing *-istha. This was the origin of the connection of -is- with the t-endings, since from here it spread to the second plural etc., and thus this connection which Meillet draws attention to, turns out to be a stage in the development and not a beginning. The agreement between Hittite and Latin (2pl. tarni~ten: vidistis) shows that this was the earliest extension. Its further extension in lndo-Aryan to produce the complete -i.s-aorist paradigm was as Meillet showed a process still incomplete in the earliest Vedic period. 30 A. Meillet, "Sur le type latin egi, egisti," BSL, XXXIV, p. 127 ft. Cf. also L. Renou, "Sur raoriste v6dique en -is-," BSL, XXXV, p. lff. (with a much more detailed account of the Vedic evidence).

AN ARCHAIC VERBAL TERMINATION

75

At the same time MeiUet appears to allow the existence of an i.s-aorist apart from this (in which according to his system it would represented -as), and the s-aorist (to which would belong such i.s-aorists as had -is< d -s-, the vowel being considered part of a disyllabic root) is considered by him to be of different origin. To divide the Sanskrit -i.s-aorist into two sorts would only be permissible if very strong reasons could be produced for such a theory, and it would be necessary, if such a theory were to be made acceptable, that valid criteria should be produced to determine which was which. All the evidence is against this possibility. The Vedic material cited by Meillet, and by Renou in his supporting article, which serves as evidence for the original nature of this -is-, is so abundant, that there is very little left to trace to any other origin. It cannot be said that it is the disyllabic roots which have -is < - a -s-, since these figure largely in the examples of Meillet and Renou providing evidence for the original nature of-is-. Furthermore the example quoted above, edni.st.ha-t, is from a disyllabic root, but the identity of its structure with that of Hittite forms like memigta makes it clear that the vowel -ionly is involved. In Hittite the element -E- is frequently added to disyllabic roots with elision of the final vowel of the root (dalig, daligta from dala-) and we can see from this parallel that Sanskrit has done the same. Coming to the question of the s-aorist there are some good reasons for believing that the development has been the same. It has already been shown that this is the only way in which the Sanskrit and Hittite systems can be connected. The starting points if this theory is followed correspond exactly. In Hittite, in those places in the verbal conjugation where -igappears, simple -k'- may also function in the same way: dd~, au~ta, etc., beside dalH, daligta, etc., and for both of these sets of forms parallels outside Hittite have been quoted above. Consequently if on the lines of Meillet's argument the /s-forms have produced the i.s-aorist, one would naturally expect the s-aorist, a parallel formation in Sanskrit, to have originated in the same way. Another point is that Tocharian which Meillet quotes in support of his theory, has only s-forms and retains no trace of the /s-forms, making it still clearer that not only -is- but simple -s- also is involved in his starting point. As regards the Vedic evidence, while it is a fact that in this respect the s-aorist has not been as conservative as the i.s-aorist, nevertheless it is still possible to quote radical forms occurring beside a normal s-aorist paradigm: e.g. anftdm beside the usual stem anais- (quoted by Meillet), bhema beside abhai.s-, vyoma (i.e. vi-yoma: TA 1, 2) beside the usual type yaus, yo.sam, etc. For this reason one is not justified in assuming any fundamental difference between the two sig-

76

T. BURROW

matic aorists in this respect, and nothing stands in the way of the assumption that they both originated in the same way. Analogy working in this direction could produce the s- and i.s-aorist systems, but it is not the only way in which analogy took effect. There is reason to believe that the roots dd- and dhd- originally took this termination -s (with its optional extension -stha). The forms dhds, and addstha have been quoted above, and occasional subjunctive forms (e.g. ddsathas. dhdsathas) point in the same direction. There is also the etymological correspondance between Sanskrit dds and Hittite ddL In such cases the forms without -s- in the paradigm have prevailed, and it is easy to see how in a series adhdm, adhds, adhds, adhdva.., adhdma, adhdta, etc. normalisation should be effected by the substitution o f - t in the third person singular when this had come to be established as the predominant ending. So we must assume that a section of the root aorist originates in the same system as the s-aorist. Yet another type of analogy is seen at work in a small group of Vedic forms which have been recorded, such as bddhithas, avita, atdrima, avddiran (Whitney w904, 908). The starting point for this type of formation is to be found in the second and third singular originally terminating in -is (Hitt. dallY, Skt. (a)vadis, (a)vddft from original (a)vddis). In such a form we have a final -s which may be taken as the termination (since -s alone appears in this function in dhds, etc.) and in this case -i- acquires the function of a connecting vowel. It is easily understandable that from the second and third persons such an -i- should spread to other parts of the paradigm, and in this way we can explain the existence of-iran beside -ran and -hna beside -ma, etc. Such formations remained few in the aorist system since they had to compete with the forms in which -is(starting from -i.st.ha) was extended through the system, the type which ultimately prevailed. Such forms of termination however spread to other parts of the verb, and in particular they were extensively adopted in the perfect system (paptima etc.). Evidence that this process is of at least Indo-Iranian date is furnished by forms like Av. vaozh'am.