Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit: The Syntax and Semantics of Adjectival Verb Forms (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics) [Illustrated] 9780198701361, 0198701365

Citation preview

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

OX F O R D S T U D I E S I N D IAC H R O N IC A N D H I S T O R IC A L L I N G U I S T IC S general editors Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge advisory editors Cynthia Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; David Willis, University of Cambridge recently published in the series 10 Vowel Length from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro 11 The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax Edited by Katalin É. Kiss 12 Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic George Walkden 13 The History of Low German Negation Anne Breitbarth 14 Arabic Indefinites, Interrogatives, and Negators A Linguistic History of Western Dialects David Wilmsen 15 Syntax over Time Lexical, Morphological, and Information-Structural Interactions Edited by Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden 16 Syllable and Segment in Latin Ranjan Sen 17 Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit The Syntax and Semantics of Adjectival Verb Forms John J. Lowe

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit The Syntax and Semantics of Adjectival Verb Forms

J O H N J. L OW E

1 i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

3

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, ox2 6dp, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries. © John J. Lowe 2015 The moral rights of the author have been asserted. First Edition published in 2015 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2014949007 ISBN 978–0–19–870136–1 Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, cr0 4yy Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Contents Series preface Acknowledgements Abbreviations List of figures and tables  Introduction . . . .

Rigvedic Sanskrit Participles Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit Conclusion

 The Rigvedic Sanskrit language . Phonology . Nominal morphology . Verbal morphology .. The finite system .. The non-finite system .. Participial suffixes .. The tense-aspect stems .. Tense-aspect in the verbal system . Clausal syntax .. Constituent order .. Phrasal categories . Conclusion  Lexical-Functional Grammar . Constituent and functional structure . Semantic structure .. Glue semantics .. Event semantics . Wider architecture .. Information structure .. The string and prosodic structure . The lexicon and morphology . Conclusion

ix x xii xv                            

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

vi

Contents

 The syntax of participles . . . . .

. . .

.

Introduction Adnominal participles Converbal participles Absolute participles Complementary participles .. Completive participles .. Periphrasis ‘Independent’ participles The participial VP .. Preverbs and tmesis Subcategorization .. Subcategorization in the finite system .. Participial subcategorization: syntactically constrained argument omission .. Poetic ellipsis .. Subcategorization as a verbal feature Conclusion

 The semantics of participles . Adnominal modification . Converbal modification . Contextual functionality of converbal participles .. Purpose .. Cause .. Means .. Equivalence .. Result .. Concession .. Manner and attendant circumstance .. Chaining .. Contingency .. Relations between relations .. Contextual functionality and word order . Other syntactic uses . Tense-aspect in the participial system .. Present participles .. Stative participles .. Aorist participles

                                    

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Contents .. Perfect participles .. Future participles .. Analysis . Conclusion  The category of participles . Overview .. Frequency and distribution .. Core participial properties . Stative and aorist participles .. Stative participles .. Aorist participles . Productivity . Nonce-formations .. Non-participial nonce-formations .. Participial nonce-formations .. Conclusion . Gaps in the participial system . Lexicalized participles .. Morphologically irregular formations .. Morphologically regular present participles .. Morphologically regular non-present participles .. Conclusion . Participles in compounding .. Participles as second element .. Participles as first element . Participial derivatives .. Unproductive derivatives .. Productive derivatives (lexicalized stems) .. Negative derivatives . Adverbs . Caland adjectives . Conclusion  Conclusion . The category of tense-aspect stem participles .. Coherence of the category .. The tense-aspect stem .. The participial tense-aspect stem .. Participles within the verbal and nominal systems .. Participles within the wider grammar

vii                                       

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

viii

Contents

. Participles in Proto-Indo-European .. Clausal syntax .. Morphosyntactic alignment .. Ablaut and origins . Participles in a typological perspective . Conclusion Appendix: Participles in the Indian grammatical tradition A.1 The As.t.a¯dhy¯ay¯ı and the Indian grammatical tradition A.2 The category of participles A.3 The functions of participles A.4 Tense and aspect A.4.1 The present A.4.2 Past tenses A.4.3 The future A.5 Conclusion References Index of verse Index of authors Index of languages and words Index of subjects

                   

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Series preface Modern diachronic linguistics has important contacts with other subdisciplines, notably first language acquisition, learnability theory, computational linguistics, sociolinguistics, and the traditional philological study of texts. It is now recognized in the wider field that diachronic linguistics can make a novel contribution to linguistic theory, to historical linguistics, and arguably to cognitive science more widely. This series provides a forum for work in both diachronic and historical linguistics, including work on change in grammar, sound, and meaning within and across languages; synchronic studies of languages in the past; and descriptive histories of one or more languages. It is intended to reflect and encourage the links between these subjects and fields such as those mentioned above. The goal of the series is to publish high-quality monographs and collections of papers in diachronic linguistics generally, i.e. studies focusing on change in linguistic structure and/or change in grammars, which are also intended to make a contribution to linguistic theory, by developing and adopting a current theoretical model, by raising wider questions concerning the nature of language change, or by developing theoretical connections with other areas of linguistics and cognitive science as listed above. There is no bias towards a particular language or language family, or towards a particular theoretical framework; work in all theoretical frameworks, and work based on the descriptive tradition of language typology, as well as quantitatively-based work using theoretical ideas, also feature in the series. Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts University of Cambridge

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Acknowledgements This book is the product of several years’ work, and has benefited from the support and input of many people and various organizations during that time. My work on this topic began during my master’s studies at Wolfson College, Oxford, and continued during my doctoral studies at the same institution. Both my master’s and doctoral studies were funded by grants from the Arts and Humanities Research Council (Research Preparation Master’s Scheme grant 135484, and Doctoral Award Scheme grant AH/H020640/1). The process of converting my doctoral thesis into this book has been undertaken while in receipt of an Early Career Research Fellowship funded by the Leverhulme Trust (ECF-2012-081), and also a Postdoctoral Fellowship at Christ Church, Oxford. Parts of this work have been presented at the 16th International Lexical-Functional Grammar conference, held in Hong Kong in July 2011, the 23rd and 25th UCLA IndoEuropean conferences, held in the Octobers of 2011 and 2013 respectively, the Philological Society symposium ‘Synchrony and diachrony: variation and change in language history’, held in Oxford in March 2012, and the 6th International Vedic Workshop, held in Kozhikode, India, in January 2014. My attendance the 16th International LexicalFunctional Grammar conference was funded by the Lorne Thyssen Research Fund for Ancient World Topics at Wolfson College, and my attendance at the 23rd UCLA Indo-European conference was funded by the Philological Society. Although this work has benefited from discussions with, and comments from, many people, I am most particularly grateful in this respect to Elizabeth Tucker and Andreas Willi. I first studied Rigvedic Sanskrit under Elizabeth as an undergraduate, and subsequently not only Rigvedic Sanskrit but also Avestan and Old Persian as a graduate student; as co-supervisor during my D.Phil., and subsequently during my research fellowship, Elizabeth has been overwhelmingly generous with her time, and has read and commented in detail on many versions of many parts of this work. The extent of her influence on my understanding and interpretation of the Rigveda cannot be overstated. Andreas supervised me both as a master’s and doctoral student, and his guidance, encouragement, and influence have likewise been considerable. Mary Dalrymple has been ever generous with her time, from my first attempts to get to grips with Lexical-Functional Grammar, to serving as examiner for my D.Phil., and beyond. Dag Haug was particularly generous in helping me, and very often correcting me, as I gradually got my head around event semantics in glue. I am also very grateful to Stephanie Jamison, who served as examiner for my D.Phil., and both then and thenceforth has offered many valuable suggestions and corrections that have considerably improved my interpretations and arguments. I am particularly

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Acknowledgements

xi

grateful to Stephanie, and to Joel Brereton, for the kind provision of their Rigveda translation prior to its publication. My interpretations of several difficult passages and words are influenced by their translation. My main Sanskrit tutor during my undergraduate degree was Jim Benson, of whose classes I will always have extremely fond memories. I am very grateful to Jim for spending much time with me attemping to understand P¯an.ini’s treatment of participles. Others to whom I am grateful for input or influence in one way or another include Louise Mycock, Philomen Probert, John Penney, Peter Barber, Oleg Belyaev, and Ash Asudeh. Helena Beeley and Liselotte Snijders provided valuable comments on various parts of the manuscript. Anna Davies was extremely kind in advising me at the time when I submitted my doctoral thesis to OUP, and I am very grateful to John Davey and Julia Steer for their help at different points in the publishing process. Last but by no means least, I am of course very grateful to my family for all their love, encouragement, and support at every step. ∗ ∗ ∗ A note on the title: on the advice of the commissioning editor, the forms Rigveda/ Rigvedic are used in place of the more correct R.gveda/R.gvedic, both in the title and throughout the work. This is purely due to the increasing importance of electronic searching and the greater ‘visibility’ of the less correct forms; it is the only violation of transliterational consistency in the work.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Abbreviations a.

accusative

ab.

ablative

abs.

absolutive

act.

active

adv.

adverb

aor.

aorist

Arm.

Armenian

As..t. aux.

As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı auxiliary verb

Av.

Avestan

AV/AV

Atharvavedic/Atharvaveda (Śaunaka recension unless otherwise indicated)

BHS

Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit

B-S

Balto-Slavic

CDRT

Compositional Discourse Representation Theory

CLuw.

Cuneiform Luwian

cnj.

conjunction

conv.

converb

d.

dative

dct.

deictic pronoun

def.

definite article

des.

desiderative

DRS

Discourse Representation Structure

DRT

Discourse Representation Theory

(1/2/3)du.

(1st/2nd/3rd person) dual

erg.

ergative

f.

feminine

g.

genitive

Gmc.

Germanic

Goth.

Gothic

Gr.

Greek

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Abbreviations Hitt.

Hittite

HLuw.

Hieroglyphic Luwian

i.

instrumental

I-E

Indo-European

imf.

imperfect

imp.

imperative

impf.

imperfective

ind.

indicative

inj.

injunctive

int.

intensive

JB

Jaimin¯ıyabr¯ahman.a

K¯aś. KS

K¯aśik¯avr.tti Kath¯asam . hita

l.

locative

Lat.

Latin

LFG

Lexical Functional Grammar

Lith.

Lithuanian

lnk.

linker

Lyc.

Lycian

m.

masculine

MBh.

Mah¯abh¯as.ya

med.

middle, mediopassive

MS Myc.

Maitr¯ayan.¯ısam . hit¯a Mycenean

n.

nominative

neg.

negation/negative

nomlzr.

nominalizer

nt.

neuter

OAv.

Old Avestan

obj.

object

OCS

Old Church Slavonic

OE

Old English

OHG

Old High German

OIr.

Old Irish

ON

Old Norse

xiii

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

xiv

Abbreviations

OP

Old Persian

opt.

optative

OS

Old Saxon

Oss.

Ossetic

pcl.

particle

pf.

perfect

PG

Proto-Germanic

PIA

Proto-Indo-Aryan

PIE

Proto-Indo-European

PII

Proto-Indo-Iranian

Pkt.

Prakrit

(1/2/3)pl.

(1st/2nd/3rd person) plural

PN

proper noun

prs.

present

prv.

preverb

ps.

passive

pst.

past

ptc.

participle

quot.

quotative

RCS

Russian Church Slavonic

refl.

reflexive

RV/RV

Rigvedic/Rigveda

ŚB

Śatapathabr¯ahman.a

sbj.

subjunctive

(1/2/3)sg.

(1st/2nd/3rd person) singular

Skt.

Sanskrit

stv.

stative

Toch.

Tocharian

TS

Taittir¯ıyasam . hit¯a

TU

Taittir¯ıyopanis.ad

Umb.

Umbrian

v.

vocative

Ved.

Vedic

Y.

Yasna

YAv.

Younger Avestan

Yt.

Yašt

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

List of figures and tables Figures 3.1 Glue proof for ‘Indra struck Vr.tra’

63

3.2 Event-semantic glue proof for example (3.15)

70

4.1 C-structure for RV 2.10.4ab

92

4.2 C-structure for RV 8.3.13cd

129

4.3 Participial functionality relations

151

4.4 Directional relations of participial functionality

152

5.1 Glue proof for example (5.29)

167

7.1 Verbal system typology matrix

322

Tables 2.1 The consonantal system of Rigvedic Sanskrit

15

2.2 Singular declension of śúci-

16

2.3 Major temporal relations

35

2.4 Major aspectual relations

35

2.5 Rigvedic tense-aspect

36

2.6 Word order according to Viti (2010)

38

5.1 Gradient of informativeness

191

5.2 Relative position of present participles in clause

193

5.3 Functions of participles

194

5.4 Position of participles relative to verb by semantic function

195

5.5 The ten most common perfect participles

214

6.1 Participles and participial stems in the Rigveda

227

6.2 The five most common present and perfect participles

227

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

 Introduction This monograph investigates the participles of Rigvedic Sanskrit. I seek to define the membership, syntax, and semantics of the category of participles in formal linguistic terms, and in doing this, to develop a deeper understanding not only of the Rigvedic Sanskrit verbal system, but also more generally of the category of ‘participles’ as a cross-linguistic phenomenon. My findings also have important consequences for our understanding of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) verbal system, from which the Rigvedic system ultimately descends. A simple example of the word type that is the subject of this work appears in ex. (1.1). √ The participle vás¯ana-, to the verbal root  vas ‘wear’, shows adjectival agreement, and functions as an adjunct to the subject of the main verb; in semantic terms it expresses that an act of ‘wearing’ on the part of the subject occurs roughly at the same time as the action of the main verb. Functionally in this instance it corresponds in broad terms to the -ing participle of English, as seen in the translation provided. (1.1)

pári y¯asi nirn.íjam ghr.tám . vás¯anah. ghee.a wear.stv.ptc.n.sg.m around travel.2sg bright_garment.a ‘Wearing ghee, a bright garment, you circle around.’ (RV 9.82.2d)

The form vás¯ana- is a ‘tense-aspect’ stem participle: in morphological terms, the participial suffix is attached to a verbal tense-aspect stem, the same stem to which finite verbal forms are built. These participles are therefore verbal formations with adjectival agreement features; we will see that their status as adjectives within the verbal system is fundamental to understanding their syntax and semantics.

. Rigvedic Sanskrit Rigvedic Sanskrit is the language of the Rigveda, a collection of ritual texts which together constitute the oldest significant linguistic corpus of the Indo-Aryan language family, and more specifically of the Sanskrit language.1 It consists of 1,028 hymns 1 For brief introductions to the Rigveda, see Gonda (: esp. –), Witzel and Got¯ o (: f.), and Jamison and Brereton (). For the study presented here I made use of the transliterated editions by

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Introduction

(s¯uktas), highly crafted poetic compositions originally intended for recital during rituals and for the invocation of and communication with the Indo-Aryan gods.2 Modern scholarly opinion largely agrees that these hymns were composed between around 1500 bc and 1200 bc, during the eastward migration of the Indo-Aryan tribes from the mountains of what is today northern Afghanistan across the Punjab into north India.3 The hymns of the Rigveda are neither chronologically nor dialectally homogeneous, but are for the most part linguistically more similar to each other than to any other text, and so can be treated as a single body of evidence for the purposes of synchronic study.4 Books II–VII, and much of the material in book IX, form the oldest layer, while the tenth and parts of the first book are clearly later than the other books; but individual books and even hymns consist of chronologically disparate material, such that no absolute conclusions about the relative date of a particular hymn, verse, or even word can necessarily be drawn from its position in the Rigveda as we have it. Besides this, no absolute consensus exists on the attribution of particular linguistic features to earlier or later periods; attempts at such linguistic chronologies (which must be treated with care, if only because of the uncertainties of the enterprise) have been undertaken by e.g. Arnold (1905) and Witzel (1987; 1989; 1990). The importance of the Rigveda for the study of early Indo-Aryan historical linguistics cannot be underestimated. Except in its very latest portions, its language is distinctly more archaic than the second oldest collection of Sanskrit texts, the Atharvaveda, and at the same time notably similar in many respects to the most archaic poetic texts of related language families, the Old Avestan G¯ath¯as and Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey, respectively the earliest poetic representatives of the Iranian and Greek language families. Moreover its manner of preservation, by a system of oral transmission which has preserved the hymns almost without change for 3,000 years, makes it a very trustworthy witness to the Indo-Aryan language of North India in the second millenium bc. Its importance for the reconstruction of Proto-Indo-European, particularly in respect of the archaic morphology and syntax it preserves, has in the past perhaps been overestimated but is nonetheless considerable. Any linguistic investigation into Old Indo-Aryan, Indo-Iranian, or Proto-Indo-European cannot avoid treating the evidence of the Rigveda as of vital importance. However, the Rigveda is not without its problems or limitations from the perspective of linguistic study. It is a limited, though not small, corpus in terms of size, but is more significantly limited in terms of subject and genre by the ritual context of its van Nooten and Holland () and Gippert (); the standard devanagari edition is Müller (–). The Rigveda has recently been translated into English by Jamison and Brereton (); the most important earlier translations are those by Geldner (–, henceforth Geldner, RV) in German, and Renou (– , henceforth Renou, EVP) in French; Pinault (–) provides an invaluable index to the latter. A new German translation is partially complete (Witzel and Got¯o ; Witzel et al. ). 2 3 4

See e.g. Brereton (: f.). Kuz’mina () provides a detailed study of the evidence for the Indo-Iranian migrations. Cf. Dahl (: ) and Keydana (: ).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

1.2 Participles



composition. Moreover the Rigveda is the product not just of a literary flowering among the early Indo-Aryans of North India but also of an ancient poetic tradition stretching back to Proto-Indo-European times (Watkins 1995). Among the traditional subject matter and formulae preserved and adapted by the Rigvedic poets, archaic linguistic features, lost from everyday speech, were also preserved, adding to the chronological diversity of the language. These facts hinder the use of the Rigveda as a synchronic linguistic corpus, but they do not prevent it. The Rigveda is not a faithful record of the ‘natural’ spoken language of any group of Indo-Aryans at any point in history, but it is a record of a particular literary dialect or register used by some Indo-Aryans, primarily but not exclusively priests and poets, in the second half of the second millenium bc. It is a poetic, even hieratic, language, but a language nonetheless.5 In its failure to accurately represent the contemporary spoken language of any period by preserving archaic features alongside more contemporary linguistic elements, it is not qualitatively different from the language in which this monograph is written. Practically all linguistic work involves generalizations that cut across and essentially ignore linguistic variety of one sort or another. Any linguistic claim made with reference to ‘English’, for example, even ‘Present-Day English’, involves passing over a multitude of chronological, dialectal, sociolectal, register, and idiolectal variation in the underlying data, but such a claim is not thereby undermined. That is, if linguistics is to make any generalizations about language beyond describing the individual utterances of individual speakers on different occasions, some degree of linguistic variation must always be disregarded. In this respect then, there is no significant difference between making linguistic generalizations about ‘Present-Day English’ and doing the same for ‘Rigvedic Sanskrit’. In one respect Rigvedic Sanskrit is different from Present-Day English, however: it is a ‘dead’, a corpus-based, language, for which the lack of native speakers able to make judgements about grammaticality presents a considerable challenge to any attempted linguistic analysis. While we may be justified in assuming that the corpus provides us with evidence of what was grammatical, we have no direct evidence of what was ungrammatical. This does not make the task impossible, but renders the conclusions drawn necessarily less secure.6

. Participles The English word participle derives, via Old French, from Latin particeps or participium, a calque of the Greek grammatical term metokh¯e´, derived from the verb 5 I use ‘language’ here in the broadest possible sense, encompassing distinct linguistic varieties of any sort, including those that might, by non-linguistic criteria, be considered merely ‘dialects’, ‘sociolects’, or even ‘registers’. Hale (: –) uses ‘grammar’ in a similar way. 6 For an introduction to the problems and methods of synchronic syntactic analysis of corpus-based languages, with specific reference to Sanskrit, see Jamison ().

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Introduction

metékhein, ‘to have a share in’, in use since at least Aristarchus’ scholia of the 3rd century bc. Dionysius Thrax, a Greek grammarian of the 2nd century bc, defined metokh¯e´ in the following way. (1.2)

Metokh¯e´ esti léxis metékhousa t˜es tõn rh¯emát¯on kaì t˜es participle is word-type share.ptc def.g def.g verbs.g and def.g tõn onomát¯on idiót¯etos. Parépetai dè aut˜ei tautà hà kaì def.g nouns.g nature.g is_common cnj it.d the_same which also tõi onómati kaì tõi rh¯e´mati díkha proso¯´p¯on te kaì enklisé¯on def.d noun.d and def.d verb.d except persons.g both and moods.g ‘A participle is a word-type which participates in the nature of verbs and nouns. Common to it are the same (features common) to the noun and the verb, except for persons and moods.’ (Tékhn¯e Grammatik¯e´ 15)

This relatively loose definition has influenced the modern use of the terms participle and participial both in Indo-European linguistics and more widely. In its very broadest sense, the term participle can refer to any form that displays certain properties, of which some are characteristic of verbs and others are characteristic of adjectives. More specifically, following the properties of the Ancient Greek metokh¯e´, it refers to forms that are morphologically adjectival, but that in other respects display some properties characteristic of verbs. But precisely what those ‘verbal’ characteristics are varies considerably across the many categories in different languages to which the term participle (and even more so participial) is applied. The study of participles spans the divide, then, between two huge areas of research— the morphosyntax and semantics of verbs and adjectives respectively. But even the basic categories of verb, adjective, and noun are impossible to define in absolutely discrete terms.7 Cross-linguistically, the syntactic distinction between verbs and nouns is robust (Schachter and Shopen 1985), but there are varying degrees of differentiation. In typological terms, the range of variation in the verbal vs. nominal properties of words can be conceptualized as a continuum of increasing/decreasing verbality vs. decreasing/increasing nominality: the ‘cline of verbality’ (Ross 1972). Within such a continuum, adjectives (and, insofar as they are distinct, adverbs) occupy a position intermediate between nouns and verbs. In some languages adjectives are more like nouns, while in others they are more like verbs (cf. Wetzer 1996: ch. 1). Whether or not adjectives constitute a universally distinct category on the same level as the categories of noun and verb is a controversial question, but not one that is critical to the present topic; I assume that an area of the cline part-way between prototypical noun and prototypical verb can be treated as prototypically adjectival on the same 7 In fact the very existence of participles, partially adjectival and partially verbal, demonstrates this: participles ‘constitute a persistent problem in the drawing of category boundaries’ (Hopper and Thompson : ).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

1.2 Participles



level, but this does not necessarily mean that in all languages the words so used will be syntactically fully distinct from either nouns or verbs.8 In any case, adjectives can be distinguished from nouns and verbs in Rigvedic Sanskrit; morphologically and syntactically they are closer to nouns than verbs, but they are nevertheless a separate category. As stated, while we can roughly define participles as word forms that are morphologically adjectival but in some other respects verbal, it remains to be established in precisely what respects participles are verbal. The necessary criterion makes reference to yet another ‘cline’: that of status as an inflectional part of the verbal system. Participles are a category of ‘non-finite’ verbs: categorially part of the verbal system, but lacking features typical of ‘finite’ verb forms such as prototypically appear in indicative main clauses.9 For the present investigation, then, these are the two sufficient and necessary conditions for a form to be labelled a participle: morphological adjective-hood, and categorial adherence to the verbal system, in the sense of being an inflectional part of the verbal system (as opposed to being only derivationally related to the verbal system). While both these conditions do admit of some relativity, they are sufficient to categorize the forms under discussion, at least to the level of accuracy required at this point. Significantly, this definition enables us to make the important distinction between participles proper and other adjectives that display verbal characteristics of one sort or another and hence can be considered ‘verbal’. Participles and other ‘verby’ adjectives are not infrequently grouped together under the vague label ‘verbal adjectives’. However, the fundamental distinction between the two types of word can, and indeed should, be maintained by the use of a more precise terminology. In this work, I reserve the term ‘verbal adjective’ for lexical adjectives that display some verbal property or properties. Participles, on the other hand, are not lexical adjectives but non-finite verb forms, inflectional forms of verbs that happen to be morphologically adjectival; I therefore propose the term ‘adjectival verb’ to distinguish these from the former category. Granted these two sufficient and necessary conditions on the category of participles (i.e. adjectival verbs), there remains a significant degree of potential variation in respect of the relative verbal or adjectival properties of participles. That is, while 8 For discussion of the universality, or otherwise, of adjectives, see esp. the papers in Dixon and Aikhenvald (); Baker () and Dixon () are prominent proponents of the claim that adjectives are universal. More widely on the distinction of adjectives from nouns and verbs, see e.g. Dixon (), Bhat (), and Wetzer (). 9 It is not clear that the categories of finite and non-finite verb forms, nor even the very concept of finiteness, can be defined in any cross-linguistically valid way: cf. the various contributions in Nikolaeva (). Nevertheless, for our purposes it is sufficient at this point to adopt a morphological definition of finiteness in Sanskrit, based on the unique agreement features of finite verb forms, or their deaccentuation in non-initial, main-clause position. Finiteness, and the typology of non-finite verbal systems, will be discussed in detail in §..

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Introduction

the definition assumed here specifies the morphological and categorial status of participles, it does not specify any necessary syntactic or semantic properties. The primary aim of this monograph is to explore the syntactic and semantic properties of the participles of Rigvedic Sanskrit, with a view to understanding these properties in the light of their morphological and categorial status as adjectival verbs.

. Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit In accordance with the traditionally vague definition of the term ‘participle’, when we turn to Rigvedic Sanskrit we find a variety of forms so labelled by different authors. One formation often referred to as ‘participial’ is the agent noun in -tr.- which, when accented on the root syllable, is said to function like a participle, including having the ability to take an accusative object: so, for example, the root accented da¯´t¯a vásu (RV 6.23.3) ‘giving wealth’ with accusative object as against d¯ata¯´ vás¯un¯am (RV 8.51.5) ‘giver of wealth’ with ordinary objective genitive.10 Benveniste (1959) suggested that √ the primary adjectives in -má- (e.g. bh¯ımá- ‘fearsome’ to bh¯ı ‘fear’) are ‘quasiparticipes de verbes intransitifs’ (‘quasi-participles to intransitive verbs’), connecting them with the medio-passive participle in Luwian and the present passive participle in Balto-Slavic. According to Tucker (1988: 101) desiderative adjectives in -sú- are ‘often attested in equivalent function to a [desiderative] participle.’ De Lamberterie (1990: 6) calls the adjectives in -sú- and -yú- ‘quasi-participes’; similarly Gusmani (1968: 114–15). Grestenberger (2013) states that reduplicated i-stem formations like cákri- ‘maker, making’ ‘are syntactically participial formations’ due to their potential transitivity and appearance with adverbial modifiers, but without a clear statement of precisely what this means; Grestenberger also calls the primary nominal -i-suffix ‘a participle-like suffix’. Adjectives in -as¯ana- have often been labelled participles, primarily due to the phonological form of the suffix, which is similar to the medial participle suffix -(am)¯ana- (cf. most recently Keydana 2013: 45, fn. 63, on r.ñjas¯aná-). Clearly a vague morphological similarity to a participial category is no better than a vague functional similarity to a verb as a basis for categorization as a participle: as shown by Renou (1937) and Leumann (1952), adjectives in -as¯ana- are largely formed from s-stem nouns, or secondarily by analogy with those; functionally, none need be taken to display any ‘participial’ attributes, and the morphological similarity may well be coincidental.11 Given the definition of the term ‘participle’ discussed above, in relation to Rigvedic Sanskrit I take the term to refer exclusively to ‘tense-aspect stem’ participles. These are morphological adjectives that are productively formed to inflectional verbal stems. 10 Examples from Benveniste (: ); on this formation, see also Tichy (). On the ‘transitivity’ of this and other categories, see §... 11 This suffix is discussed further in §..

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

1.3 Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit



Tense-aspect stem participles (henceforth ‘participles’) are extremely common in the language of the Rigveda: there are roughly 5,850 tokens in the corpus, on average more than five per hymn, or one every two verses; they are therefore a highly important part of the language. In addition, they are syntactically and semantically polyvalent: the possibilities and ambiguities of their use are a source of uncertainty in the interpretation of the Rigveda. Their syntactic functions are also central to Rigvedic methods of clause construction and combination, such that a proper understanding of the function of participles is central to an understanding of Rigvedic sentence syntax. A number of categories are regularly treated alongside tense-aspect stem participles in works on Sanskrit syntax. Speyer’s Sanskrit Syntax (1886: §§358–78, pp. 278–96) makes no categorial distinction between tense-aspect stem participles and certain other root derived adjectives (the ‘past passive participle’, and the gerundive or ‘future passive participle’), despite fundamental differences in morphology, syntax, and semantics. He appears to have considered any appositive or ‘non-restrictive’ use to be ‘participial’, even stating (§364, p. 283) that any adjective or noun can be employed as a ‘participle’. The same author’s later Vedische und Sanskrit-Syntax (1896) differs in treating the gerundive separately, but without explanation.12 Delbrück’s more detailed and comprehensive Altindische Syntax (1888) also treats the gerundive separately, under the category ‘Verbaladjectiva’, but considers the ‘past passive participle’ in the category ‘Participia’ on the grounds of functional similarity (§215, p. 382). Speyer (1896: §201, p. 61) similarly justifies his classification on functional grounds. Functionally there are, however, both similarities and differences between the ‘past passive participle’ and the participles built from tense-aspect stems. Moreover, neither of the above authors treats the absolutive in the category of participle, despite its obvious functional similarity to the perfect participles of Rigvedic Sanskrit and also, for example, to the Greek aorist participle. The only reason the absolutive is not considered as much a participle as the ‘past passive participle’ is simply that it is indeclinable, which undermines any functional aspect to the definition of the term ‘participle’.13 Renou (1936b) treats tense-aspect stem participles entirely separately from other ‘participial’ adjectives, but provides no rationale for this. It is impossible to assume an absolute categorial distinction between participles and non-participles; in terms of integration into the verbal system (i.e. as an inflectional verb form), it is best to treat the category as part of a continuum, with some forms more centrally ‘participial’ than others. So the ‘past passive participle’ in the Rigveda is undeniably more closely related to the verbal system than many other adjectives (occasionally being formed to tense-aspect stems and showing some participial func12

Speyer (: §, pp. –); ‘Das Particip’ is treated in §§–, pp. –. Whitney (: §, p. ) recognized that the absolutive has ‘the virtual value of an indeclinable participle’. The equivalent formation in some modern South Asian languages, e.g. Tamil, is termed the ‘adverbial participle’, and the equivalent in Modern Greek derives historically from the Ancient Greek participle (Mirambel ; Manolessou ). On the categorization of the absolutive see further §.. 13

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Introduction

tionality), but it is clearly less closely integrated into the verbal system than, say, the present tense-aspect stem participle.14 On some level we may speak, then, of the ‘past passive participle’ as more participial than e.g. the adjectives in -má-, but less participial than the present participle in -nt-. Even so, the ‘past passive participle’ is excluded from the definition of a participle assumed for the Rigveda here; to avoid confusion I will henceforth refer to the category as the -tá-(/-ná-) adjective. Kulikov (2010) recognizes that the integration of non-finite categories into the verbal system should be understood as a continuum, while maintaining a relatively firm division between Sanskrit verbal and non-verbal categories. Basing his argumentation primarily on compounding, and partly also on verbal government, he claims that finite verb forms, participles, infinitives, and -tv¯a/-ya absolutives are ‘core’ members of the verbal paradigm, the absolutives being less central and in late Sanskrit showing a tendency to move towards the periphery. The periphery of the verbal paradigm includes the gerundives, agent nouns in -tr.-—both of which show drift outside of the paradigm—and the absolutive in -am, which is on the boundary.15 Other forms, including the -tá-/-ná- adjective and various verbal nouns, are located outside the verbal paradigm. On this analysis, participles are one of the most ‘core’ of the nonfinite verb categories. In recent years great advances have been made in both philological understanding and syntactic analysis of the Rigveda and its language. Due to their high frequency and semantic polyvalency, participles are of central importance to both these undertakings. Nevertheless the participles of the Rigveda have not been studied in detail as a category since the publication of a short monograph by Louis Renou (1936b).16 14

Drinka () has discussed in detail the possibility, suggested by Flobert (: ), that the PIE adjective, ancestor of the Sanskrit -tá- adjective, may have been a perfect passive participle, perhaps even forming a periphrastic perfect passive in PIE. The usual argument against a connection between the ∗ -tó- adjective and the verbal system (particularly the perfect) is based on the clearly adjectival nature of the the -to- adjective in Ancient Greek. However, Drinka (: ) makes the point that in nearly all other Indo-European languages it was ultimately integrated into the verbal system (and usually the perfect tense/aspect), and that there is even evidence in Greek, in the oft-quoted hósa akín¯eta kaì kekin¯eména (Plato Sophiste¯´s d, first discussed by Meillet: : ), where the -to- adjective functions as a compoundable form of the perfect mediopassive participle. Although some connection between the PIE ∗ -tó- adjective and the PIE verbal system should be accepted, it is at least clear that it was not morphologically integrated into the verbal system in the same way as the tense-aspect stem participles. Meillet () came to the same conclusion. According to Jamison (), in Vedic the -tá-/-ná- adjective has an apparently verbal default (present) tense reference, similar to the apparent default optative modality of the gerundive and passive infinitive in negative clauses (Jamison ). Cf. also Dahl (b: –), who briefly discusses the formation in the context of the participial system and its possible use as what he assumes was a periphrastic resultative construction in Proto-Indo-Iranian. 15 On some semantic and syntactic similarities between the absolutive in -am and present participles, see Renou (: f.). 16 In contrast there exist several significant works on the syntax of participles in Classical Latin and Ancient Greek: e.g. Bolling () on the participle in Apollonius Rhodius; Eklund () on Latin translations of Greek Christian texts; Jones () on the so-called ‘ab urbe condita’ construction in Greek; Laughton () and Piccoli () on participles in Classical Latin; Buijs () on participial subordination in Xenophon; Haug (c; ; ), Bary and Haug () and Haug and Nikitina () on the functionality of participles in Ancient Greek and Latin. ∗ -tó-

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

1.3 Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit



The Vedic verbal system has been the subject of several significant monographs over the last fifty years, treating individual verbal stems, tenses, and moods.17 Participles are formed to almost every verbal stem, and are largely treated as semantically equivalent to finite forms wherever possible, with differences often noted but never systematically studied. And it is perhaps right that the study of participles as a category should follow the study of the distinct verbal stems to which participles are built: one cannot hope to understand the perfect participle, for example, before one understands the perfect itself. But at the same time one cannot understand the perfect participle simply by reference to the perfect tense, without investigation of the category ‘participle’ as a whole and comparison and contrast with other participles such as present and aorist. Unlike infinitives and absolutives, which are functionally relatively homogeneous, participles have a wide functional range, sometimes functioning in very ‘verbal’ ways, sometimes in very ‘nominal’ or ‘adjectival’ ways. This may reflect the fact that some participles or subgroups of participles are more or less integrated into the verbal system than others. Equally, it might reflect the fact that some (subgroups of) participles are distinct from others not in relation to the cline of verbal integration, but in relation to the cline between verb and noun; that is, some participles might be more ‘verbal’ than others, while not necessarily being any more or less integrated into the verbal system. Despite their wide functional range and undoubted interest as a category bridging the gap between verb and adjective, very little work exists on the syntax and semantics of participles as a distinct category in Rigvedic Sanskrit, or indeed Sanskrit as a whole. Speyer’s Sanskrit Syntax (1886) has remained one of the standard reference works on Classical Sanskrit syntax. Present participles are described by Speyer as expressing ‘continuous action’ and the ‘durative’ (§358, pp. 278–9). In defining the use of participles in Classical Sanskrit, Speyer’s primary division is between participles functioning as ‘simple attributive adjectives’ or substantives, and ‘participles [which] serve to express attending circumstances or other qualifications of the main action, whether temporal or local, causal, concessive, conditional, hypothetical etc.’. These latter uses he considers equivalent to subordinate clauses of various kinds: ‘the participle equivalent to a simple relative clause’; ‘the participle denoting time, state, condition, circumstance’; ‘the participle denoting cause, motive’; ‘the participle equivalent to a concessive sentence’; ‘the participle expressive of the protasis of a conditional or hypothetical sentence’; ‘the participle denoting a purpose, aim, intention’ (§362, pp. 281–2). Other syntactically distinct uses of participles are treated separately: absolute constructions (§§365–72, pp. 284–91); completive participles (§374, pp. 291–2); periphrastic verb 17 Notably Narten () on the sigmatic aorist, Hoffmann () on the injunctive, Jamison (a) on -áya-presents, Got¯o () on class  presents, Schaefer () on the intensive, Kümmel () on the stative and passive aorist, Kümmel (a) on the perfect, Heenen () on the desiderative, Tichy () on the subjunctive, Baum () on the imperative, Hill () on ‘aorist-presents’, Dahl () on tense and aspect, Kulikov () on -yá-presents, and Keydana () on infinitives.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Introduction

forms (§§376–8, pp. 293–6). Speyer’s aim is descriptive, and he provides no analysis of the functions of participles or of the place of participles in the grammatical system of Sanskrit. His brief Vedische und Sanskrit-Syntax (1896) adds nothing in this respect. The most important contribution to the study of Vedic syntax is still Delbrück’s Altindische Syntax (1888). He provides a wealth of data, gives a comprehensive overview of the subject, and treats the participles separately according to their tense-aspect stem; but his aim, like Speyer’s, is primarily the organized presentation of data rather than analysis. Participles are classed together with other non-finite verbal categories, the gerundives, absolutives, and infinitives. Delbrück’s definition of the function of present participles is as follows: Das Part. des Praes. wird einem Nomen des Satzes beigesellt, um auszudrücken, dass das Nomen sich in einer Handlung (dieses Wort im weitesten Sinne genommen) befindet, welche in die Satzhandlung hineinfällt. Die beiden Handlungen werden als gleichzeitig, als gegensätzlich, oder sonst wie in innerlicher Beziehung stehend gedacht. ‘The present participle is associated with a noun in the clause, indicating that the noun is involved in a particular action (this word understood in the widest possible terms), which coincides with the action of the clause. Both actions are conceived of as cotemporaneous, as contrasting, or otherwise inherently related.’ (Delbrück 1888: §211, p. 368)

These relationships between the participle and predicate are not, however, defined in more precise terms or further analysed. The different functions of present participles are not categorized; the only functions discussed are the expression of intention (‘Absicht’, p. 371), state (‘Zustand’, p. 371), and the participle constituting a Noun Phrase (p. 372). As in Speyer’s work, the syntactically distinct functions such as the absolute construction are treated separately (§§216–20, pp. 386–96), but there is no attempt to provide an overall analysis of the functions and status of participles in the Vedic language. The most significant work on tense-aspect stem participles in Sanskrit is a 60-page monograph by Renou in his Études de grammaire sanskrite (1936b). He first treats the uses of participles in the Br¯ahman.as, then in the post-Vedic language; finally twenty pages (plus seven pages of footnotes) are devoted to the participle in the Rigveda. Renou’s monograph provides examples of almost every conceivable use of participles, but like Speyer and Delbrück he does not analyse or develop any conclusions about individual participial functions or groups of functions. The status of participles in the Rigveda is also significant from a diachronic perspective. It has been observed that in the earliest stages of Germanic, Latin, and Slavic, participles seem more purely adjectival, in syntactic and semantic terms, than in later stages.18 This raises the possibility that in Proto-Indo-European participles may have

18 For Germanic, see Callaway (: –), Thim-Mabrey (), Killie (); for Latin, Laughton (); for Slavic, Jacobsson (); cf. also Sommer (: –).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

1.3 Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit



been functionally more restricted, or less integrated into the verbal system, or both, than they appear to be in the earliest attested Greek and Sanskrit. Consequently, it is sometimes assumed that, as Benveniste (1935b: 126) put it, ‘La catégorie du « participe » comme telle est sans doute moins ancienne qu’il ne semble et moins strictement délimitée’ (‘The category of “participle” as such is undoubtedly less ancient than it appears, and of less absolute delimitation’).19 Since in the oldest Indo-European languages various types of adjectives appear to display ‘verbal’ functionality (which can be as little as expressing the meaning of the verbal base), while at the same time in some Indo-European languages morphologically clear participles appear to lack traditionally ‘participial’ functions,20 it appears to follow that in Proto-Indo-European there was no strictly defined morphological category of participle such as arguably appears in Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, and most other daughter languages. This view is apparently supported by Renou’s (1936b) comparison of the participle in the Rigveda with the participle in the later stages of the language, from which he concluded that the participle of the Rigveda has primarily an adjectival function, the verbal function becoming the more frequent only from the Br¯ahman.as. The adjectival value of the participle is, he claims, seen in its frequent ‘substantival’ use, that it signifies ‘un état durable, une qualification’ (‘an ongoing state, a classification [according to a permanent characteristic]’) and that it is regularly coordinated with ordinary adjectives (§39, p. 26). This argument is not developed further or explicitly supported by evidence, and it is not clear what Renou means when he says that the morphology as well as the semantics of the participle supports this view.21 However, leaving aside certain marginal uses of participles such as their involvement in periphrastic constructions (cf. §4.5.2 below), which are indeed further developed in the post-Rigvedic language, the main difference between the participle of the Rigveda and that of the Br¯ahman.as is due not to any change in functionality or verbal integration, but rather to differences of genre. We will see that participles have a wide functional range in the Rigveda, as wide as is found in the Br¯ahman.as. If in the Rigveda a greater proportion of present participles display adjectival functionality, this need not be due to any historical change, but simply to the different genres of literature involved: a high proportion of participles in the Rigveda are epithets, usually of gods, which is to be expected in hymns of divine invocation; these are by no means so common in the prose of the Br¯ahman.as. Renou’s work attempts to analyse the functions of participles in the Rigveda from a diachronic perspective without, however, undertaking a full 19

Cf. Jamison (b: , fn. ). For example it has been argued that the present participle of Proto-Germanic could not govern accusative objects, this being a later borrowing from Latin and Ancient Greek; see Killie (: –). 21 Perhaps the existence of the root-derived ‘aorist’ participles in the Rigveda? In contrast, the relative lack of secondary derivatives from participles, esp. those in -ká- which become common only from the Atharvaveda (Renou b: §, pp. f.), is a morphological argument in favour of an early distinction between participles and adjectives. 20

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Introduction

treatment of the synchronic status of participles in the text. He makes assumptions about the synchronic status of participles on the basis of diachronic observations, which is a case of putting the cart before the horse.

. Conclusion Although participles have been treated obliquely in many of the monographs published on the Rigvedic verb system over the past fifty years, there exists no modern or comprehensive treatment of participles as a category in themselves; this work is an attempt to fill that gap. In Chapter 2 I introduce the Rigvedic Sanskrit language, in particular its morphology and syntax, in order to establish the grammatical context in which the Rigvedic participle category appears. Subsequently, I introduce the formal grammatical model assumed in this work, Lexical-Functional Grammar, in Chapter 3. Chapters 4 and 5 provide an in-depth analysis of the syntax and semantics of Rigvedic participles. In Chapter 6 I discuss the category in detail, defining its membership and internal subdivisions. Chapter 7 brings together the major findings and conclusions of the study, and also considers the position of Rigvedic participles in both a historical and typological perspective.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

 The Rigvedic Sanskrit language In this chapter I provide a brief introduction to the Rigvedic Sanskrit language. I concentrate on the major grammatical features that are of relevance for understanding participles.

. Phonology Since this study is primarily a syntactic and semantic one, it is not necessary to provide a detailed introduction to Sanskrit phonology. It will be worth explaining enough, however, for the diacritics used in transliteration to be sufficiently clear for those unfamiliar with the language. Rigvedic Sanskrit distinguishes five qualities of vowel: non-high a, high front i, high back rounded u, a syllabic rhotic r. (possibly / / pronounced [˘ә˜˘ә], cf. Kobayashi, 2004: 99–100), and a syllabic lateral approximant .l (/ /).1 A phonemic length distinction is found with all but the last of these, marked in transliteration with a macron: a¯ , ¯ı, u¯ , ¯r. (/a‰/, /i‰/, etc.). There are four diphthongs, e (/ai/), o (/au/), ai (/a‰i/), and au (/a‰u/); the transliteration convention reflects a later monophthongization of the short diphthongs, and shortening of the long diphthongs, but this should not be assumed for the Rigvedic stage of the language.2 Originally, vowels distinguished two tones, high and low. Most words have one high tone (usually referred to as the ‘accent’), indicated by an acute accent mark on the relevant vowel, e.g. á; some words have no high tone, a few have two. A grave accent mark (e.g. à) represents a falling tone; this is in fact the reflex of an original high tone on a preceding syllable that was lost in the

1 In contrast to most recent works on Rigvedic Sanskrit I use r and l rather than r and l, following the . . conventions of the IAST (Senart ), and to avoid confusion with the IPA diacritic indicating voicelesness (e.g. l, a voiceless lateral). .l therefore represents two distinct phonemes, a syllabic lateral approximant and non-syllabic retroflex lateral approximant, but both sounds are rare (particularly the former, which occurs in only a few forms of a single root), and there is never any ambiguity. 2 A few instances of e and o represent sequences whose status in the Rigvedic period is unclear, but that were not originally, and may never have been, diphthongs. An example is the e in the perfect ∗ participle sedivám . s-, where the stem sed- comes from original sazd-, probably via a stage such as /sә‰d/, by compensatory lengthening and centralization of the vowel upon loss of the voiced sibilant.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The Rigvedic Sanskrit language

˙˘ (anun¯asika) represents nasalization of the post-Rigvedic transmission. The symbol m preceding vowel; the same is true, in some contexts, of m . (anusv¯ara). The consonantal system of Rigvedic Sanskrit, together with the transliteration used for the various consonants, is given in Table 2.1. In the transliteration, h following a stop or lateral indicates aspiration, i.e. ph = /ph /, bh = /b| / etc. Otherwise h is a distinct phoneme, and is voiced, i.e. /|/; voiceless /h/, which is more restricted in distribution, appearing only in syllable codas, is transliterated h.. The consonantal phonology of old Indo-Aryan has been given detailed treatment by Kobayashi (2004), and the analysis provided here largely follows his. The nasals ñ and n˙ , and the aspirated affricate jh are only marginally phonemic; the retroflex lateral approximants .l and .lh are later allophonic variants of d. and d.h between vowels, and although they appear in the transmitted text did not exist in the Rigvedic period. Also non-phonemic were the bilabial and velar fricatives (/ф/ and /x/), in allophonic distribution with the voiceless glottal fricative (/h/); all three are transliterated h.. The postalveolar sounds are commonly referred to as palatals, but that was strictly true only of an earlier stage of the language; ś and the sibilant element of the affricates might have been postalveolar /+/ /Ç/ or alveolo-palatal / -ay-V). This is also the case in the genitive/ablative singular śúce-h., where the spelling -e- represents

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

2.3 Verbal morphology



original -ay- before a consonant. In the locative the case suffix is zero (-∅), and it is only the change in the stem (which involves loss of the -i- element in both variants) that marks the case. Participles are morphologically fully adjectival: they obligatorily agree in gender, number, and case with the noun phrase they modify, unless no head noun is present, in which case they function substantively. Most of the declensional patterns utilized by participles are also utilized by other adjectival categories, and this can lead to ambiguity over whether a particular form is in fact a participle or a lexical adjective. The formation of nominal stems from other stems can occur via two main processes: derivational morphology and compounding. Derivational morphology is largely suffixal. Primary suffixes, sometimes with attendant vowel gradation, are used to derive nouns or adjectives from verbal roots, as in the adjective śúc-i-, above, from the verbal √ √ root śuc ‘be bright, pure’, or the noun da¯´ti- ‘gift’ from  d¯a ‘give’. Secondary suffixes derive nouns or adjectives from other nouns and adjectives, e.g. the abstract noun sarvá-t¯at- ‘wholeness’ from the adjective sarvá- ‘whole’, or the possessive adjective gó-mant- ‘possessing (many) cows’ from the noun gáv- ‘cow’. Stem modification and ‘suprafixation’ are also utilized in derivation, e.g. the adjective bha¯´radv¯aja- ‘of the Bharadv¯ajas’, from the family name bharádv¯aja-. One derivational prefix is the negative prefix a(n)-, e.g. in ádeva- ‘not divine, impious’ beside devá- ‘divine’.3 Sanskrit also attests a number of highly productive processes of word formation via compounding.4 Synchronic participles do not participate in compounding in Rigvedic Sanskrit, so I omit discussion of these processes here, but see §6.7 for an account of compounding in relation to participial stems. In this last respect, participles pattern as part of the verbal, rather than nominal system: derivation via suffixation and compounding is frequent and productive in the nominal system, but it is rare in the verbal system, to which we now turn.

. Verbal morphology .. The finite system The Rigvedic Sanskrit verbal system is even more rich, morphologically, than the nominal system. Finite verbs distinguish two diatheses (voices): active, and mediopassive. There are six tense-aspects: present, imperfect, aorist, perfect, stative, and future; though traditionally labelled ‘tenses’, these categories in fact distinguish complex com3

On this prefix in relation to participles, see Lowe (a) and §.. below. The extreme freedom of compounding in Classical Sanskrit suggests that it may be best analysed as a syntactic, rather than morphological, phenomenon—i.e. many Classical Sanskrit ‘compounds’ may be best analysed as clauses formed by a special subset of syntactic rules, rather than as words formed in the morphology. In Rigvedic Sanskrit, however, although compounding is frequent and productive, it is still undoubtedly a morphological phenomenon; very few compounds of more than two members exist, for example. 4

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The Rigvedic Sanskrit language

binations of tense and aspect (and possibly other things), to be discussed in more detail below. There are five moods: indicative, imperative, subjunctive (with primarily an intentional/future sense), optative (expressing a wish, or irrealis), and injunctive (a functionally problematic category: see in particular Renou 1928; Hoffmann 1967; Mumm 1995; Kiparsky 1968; 2005); the imperfect, stative, and (largely) the future tenses are confined to the indicative. Finite verbs agree in person and number with their subject.5 √ Rigvedic verbs are cited in root form, e.g. kr. is the verb ‘to make’; tense, aspect, and other verbal features are expressed by a combination of affixes attached to this verbal root. In the main, tense-aspect is marked by suffixation, infixation, or reduplication to/of the verbal root, which may or may not also undergo processes of vowel gradation. To this ‘tense-aspect stem’, suffixes (to a limited extent also prefixes) are added to mark √ diathesis, mood, person, and number. Consider the following illustrative forms of kr. ‘make’: (2.1)

kr.-n.v-ánti make-prs-3pl.act.ind ‘They make’

(2.2) kr.-n.áv-ai make-prs-1sg.med.sbj ‘I will make for myself ’ (2.3) ca-kár-a pf-make-1sg.act.ind ‘I made’ (2.4) ca-kr-iy¯ah. pf-make-2sg.act.opt ‘May you make’ (2.5) á-kar-∅ ind-make.aor-2/3sg.act ‘You/(s)he made’ (2.6) á-kr.-mahi ind-make.aor-1pl.med ‘We made for ourselves/were made’ √ The present stem of kr. is formed by suffixation of -nu-; suffixes attached to this stem indicate person, number, diathesis, and mood (2.1). In some forms, including the subjunctive, the tense-aspect suffix shows vowel gradation to -náv-/-nó- (2.2). The perfect is formed not by suffixation but by reduplication (2.3, 2.4, postalveolar c- being 5 For the purposes of this overview, I ignore the problematic pluperfect tense (Thieme ; Kümmel a: –) and the extremely marginal conditional and precative moods.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

2.3 Verbal morphology



the regular reduplicated form of velar k-); here the root itself shows vowel gradation depending on the suffixes attached. The aorist forms (2.5, 2.6) are somewhat different. In this root as in many, there is no explicit marker of the aorist tense-aspect; that is, the bare root marks the aorist in finite forms. In addition, the indicative mood is not expressed by the suffixes that also mark person, number, and diathesis, but by a prefix, the ‘augment’, that appears exclusively in the aorist and imperfect indicative. Things get even more complicated, however. The person/number distinction between (2.3) and (2.7) does not depend on the form of the suffix, which is the same in both forms, but on the vowel gradation in the root. Similarly, it is only the difference in vowel gradation between (2.8) and (2.9) that distinguishes person, number, and diathesis.6 As in the nominal system, then, the full specification of some forms comes from a combination of affixation and vowel patterns superimposed on lexical roots. (2.7) ca-ka¯´r-a pf-make(3sg)-3sg.act.ind ‘I made’ (2.8) á-kar-ta ind-make.aor-2pl.act.ind ‘I made’ (2.9) á-kr.-ta ind-make.aor-3sg.med.ind ‘I made’ .. The non-finite system The non-finite verbal system is, as discussed in Chapter 1, of somewhat uncertain membership, some categories being more closely and others less closely aligned with the verbal system. Besides the tense-aspect stem participles, there are also infinitives (discussed in detail by Keydana 2013), absolutives (also called ‘gerunds’, better labelled ‘converbs’, cf. §7.3), an agent noun formation, and a few other verbal nouns and adjectives. Most of these categories are formed in the same way as derived categories that are unambiguously not part of the verbal system. So, just as the adjective karan.á√ ‘making’ and the agent noun kará- ‘doer, tool’ are derived directly from the root kr. ‘do, make’ by suffixation of -aná- and -á- respectively, the absolutive kr.tv¯´ı and the infinitive kártave are likewise derived directly from the root by suffixation. In contrast, tense-aspect stem participles are the only non-finite category that are freely, regularly, and productively formed not to roots, but to tense-aspect stems. So, 6 It is almost true that in this root aorist paradigm the full-grade stem kar- is marked as active, and the zero-grade kr.-/kr- as mediopassive, but the pl. active ákran contradicts the pattern.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The Rigvedic Sanskrit language

√ the root kr. forms distinct participles to its present, aorist, perfect, and future tenseaspect stems, including the active participles shown in (2.10)–(2.13). (2.10) kr.-n.v-ántmake-prs-ptc.act ‘making’ (2.11)

kr-ántmake.aor-ptc.act ‘having made’

(2.12) ca-kr.-vám . spf-make-ptc.act ‘having made’ (2.13) kar-is.yá-ntmake-fut-ptc.act ‘intending to make’ Examples of other non-finite categories formed to tense-aspect stems are sporadic and irregular. A few infinitives are formed to tense-aspect stems, e.g. gr.n.¯ıs.áni ‘to sing’, by affixation of -sáni to the class 9 present stem seen in 3sg. gr.n.¯´ı te ‘sings’, or píbadhyai ‘to drink’ by suffixation of -dhyai to the class 1 stem seen in 3sg. píbati ‘drinks’. However, the infinitival suffixes which can attach to tense-aspect stems are not productive and can also be suffixed to verbal roots.7 Likewise there are a few examples of -tá- adjectives built to reduplicated (present or perfect) tense-aspect stems: e.g. √ dattá- ‘given’ to  d¯a ‘give’, based on the class 3 present stem seen in 3sg. datté ‘is √ given’; jahitá- ‘left’ to h¯a ‘leave’, based on the class 3 present seen in 3sg. jáh¯ati ‘leaves’, √ jagdhá- ‘eaten’ to ghas ‘eat’, based on the perfect stem seen in 3pl. jaks.uh. ‘they ate’. But all these can be explained as derivationally clearer replacements of ambiguous or phonologically unclear forms: so dattá- replaces the phonologically regular ∗ ttá- (preserved in the Classical a¯ tta-); jahitá- replaces phonologically expected ∗ hitá-, which √ would have been homophonous with hitá- ‘placed’, the regular -tá- adjective to dh¯a ‘place’. Tense-aspect stems appear sporadically also with a few other morphological categories. Some agent nouns occurring as the second member of a determinative compound are formed not to the verbal root, as would be expected, but to present stems, sometimes with suffixation of a thematic vowel, e.g. punar-manyá- ‘remembering’ to √ the class 4 present mán-ya-te ‘thinks’ ( man ‘think’); viśvam-invá- ‘moving all’ to the √ class 5 present i-nó-ti ‘moves, urges, impels’ ( i ‘impel’); aminá- ‘undiminishing’ to

7

On these, see e.g. Benveniste (a: ff.), Jeffers (), and Keydana (: –).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

2.3 Verbal morphology



√ the class 9 present mi-na¯´-ti ‘diminishes’ ( m¯ı ‘diminish’).8 It has also been suggested that certain adjectives in -ú- and -i- formed to reduplicated stems are specifically derivatives from perfect tense-aspect stems (Wackernagel–Debrunner AiG 2:2, §287f., pp. 472–3), but in fact the synchronic and diachronic situation is far from clear.9 The key difference between such categories and the category of participles is the productivity of the latter in their formation to tense-aspect stems. This productivity is specifically linked to inflectional morphology as opposed to derivational by de Lamberterie (1990: 32–3); in other words, the productivity or lack thereof of this kind of adjectival formation is directly related to the type of formation we are dealing with. Looking at it from the other side, the lack of productivity in other categories (such as adjectives in -ú-, or the thematized compounds) is evidence of their non-inflectional (and therefore non-participial) nature.10 Moreover, it is almost exclusively the present tense-aspect stem which is found in these less productive categories. This likely reflects the incipient reanalysis of the present stem as the most basic form of the root; this is particularly true of derivative stems like the causative, which were beginning to be reanalysed as separate verbal stems already in the Rigvedic period. Occasionally aorist or perfect stems are found: for example, the agent noun nés..tr.- ‘leader’ (used as a PN) is based on the s-aorist of √ n¯ı ‘lead’, e.g. 3pl. ánes.ata, beside regular nétr.- ‘id.’, where -tr.- is suffixed to the full grade verbal root (cf. Tichy 1994: 40). Where aorist or perfect stems are found, it may well reflect an association of the form concerned with the verbal system, but when the present is found, as in the vast majority of examples of sporadic tense-aspect stem formants, it is less clear that the form itself was specifically associated with the verbal system than that the present stem was simply being used in place of the verbal root. With other categories, then, we find only occasional derivation from tense-aspect stems, almost exclusively the present.11 Morphologically, then, participles are the most ‘verbal’ of the non-finite categories; we will see in the subsequent chapters that their syntax and semantics are largely in correlation with morphology on this point. Synchronically, participles are derivatives from tense-aspect stems even in cases where historically they can be analysed as adjectival derivatives from nominal categories. For example, Tucker (1988) shows that certain denominal participles, in particular those with a desiderative sense, were in origin formed by means of an adjectival derivational process from nominal bases: e.g. gavyánt- ‘desiring cows’ from gáv- ‘cow’. 8

Further examples in Wackernagel–Debrunner (AiG: vol. :: –). On the reduplicated -i- formation, see now Grestenberger (). 10 Of course the distinction between inflectional and derivational morphology is not discrete; see e.g. Haspelmath (: esp. f.), Bauer (), and Booij (). Although in some respects problematic, the distinction does have a cognitive basis: see e.g. Miceli and Caramazza (), Badecker and Caramazza (), Laudanna et al. (), and Bozic and Marslen-Wilson (). 11 The desiderative adjective in -sú- and the desiderative-denominative adjective in -yú- are built on stems which are similar (and probably related) to verbal stems, but lack the thematic vowel of the verbal stem. 9

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The Rigvedic Sanskrit language

Similarly, Lubotsky (1989: 104) argues that a number of present stems in -áya- with zero-grade root, attested only in the participle and secondary 3pl. in -anta, derive from the reanalysis of participles to denominal stems as an adjectival formation to root nouns. Synchronically, however, many such ‘participles’ of adjectival origin do attest corresponding finite verbal forms, and although these were historically secondary to the denominal ‘participles’, once they existed there need have been no synchronic difference between the originally denominal participles and regularly formed tenseaspect stem participles. Even if finite verbal forms never existed for some roots (e.g. √ tv¯ay, attested only in the participle tv¯ayánt- ‘desiring you’, for which Tucker (1988: 100) considers it ‘absurd’ to reconstruct a finite verb ∗ tv¯ayáti), this does not mean that an adjective in -yánt- could not have synchronically patterned or have been analysed as a verbal form to a root which simply lacked finite forms (as some roots lack one or another tense-aspect stem). In the end, it cannot be proven that a finite form did not or could not have existed to any denominal root, and therefore all denominal ‘participles’, even those of which the non-verbal origin is clear, must be considered synchronically participles, unless there is clear functional evidence to suggest a synchronic disjunction between participle and verbal stem (which, in the case of stems attested only in the participle, is impossible). In terms of their syntax and semantics, historically denominal participles cannot necessarily be distinguished from tense-aspect stem participles proper, and no distinction between them will be made in this work. .. Participial suffixes Morphologically, participles are formed using particular adjectival suffixes attached to the same verbal tense-aspect stems which are used to build finite verb forms; beside (2.1)–(2.9), cf. (2.10)–(2.13), and the fully inflected form in (2.14). (2.14) kr.-n.v-ántah. make-prs-ptc.act.n.pl.m ‘making’ The participial suffix not only conveys adjectival information, such as case, number, and gender agreement, but can also be the only morphological marker of the verbal categories of diathesis, as in (2.14), and/or tense-aspect, as in (2.15) and (2.16).12 (2.15) d¯´ı dy-atam shine-prs.ptc.act.a.sg.m ‘shining’ (present participle)

12 The stem forms differ slightly in these participles; but the difference between the -y- and -i- at the end of the stem is phonologically conditioned and therefore morphologically irrelevant, and the accent is conditioned by the suffix, not the stem, and would in any case be neutralized in the vocative.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

2.3 Verbal morphology



(2.16) d¯ıdi-va¯´m . sam shine-pf.ptc.act.a.sg.m ‘shining’ (perfect participle) Therefore we cannot say that Rigvedic participles are a combination of a purely verbal stem with a purely adjectival suffix; rather verbal information is conveyed by a combination of verbal stem and suffix. As discussed above, Rigvedic Sanskrit verbs form up to six distinct tense-aspect stems, some in two diatheses; but only three adjectival suffixes, -nt-, -vám . s-, and -(m)¯ana-, are used to form participles to all these stems. The suffix -nt- is used for all specifically active stems except the perfect active; the suffix -vám . s- is used for the perfect active alone; and the suffix -(m)¯ana- is used for all mediopassive stems. All three suffixes form participles in at least some other Indo-European languages, and hence can be reconstructed to at least late PIE.13 The -nt- suffix is in some ways the most interesting of the participial suffixes, because it is not exclusively a participial suffix, but is found as an adjectival suffix in other categories too. In Sanskrit it is used as an adjectival suffix in the Caland system, e.g. br.hánt- ‘high’ (§6.10; Lowe 2013c), and also in the pronominal system, e.g. kíyant‘how great’, íyant- ‘so great’.14 As a participial suffix, -nt- has three patterns of ablaut: hysterodynamic, found in all athematic stems except class 3 (reduplicated) presents; thematic, originally a non-ablauting declension with the suffix appearing directly after the thematic vowel of thematic stems, but largely analogically rebuilt after the hysterodynamic declension (except in the feminine; the non-ablauting thematic stem is preserved in Avestan); acrostatic, found in class 3 and intensive present stems and the sigmatic aorist. All three patterns show a fixed accent on the root or reduplicating syllable, leaving the participial suffix in a constant reduced grade. In all these the -ntparticiples essentially follow the ablaut pattern of the verbal stem from which they are derived, so no further detail need be given. ∗ The perfect active participle suffix -vám . s- (< PIE -uos-) is not found in any other functions in Sanskrit or in related Indo-European languages, and may be assumed to have been exclusively the only suffix forming perfect tense-aspect stem participles in PIE prior to the development of the perfect mediopassive.15 All mediopassive and passive (tense-aspect stem) participles in Sanskrit are built by attaching -(m)¯ana- to the relevant tense-aspect stem: -m¯ana- to thematic stems, -¯ana13

On the morphology of non-finite verbal forms in PIE, see García Ramón (forthcoming). This wide functionality is found also in other I-E languages, as discussed in Lowe (c). 15 On the unusual declension of the -váms- suffix, see Jamison (a); the earlier reconstruction of a . varying ∗ -s-/-t- stem for PIE can no longer be supported (see esp. Szemerényi ; Rau ), although it has nevertheless been maintained by e.g. Beekes (), Rasmussen (), and Olsen (). The possibility that PIE ∗ -uos- may be an enlargement of the ‘participial’ adjective-forming suffix ∗ -u- has been explored by e.g. Benveniste (b: –) and Gusmani (: –); cf. also Rau (). Such speculations are irrelevant to the synchronic situation in RV Sanskrit (or even late PIE). 14

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The Rigvedic Sanskrit language

to athematic stems. From a diachronic perspective this suffix cannot be broken down or easily related to any other suffix or category.16 The attachment of these suffixes to tense-aspect stems is very largely regular. The few irregularities are either clearly nonce formations, or appear to show linguistic developments typical of later stages of Indo-Aryan, in which case they were presumably regular, if innovative, for the speakers involved. For example, there is at least one clear instance in the Rigveda of the analogical replacement of the strong form of -vám . s- by the weak stem -ús.-, cakrús.am . a.sg.m. at 10.137.1c for regular cakr.va¯´m . sam, a process that becomes more common in later Sanskrit. Analogical influence between the perfect active suffix -vám . s- and the adjectival suffix -vant-, which resulted in the latter adopting the n.sg.m. and v.sg. of the former (-v¯an and -vah., replacing ∗ -van in both cases), also resulted in nonce participles in -vant-. So the g.sg. dadhan-vát-ah. √ (RV 6.48.18) for expected ∗ dadhan-ús.-ah., to the perfect stem of dhan ‘run’.17 It has also been argued that the unclear cikitván¯a at 8.60.18b, apparently to the perfect √ stem of cit ‘perceive’, may show interference between the adjectival -ván- stem and -vám . s-. The distinction between the thematic and athematic mediopassive suffixes is occasionally obscured by the creation of thematic participles to otherwise athematic

16 The PIE form of this suffix, ∗ -mh no-/-mh no-, was established by Klingenschmitt (: –) on   the basis of the attested reflexes in Indo-Iranian (Sanskrit -(m)¯ana-, Prakrit also -m¯ına-, Avestan -¯anaand -mna-), Greek (-μενο-, expected post-consonantal ∗ -μηνο- remodelled analogically after the postvocalic variant) and Tocharian (A -m¯am . , B -mane/-m¯ane). The Sanskrit thematic form -m¯ana- must be an analogical remodelling of an earlier ∗ -mina-/-m¯ına-, preserved in certain Middle Indic dialect forms such as Aśokan palakam¯am¯ına- ‘exerting oneself ’ (= Sanskrit parakramam¯ana-) and Ardham¯agadh¯ı agamam¯ın.a‘coming’ (cf. Sanskrit a¯ gáccham¯ana-). This reconstruction of the PIE form of the suffix has been doubted or rejected by several scholars, e.g. Melchert (: –), de Bernardo Stempel (), and Meier-Brügger (: , with references). A useful and clear summary of the situation is provided by Forssman (: –). However, the primary objections to Klingenschmitt’s reconstruction are the loss of the connection to ∗ -men- and the indivisibility of ∗ -mh no-, neither of which are valid arguments. The comparative method compels us to accept the suffix in the form demanded by the available evidence, rather than allowing us to choose our reconstructions on the basis of supposed or desired connections which have no necessary basis in fact. While it may be attractive, it is not necessary to assume a connection to ∗ -men-; such a connection would even be problematic, insofar as it would be utterly unexpected to find the thematic vowel attaching to different ablaut grades of the same suffix. The suffix ∗ -mh no- is attested as a productive formation only in the participial systems of certain daughter languages. Besides Indo-Iranian, Greek, and Tocharian, discussed above, it is found also in Armenian -own-, and traces, deriving perhaps from an original participial use, may be preserved in Latin f¯emina ‘woman’, alumnus ‘nursling’, and the verbal pl. passive ending -mini (Watkins : §§–, pp. –), and possibly also Latin calumnia ‘cunning’ and Vertumnus (PN), according to Weiss (). In other languages a different suffix is used for mediopassive participles, ∗ -mo- (found also as a purely adjectival suffix across Indo-European languages, including in Sanskrit -ma-); this is found in Baltic, Slavonic, and may be preserved in the Sabellian future passive imperatives, Oscan -mor, Umbrian -mu. Luwian and Lycian -mma/i- has been connected to PIE ∗ -mo- (Benveniste ) and ∗ -mh no-, but may rather derive from ∗ -mn-o- (Melchert forthcoming); functionally the suffix is equivalent to the Hittite -nt- participle. 17 A similar phenomenon occurs with the Avestan PN V¯ıuuahuuant- (= Skt. Vivasvant-), with . patronymic v¯ıuuaŋhuša-.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

2.3 Verbal morphology



√ stems, e.g. sasr.m¯an.á- for expected sasr¯an.á-, to the (athematic) perfect stem of  sr. ‘run’.18 More significantly, there is evidence for the use of the ‘wrong’ suffix in some words, for example the perfect participle suffix attached to the present stem in g.sg. √ vij¯an-ús.-ah. (RV 10.77.1b), based on the present stem of ví- jñ¯a ‘discern’ seen in 3sg. ví j¯ana¯´ti etc. (on this form, see §6.4.2). More frequently, the mediopassive suffix is found where the active would be expected and where there is no discernable medial or passive sense; Got¯o (1987: 28) argues that the mediopassive suffix was occasionally used in place of the active because it was easier to inflect. This foreshadows the Middle Indo-Aryan development whereby -m¯ana- takes over -nt- in some dialects, e.g. Pkt. √ sam¯an.a- ‘being’ for Skt. sánt- ‘id.’ to  as ‘be’ (while in other dialects -nt- is thematized to -nta-, and -(m)¯ana- is entirely lost along with the rest of the mediopassive).19 A wealth of data relating to the confusion of voice in Rigvedic participles, albeit somewhat outdated in certain respects, is collected in Renou (1925: 6). Renou argues that this apparent lack of voice differentiation is an archaism, showing the originally nominal origin of the participles, but this need not be the case: it is at least as likely that it is an innovative development, perhaps showing a developing loss of diathetic distinction in the participial system. .. The tense-aspect stems Having discussed the suffixes found with participles, we now turn to the forms and functions of the stems to which those suffixes attach. ... The present stem The present is the most common tense-aspect in the Rigveda and the one that displays most variety of form. Traditionally there are considered to be ten classes of present stem, formed by reduplication, suffixation, infixation, or ablaut of the verbal root. The different present stem formants can broadly be divided into those that form primary and those that form secondary stems. Primary stem formants are those that form basic present stems to a root, with no additional semantic specification beside the present tense-aspect and the meaning of the root. This is the case, for example, with the present stem formant -nu- seen in the present forms √ of kr. given above ((2.1), (2.2), (2.10), and (2.14)). Different roots form their basic present stems in different ways, and roots can form more than one primary present stem, often with no semantic difference between them. Secondary stems are those that alter the meaning of a root, forming e.g. causative, desiderative, intensive, and passive stems; these stems tend to be formed in the same way by all roots. There 18 Insler (: ) argued that in G¯ athic Avestan all mediopassive participles were thematized, so this may be an inherited tendency. But see also Knobl (: –), who argues for a semantic difference between sasr.m¯an.á- and sasr¯an.á-. 19 Cf. Bloch (: –). The essential pattern here is the replacement of athematic -nt- by a thematic participle suffix, either -nta- or -m¯ana-, along with the Middle Indic syncretism of active and mediopassive.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The Rigvedic Sanskrit language

is something of a grey area between primary and secondary stems, since secondary stems could become lexicalized or undergo semantic bleaching and be reanalysed as primary stems. Indeed, these same developments at an earlier stage of the language explain the variety of synchronic primary stems. Moreover some primary stems retain √ traces of an earlier secondary function, e.g. the reduplicated present of bhr., bíbharti ‘carry’ retains something of an earlier iterativizing function beside the semantically more primary thematic present bhárati ‘bring’.20 The distinction between the present tense-aspect and the aorist and perfect is occasionally unclear, as there was an ongoing tendency for aorist subjunctives and perfect stems to be reanalysed as presents. Such reanalysis is often seen first in the participles; this is the case, for example, with jus.ám¯an.a-, formed to the present stem √ jus.á- of jus. ‘enjoy’; this stem is attested in finite forms only post-Rigvedic, and is ultimately based on a thematized root aorist. In the finite system the present stem is used with two distinct tense-aspects, the present and the imperfect. On the basis of the present tense-aspect, supported by the Indian grammatical tradition and the comparative evidence of related IndoEuropean languages, it is a fair approximation that the present tense-aspect expresses imperfective aspect. However, Kiparsky (1998) treats the present stem as aspectually unmarked, adopting perfective aspect by default, while Dahl (2010: 163–261) argues that the present denotes the neutral aspect (discussed here in §5.5.1).21 These analyses are based on the assumption that the present stem makes a single consistent aspectual contribution in all categories in which it is found; such a consistent contribution could not be imperfective, since the imperfect uncontroversially expresses the remote or relative past, with either perfective or no clear aspectual reference (distinctly not imperfective, at least, despite its name). Other authors, however, have rather accepted the fact that the imperfect and present do not share the same aspectual properties (Hoffmann 1967; Tichy 1997), and that consequently the present tense-aspect stem as such does not make a single invariant semantic contribution to the meaning of all verb forms with which it is found. The potential for tense-aspect stems to reflect different tense-aspect properties with different verb forms is highly relevant to the analysis of participial tense-aspect, and is discussed in detail in §5.5.

20 On the inherited functions of this reduplicated present formation, which includes both iterativity and intensivity, see García Ramón (; b; ; ), who treats these functions as instantiations of ‘Aktionsart’. 21 Besides the work of Kiparsky and Dahl, there have been many recent discussions and analyses of the Rigvedic verbal system, in particular the past tenses, among others Kümmel (a), Mumm (), and more widely on Indo-Iranian, Skjaervø (: –). Kiparsky and Dahl are the only authors to formalize their analyses in time-relational terms. On the closely related Ancient Greek, see Bary and Egg (). The analysis of Tichy () contrasts with the view assumed here in that she sees the difference between the imperfect and aorist primarily in terms of evidentiality and not aspect; although an evidential system was undoubtedly developing by the late Vedic period (Dahl a; ), I see no evidence for it in the Rigveda (but cf. fn.  below).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

2.3 Verbal morphology



... The stative stem The stative is a rare and problematic category in the Rigveda.22 In PIE or Pre-PIE terms the stative may have been paradigmatically and functionally related to the perfect, insofar as the perfect can be thought of as a reduplicated stative.23 Synchronically, however, the stative is not related to the perfect; rather it is only marginally distinct from the present system, and indeed appears to have been in the process of being assimilated into the present. There is no distinct stem formant for the stative; the stative stem is usually the zeroaffixed verbal root, but it is also formed to some stems that are identical to present stems, i.e. that are present stems in origin, analogically extended to the stative. Statives are also found to some secondary intensive stems.24 The stative is morphologically distinct from other non-perfect stems only in its person/number suffixes, e.g. 3sg. -e rather than pres. 3sg. -te, which are therefore exponents not only of person/number but also of tense-aspect. The stative forms participles in -¯ana- (Kümmel 1996); the same suffix is used for the present mediopassive participles, meaning there is not infrequently ambiguity between participles of the two categories.25 22 By the stative I mean not the derived stative formation reflecting PIE ∗ -eh -, but the system of 1 formations typified by medial ‘t-less’ or perfect-like sg. endings such as śáy-e ‘lies’ for expected (later) śé-te √ to ś¯ı ‘lie (down)’. See Oettinger (; ), Got¯o (), and esp. Kümmel (). It is not universally accepted that such forms reflect a distinct category of stative inherited from Indo-Iranian or even PIE, but it would not significantly affect the analyses presented in this book if the forms concerned were treated rather as a subclass of e.g. the mediopassive present. 23 Kümmel (: ); similarly Rix (), Mottausch (: ), Tichy (: –), and MeierBrügger (: ). The morphological relation between the two categories is somewhat complicated by the mediopassive diathesis of the stative in Indo-Iranian, which (like the perfect mediopassive) must be secondary. The original ‘perfect’ endings of the stative are preserved in the Germanic preterite presents which, as argued by Randall and Jones (forthcoming), derive from the PIE stative. Randall and Jones argue that in PIE the stative construction directly derived stative verbal stems from lexically eventive roots, and that the perfect formed resultatives to eventive roots by combining the stative semantics of the stative with reduplication, which indicated preterity/anteriority (‘a preceding event’). It is perhaps more likely that the original unreduplicated ‘stative’ construction itself formed resultatives to eventive roots, which by the regular course of semantic change tended to develop into statives (just like many of the Rigvedic stative perfects), and that the perfect construction reflects a redetermination of the original unreduplicated construction, in order to reinforce the resultative semantics. 24 Kulikov (b: –; : –) argues that unexpectedly ‘passive’ or patientive examples of the perfect middle occur only in the sg., pl., and participle, and are actually statives built to the perfect stem. Following this argument to its logical conclusion means that the stative is merely a secondary stem form which can be found in principle with any tense-aspect stem. Kulikov’s argument can be countered by the existence of non-rd person perfect middle forms which are patientive, as sg. jajñis.e ‘you were born’; cf. Kümmel’s (a: –) list of roots where the perfect middle is patientive. Even if Kulikov’s claim generally holds, the sg., pl., and participle are among the most common forms of verbs, and so even a considerable statistical weighting in their direction is unlikely to be probative. The only participle Kulikov specifically mentions in both articles is yuyuj¯aná- in the compound yuyuj¯aná-sapti- ‘whose horses have been yoked’ at RV ..; however, a secure argument cannot be based on this compound, since it could equally be taken as a governing compound ‘having yoked one’s horses’ (cf. Geldner’s translation, RV: ad loc., ‘wenn sie ihre Rossen angeschirrt haben’), in which case it is not unexpectedly patientive, but regularly agentive. 25 Jasanoff (: §, p. ) takes -nt- participles as sometimes related to stative or middle paradigms, giving as an example duhánt- to duhé ‘gives milk’; however this participle is routinely agentive-transitive ‘milking’, patterning with the present dógdhi ‘milks’, not duhé. Following from this, Jasanoff assumes they

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The Rigvedic Sanskrit language

Assuming that the stative is a distinct primary stem type (granted its ongoing assimilation with the present), the question is precisely what its function was. Following Randall and Jones (forthcoming), the original function of the stative in PIE was to form non-eventive (i.e. stative) verbal stems, originally perhaps from roots with inherently stative meaning, but also from eventive roots, in which case the state expressed by the verbal stem was a resultative one. This contrasted with the ancestor(s) of the present and aorist, which formed fundamentally eventive stems. This morphological distinction between eventive and non-eventive was, it seems, largely eliminated in the ancestor of Rigvedic Sanskrit, leaving the stative a relatively superfluous category and liable to be lost. Its assimilation into the present is based on the fact that it had present-tense reference and that the closest eventive verbal type to stative is the durative atelic ‘activity’ type, which was originally associated with the present. Nevertheless, the distinct functionality of the stative can still be seen in many forms in the Rigveda—in particular in the participial system, where its reach has previously been underestimated—and for this reason I treat it as a distinct tenseaspect stem for present purposes. Purely in terms of its tense-aspect reference, the stative is effectively equivalent to the present: it expresses present tense and imperfective aspect (cf. §5.5.1). Its difference from the present is on a deeper level, that of the so-called ‘lexical aspect’ (Aktionsart) of the verb concerned. In semantic terms, the stative effectively derives a lexically distinct verbal meaning rather than expressing grammatical tense-aspect properties, but in paradigmatic terms it is an inflectional grammatical category that expresses lexical aspectual properties.26 ... The aorist stem The aorist tense-aspect stem has the second largest variety of stem formants, after the present. Many aorists have a zero stem marker, i.e. the √ person/number suffixes are affixed directly to the verbal root, as with the aorist of kr. ‘make’ above (exx. 2.5, 2.6, 2.8, 2.9). The synchronically productive stem formants are -s-, -is.-, -sis.-, and -sa- (together the s-aorists), -a- (the thematic aorist), and reduplication (the reduplicated aorist, which typically functions as an aorist to a ‘causative’ present stem in -áya-). As will be discussed in §6.2.2, aorist participles formed to the productive aorists are extremely rare, the vast majority being participles to the root aorist. This creates considerable potential for ambiguity and misclassification, since participles formed to zero-marked roots are found also in the present system, the stative, and in non-verbal adjectival derivatives. The temporal and aspectual properties of the aorist are controversial. Its ancestor in PIE is widely agreed to have expressed perfective aspect, and in the indicative were later replaced by more ‘regular’ -¯ana- forms, e.g. dúh¯ana- ‘giving milk, productive’, dhr.s.a¯ n.á- for dhr.s.ánt- ‘bold’ (but see Lowe b; c), vr.dh¯aná- for vr.dhánt- ‘growing’ (Jasanoff : §, p. ). There is little to support this argument; it is more likely that ∗ -uos- was the stative participle suffix in PIE. 26 This demonstrates that the distinction between grammatical aspect and lexical aspect is not entirely clear-cut.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

2.3 Verbal morphology



past tense. Dahl (2010) treats the Rigvedic category as directly continuing this state of affairs, but this analysis seems forced, and based on diachronic considerations. In contrast, Kiparsky (1998) treats it as a present anterior category, with specifically resultative or recent past readings, an analysis that I broadly follow in this work (cf. §2.3.5). For example, the indicative aorist is very commonly used to express an eventuality that has just occurred, and by implication the state resulting from that occurence: (2.17) úd ag¯ad ayám a¯ dityáh. up go.aor.ind.3sg this sun ‘This sun has (just now) arisen (and is now up).’ (RV 1.50.13a) In contrast, the tense-aspect properties of the aorist participle often appear very different from that of finite forms; while some seem to have a perfective or anterior sense, many seem imperfective. The semantics of aorist participles will be considered in more detail below. Brief mention must be made of the so-called passive aorist. The passive aorist is morphologically distinct from the aorist proper, being formed directly to the verbal root, regardless of whether the root concerned forms a root, thematic or s-aorist in the active and middle. It is diachronically unrelated to the aorist proper, and is also a defective category, occurring almost exclusively in the 3sg. indicative or injunctive, rarely in the 3pl. indicative or injunctive, and in only a very few other forms. Kulikov (2006a) argues that some Rigvedic participles should be analysed as participles to the aorist passive stem; that the aorist passive could form participles is also assumed by Jasanoff (2002; 2003a).27 I show below that there is no reason to assume this (§6.2.1), and since the passive aorist does not (as I see it) form participles, I will otherwise ignore it. ... The perfect stem The perfect tense-aspect is morphologically distinct from other categories, being marked by reduplication and a largely unique set of person/number suffixes. Perfect participles are formed by addition of the suffix (-vám . sin the active, -¯aná- in the mediopassive) to the weak grade of the perfect stem, which √ is usually the zero-grade root plus reduplication syllable; so e.g. to kr. ‘make’, the active and mediopassive perfect participles are formed as in (2.18), repeating (2.12), and (2.19) respectively. (2.18) ca-kr.-vám . spf-make-ptc.act ‘having made’ 27 Technically Jasanoff is reconstructing participles to his PIE intransitive aorist conjugation, which he argues became the passive aorist in Indo-Iranian. Moreover he assumes that the form of the suffix was ∗ -ntin PIE, but was medialized in PII (Jasanoff a: ).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The Rigvedic Sanskrit language

(2.19) ca-kr-¯an.ápf-make-ptc.med ‘having made for oneself ’ √ A few roots lack reduplication in the perfect, most notably  vid ‘know’, of which the mediopassive perfect participle vid¯aná-/víd¯ana- has been variously analysed as √ a present, a stative, or even an aorist to  vid ‘find’.28 In the active there is never ambiguity, since -vám . s- is exclusive to the perfect. It is, however, unclear whether the obscure isolated vocative khidvah. at 6.22.4c should be attributed to an unreduplicated perfect stem ∗ khidvám . s- or to a nominal -van- stem; the latter analysis is most commonly found and is followed here (cf. Mayrhofer, EWA, vol. 1: 454, and Wackernagel– Debrunner, AiG, vol. 2:2: 896).29 In a few forms the perfect reduplication has been obscured by phonological √ developments. So e.g. okivám , from ∗ Ha-Huk- < ∗ h e-h uk. s- to uc ‘be contented’ √ (Kümmel 2000a: 128); s¯ahvám . s- and seh¯aná- to sah ‘prevail’ with loss of voiced sibilant and compensatory lengthening from ∗ sa-z´ȷh- < ∗ se-sgh- (Kümmel 2000a: 563– √ 7);30 d¯aśvám . s- to d¯aś ‘offer worship’ shows a possibly PIE development from original ∗ de-dk- (Kümmel 2000a: 242–5).31 The isolated cakhváms- may be a regularly formed . √ perfect participle to a root kh¯a ‘stretch out, open’ (Kümmel 2000a: 152; Mayrhofer, EWA, vol. 1: 451). On the difficult m¯ıd.hvám . s-, see Manessy-Guitton (1964: 279f.); whatever its explanation, the assumption of an ordinary perfect active suffix -vám . s- in this form is complicated by the apparent secondary derivative m¯ı.lhús.mant- (Kümmel 2000a does not even mention the form). Although the participial suffixes are regularly attached to the zero-grade reduplicated root, a few stems show unexpected ablaut of the stem as well as the suffix. So √ e.g. the strong stem of the perfect participle to gam ‘go’ is jaganvám . s- (beside weak jagmús.-); this form appears to show analogical restoration of the root-final nasal to ∗ expected ∗ jagavám . s-, the only other possibility, jagnvám . s-, being avoided for reasons of euphony. Due to the distinctive suffix in the active and the relatively distinctive marking of the perfect by means of reduplication, there is usually little ambiguity between perfect 28 For the most acceptable analysis, as a perfect participle with perhaps some synchronic association with the stative, see Kümmel (: –). For alternative treatments, see e.g. Seebold (), Schaefer (:  and fn. ), and Tremblay (: –). 29 The Vedic vocative singular ending -vah of -van- stems, as in rt¯ . . avah. to r.ta¯´van- ‘respecting order’, is probably an analogical transfer from -vant- stems, where it is also not original; it comes from the paradigm of the perfect participle suffix -vám . s-, hence the ambiguity. 30 It is likely that the stem s¯ ah- represents an older development than seh-, since the latter reflects the more common, and ultimately productive, vowel in weak perfect stems. 31 A possible PIE sound change ∗ d>∗ h / ∗ _k is supported by e.g. Gr. pente ¯´konta ‘fifty’, Skt. pañc¯aśát- ‘id.’.  Other explanations have been put forward for d¯aśvám . s-: LIV assumes the lengthening is due to analogy with a supposed ‘Narten’ present; Tremblay (: ) argues that this perfect participle comes from an inherited ‘long vowel’ perfect.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

2.3 Verbal morphology



participles and those of other tense-aspect stems. There is, however, the possibility of ambiguity between the perfect mediopassive and reduplicated present mediopassives; e.g. ¯´ı ś¯ana-/¯ıś¯aná- ‘ruling, ruler’ has been variously considered part of the present, √ perfect, or stative of the root ¯ıś ‘rule’. Accent on the suffix is typical of the perfect, while accent on the reduplication syllable or root is typical of the present, but accent is not always consistent (as in ¯´ı ś¯ana-/¯ıś¯aná-) and is in some forms absent (as in the compound ¯ıś¯ana-k´r.t- ‘playing the ruler’). I follow the stative analysis of this form in §6.2.1. In semantic terms the perfect can be split into two types, depending on the verb from which the perfect is formed (Kümmel 2000a: 65–78).32 The first is the stative-like perfect (Kümmel’s ‘Perfekt als Aktionsartkategorie des erreichten Zustands’), which is common but no longer productive. It consists of the category of ‘lexikalisierte Perfektopräsentien’, which function essentially as present stems, not in opposition to an actual present stem, and the category ‘naktostatische Oppositionsperfekte’, which refer to present time with respect to a completed action and do stand in opposition to present and aorist stems. The second group is the past perfects (Kümmel’s ‘Perfekt als Tempuskategorie mit Vergangenheitsbezug’), which to a greater or lesser extent refer to an action as completed in the past, usually but not always with present-tense reference. All these readings can be captured with reference to a single set of tenseaspect properties, namely that the perfect is a present anterior category, which in the case of the stative perfect subcategory was largely reanalysed as a present tense stative by loss of reference to the anterior eventuality. ... The future stem The so-called ‘future’ stem is formed by affixing the unambiguous suffix -(i)sya- to the full-grade verbal root; the participial suffixes -nt- and -m¯ana- are then added to this stem to form participles. Jasanoff (1975) pointed out that in the Rigveda there are 29 future participles built to 12 roots, whereas there are only 20 finite future forms built to 10 roots; he therefore argued that the -sya- future began life as an adjectival formation and that finite forms were secondarily created on the basis of the adjective. This theory is supported by the fact that the only word equations supporting the reconstruction of a ∗ -sie/o- formation in PIE are participles: Skt. d¯asyánt- is cognate with Lithuanian dúosiant-; Av. b¯ušiian.t-, Lith. bu¯´ siant-, and OCS byšo˛št- (Aitzetmüller 1968; Birnbaum 1995) are also cognate.33 32 Kümmel’s assumptions regarding the diachronic development of the perfect tense from PIE are not necessary for accepting his synchronic analysis of the Vedic perfect: the Vedic situation could equally derive e.g. from a perfective stative category, as proposed by Willi (). On the Vedic perfect see also e.g. Renou (), Di Giovine (a; b), and Mumm (). 33 Jasanoff ’s proposal (repeated without significant change in Jasanoff : –) is criticized by Klein (), who argues that a participle cannot cause the back-formation of a tense stem because a participle presupposes the existence of a tense stem. This argument is circular, however, insofar as prior to the existence of a finite form such a ‘participle’ would instead be an adjective and hence would not presuppose finite forms, and moreover it is clear that in other cases finite verb forms have been created on the basis of adjectives or participle-like adjectives (e.g. the desiderative-denominatives in -yánt-, cf. §..).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The Rigvedic Sanskrit language

The diachronic origins of the future tense-aspect and its participle are not irrelevant to its synchronic status in the Rigveda, where it has been argued not to be a distinct future tense as such, but more a secondary present stem parallel to the desiderative, while the unmarked (or least marked) means of referring to future time is by using subjunctive modal forms of the other tense-aspects. There is clearly a close relation between reference to future time and the use of modality to express uncertainty, possibility, intention, etc., which explains the use of modal categories as means of referring to future time, and the diachronic development of modal categories into future tenses in some languages, such as the Latin future tense, which is cognate with the Sanskrit subjunctive. Since the concept of modality can also encompass reference to concepts such as hope, intention, etc., there is also a close natural relation between some modal categories and categories that can broadly be labelled ‘desiderative’. Tichy (2006: 125–31) terms the -sya- future ‘das Präparativ’, aligning it with two functionally and morphologically similar derived stems: the desiderative, which is formed with reduplication and a suffix -sa-, and the ‘Voluntativ’, a derived present stem in -sa- (without reduplication). The latter is not synchronically productive in Sanskrit, but survives in certain lexicalized stems such as ha¯´sa- ‘compete’, ultimately √ from h¯a ‘leave’, and abhi-da¯´sa- ‘treat with hostility, do harm’, ultimately from a root √ d¯a (cf. Mayrhofer, EWA, vol. 1: 717).34 In contrasting the -sya- ‘preparative’ with the subjunctive, Tichy (2006: 169) argues that in the 2nd and 3rd persons the preparative expresses the ‘Befürchtung’ (fear, apprehension) and ‘Voraussicht’ (foresight) of the speaker, occasionally also ‘Voraussage’ (prediction), while the subjunctive expresses rather the ‘Erwartung’ (anticipation, expectation) of the speaker. In the first person, in contrast, the subjunctive has a hortative function (‘let’s’), while the ‘future’ has a more intentional sense (‘I am going to’).35 According to P¯an.ini the future tense, including the participle, can refer to general future time or specifically to the expression of purpose (As..t. 3.3.10,13).36 In his cross-linguistic examination of the future tense, Ultan (1978) observed that future tenses tend to be more marked (both semantically and morphologically) than present or past tenses, that they often derive historically from desideratives (beside other categories), and that futures often have atemporal functions alongside their temporal reference, such as imperatival, hortative, and desiderative functions, or the expression of probability, possibility, supposition, and hypothesis. Börjars (2013) shows that the future auxiliary will in English, and its cognates in Danish vil and 34

Tichy argues that the voluntative still existed as a synchronic category in Avestan; it is continued e.g. in the Greek future tense and in some subjunctive and future categories in Italic. The -sa- morpheme, deriving from PIE ∗ -se-, is more commonly treated as a subjunctive to a sigmatic aorist (i.e. ∗ -s-e-), as e.g. by Heenen (). 35 For the semantic distinction between the future and the desiderative, see §.. below. 36 For other discussions of the function of the future in Indo-Iranian, see e.g. Renou (), It¯ o (), and Hintze ().

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

2.3 Verbal morphology



Swedish vil, attest different stages of grammaticalization from bouletic modal to future marker, and display both temporal and atemporal, modal functions. There is undeniably a relation between the categories of tense and modality as means for expressing relative (un)certainty regarding assertions, and this relation is closest in reference to future time, which is by its nature uncertain. Jaszczolt (2009) even argues that the category of tense as such should be understood in fundamentally modal terms. This leaves it a moot point whether the Sanskrit ‘future’ is a future tense as such or a modal/desiderative-like (‘preparative’) category, since the one does not exclude the other. In this work I treat the future as a distinct tense-aspect, capturing its close relation to the present by treating it as a present posterior category. Ultan (1978: 101) makes the following typological claim about future participles: ‘A future participle implies both present and past participles but neither of the two converses is necessarily true.’ How exactly he would define ‘participle’ and how this would work in primarily aspectual participial systems is unclear, but it is worth noting that the existence of participles which clearly refer to relative ‘present’ time and to relative ‘past’ time in Rigvedic Sanskrit at least licenses the existence of a specifically future participle. The semantics of the future participles will be considered in more detail below (§5.5.5). .. Tense-aspect in the verbal system As forms of verbs, participles always express an eventuality with tense and/or aspectual features (whether those features are derived from the form itself or from its immediate context). These features will interact with the equivalent features expressed by the primary verb and any other verbal element in the clause. An accurate understanding and representation of tense and aspect and of the interaction of different temporal and aspectual features in a single clause is therefore vitally important for the semantic analysis of participles. In this section I present a formal representation of the temporal and aspectual properties of the different Rigvedic tense-aspects, which will serve as a basis for the semantic analysis of participles in the rest of the work. Kiparsky (1998) and Dahl (2008a; 2009a; 2010; 2011a; 2011b) utilize the formal model of tense and aspect developed by Reichenbach (1947) to represent the temporal and aspectual distinctions of the Rigvedic verbal system.37 In this model, tense and aspect can be represented by reference to four temporal intervals or points: (2.20) E—the ‘event time’: the temporal extent or point during or at which an eventuality occurs; R—the ‘reference time’: the extent of or point in time in reference to which the eventuality is described; 37 Technically a more recent development of Reichenbach’s theory, as presented e.g. by Kamp and Reyle (), and very similar to the approach of Klein (; ). For a somewhat different approach to the formalization of tense and aspect, see Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria (; ).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The Rigvedic Sanskrit language P—the ‘perspective time’: the relative ‘now’ in the discourse context; S—the ‘speech time’: the moment of utterance.

These can be illustrated with a simple sentence like the following: (2.21) Helen was eating breakfast at seven. In this sentence, an eventuality of eating is described. In the absence of a prior context, the relative ‘now’ of the discourse, i.e. the perspective time, is by default identical to the moment of utterance, i.e. the speech time. The eventuality is described in reference to a time (seven o’ clock) preceding that of the perspective/speech time; i.e. the tense of the verb is past. That Helen was eating at seven indicates that the process of her eating had begun prior to seven, and probably continued after, i.e. the temporal extent of the eventuality, the event time, includes and extends beyond the reference time. In most simple sentences S and P are equivalent, and even in complex sentences the relation to S can be determined purely by reference to E, R, and P; hence S is generally ignored in the formalization of tense and aspect. Temporal and aspectual relations are indicated using logical symbols to indicate relations such as precedence and inclusion. Tense is treated as the relation betwen R and P, i.e. the relation between the time referred to and the ‘now’ of temporal deixis. So in a simple past tense, the time referred to precedes the ‘now’ of the sentence: R precedes P. Aspect is treated as the relation between E and R; so, for example, imperfective aspect expresses that E, the time extent of the eventuality, extends beyond R, the time referred to, or to put it another way R is included within E.38 Tables 2.3 and 2.4 illustrate the major temporal and aspectual relations and their logical representation.39 The symbols ≺ and  indicate a precedence relation; so e.g. R≺P or PR indicates that the time referred to by the utterance entirely precedes the perspective time of the utterance, which is the basic meaning of relative past time. The symbols ⊆ and 38

For the use of Reichenbach’s system to distinguish and define tense and aspect in this way, see W. Klein (b), and further below. 39 The formalization of tense and aspect presented here is in fact too simplistic to adequately account for the wide range of temporal and aspectual combinations found cross-linguistically. The variety found in the English perfect, for example, cannot be accounted for under this system without assuming that it has two recursively applied aspect properties (as e.g. Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria ; there is a wealth of literature on the problematic English present perfect: e.g. Bauer ; McCawley ; Mittwoch ; ; W. Klein ; Michaelis ; Kiparsky ; Katz ; Larsson ; von Stutterheim et al. ; Nishiyama and Koenig ; McFadden and Alexiadou ; and Meyer-Viol and Jones ). Moreover the system presented here has departed some way from Reichenbach’s original intentions in treating the relation between E and R as aspectual; for Reichenbach this relation was temporal, and the contrast between imperfective and perfective aspect was a separate property of E. Treating ‘anterior’ as an aspect on the same level as imperfective and perfective, although originating in its ambiguous treatment by writers such as Kuryłowicz () and Comrie (), is effectively the innovation of W. Klein (; ; ), and even he is more cautious about this in more recent work (Klein ). Despite its limitations, the system presented here nevertheless has relatively wide currency, and is adequate for representing the tense-aspect properties of Rigvedic Sanskrit, so for present purposes it would be unnecessary to utilize a more complicated, if crosslinguistically more valid, formalism (for one such proposal, see Kiparsky ).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

2.3 Verbal morphology



Table . Major temporal relations Tense Name

Present

Past

Future

Repr.

P⊆R

R≺P

P≺R

Table . Major aspectual relations Aspect Name

Imperfective

Perfective

Anterior

Posterior

Repr.

R⊆E

E⊆R

E≺R

R≺E

⊇ indicate an inclusion relation; so e.g. E⊆R or R⊇E indicates that the time during which the eventuality referred to occurs is included within or coextensive with the time referred to by the utterance. This is the definition of perfective aspect within this framework.40 Dahl (2010) follows Smith (1997) in assuming a further ‘neutral’ aspect, indeterminate between perfective and imperfective; Dahl represents ‘neutral’ aspect using the ‘overlap’ symbol ⊗, i.e. R⊗E, indicating that the time during which the eventuality occurs and the time referred to by the utterance overlap in an unspecified manner.41 I argue below that there is no need to assume a ‘neutral’ aspect for Rigvedic Sanskrit, and indeed Altshuler (2013) argues that such an aspect does not, in fact, exist.42 The properties of the Rigvedic tenses that I assume in this work are shown in Table 2.5. The present expresses present tense, and imperfective aspect; the imperfect, despite being formed to the same stem as the present, expresses past tense and perfective aspect. The perfect has present tense reference, P⊆R, and anterior aspect, E≺R. With past perfect stems, the anterior aspect is semantically more salient than the present tense—the first stage of a later Vedic development of the perfect to a simple past (Dahl 2014), by loss of reference to the state. With the ‘naktostatische Oppositionsperfekte’, in Kümmel’s (2000a) terminology, both present tense and anterior aspect are equally 40

It is something of a moot point whether or not perfective aspect involves simple inclusion (E⊆R) or proper inclusion (E⊂R). Following most authors, e.g. Kratzer (), Kiparsky (), Haug (c), and Haug et al. (), but in contrast to Dahl (), I assume improper inclusion here. 41 Tonhauser’s () ‘(im)perfective’ aspect, represented as ETRT, is equivalent. 42 Dahl (: ) also assumes two additional precedence relations: E R or R E indicates that E ‘partially precedes’ R; E≺R indicates that E ‘immediately precedes’ R. I see no reason to utilize these relations for the analysis of Rigvedic tense-aspect.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The Rigvedic Sanskrit language Table . Rigvedic tense-aspect

Tense Aspect

Present

Imperfect

Perfect

Aorist

Future

P⊆R E⊇R

R≺P E⊆R

P⊆R E≺R

R⊆P E≺R

P⊆R ER

salient. For the present perfects (‘lexikalisierte Perfektopräsentien’), on the other hand, it is the present tense that is most salient. In these stems the anterior aspect E≺R was being lost, the eventuality referred to in the process of being reinterpreted as the state holding at the reference time R, rather than the eventuality which resulted in entry to that state. In this way they were approaching equivalence with the simple present (R⊆E and P⊆R), and indeed many of these present perfects were reinterpreted as presents and reformed with present tense morphology, beginning in the Rigveda and continuing into later Vedic. My formal representation of the aorist differs somewhat from previous analyses. As noted above, Dahl (2010) treats the aorist as a past perfective category, while Kiparsky (1998) treats it as a present anterior category restricted to resultative and recent past readings. I follow Kiparsky (1998) in descriptive terms, but rather than a regular, though restricted, present anterior category, I propose to denote the aorist’s specific readings by means of the tense relation R⊆P, where the inclusion of reference time within the perspective time directly results in the recent past and relative anteriority readings.43 This enables us to avoid the relatively ad hoc representation Rr used by Kiparsky to distinguish the recent past and resultative readings. I propose the term ‘immediative’ for this tense relation; we can therefore label the Rigvedic aorist an immediative anterior category.44 As noted above, the semantic properties of the future are difficult to establish with certainty due to the close relation between future time, expressions of desire, and modality. Moreover, since the future is very rare in the Rigveda, and most commonly attested in the participle, its semantic properties cannot be properly discussed without detailed reference to the participle itself. In §5.5.5 I discuss in detail the semantics of the future participle, and the future tense-aspect; to anticipate my conclusions, I analyse the future in Reichenbachian terms as expressing present tense and posterior aspect. 43 Because the time referred to is ‘right now’ relative to P, which itself is either equal to S, the speech time (for recent past) or to the event time of the main verb (for relative anteriority). 44 While the tense relation R⊆P is an equally valid possibility in the Reichenbachian system as the relations P⊆R (present), R≺P (past), and P≺R (future), it is clearly not a ‘tense’ on the same level as the other three, and may be better conceived as a relation part-way between tense proper and evidentiality. The immediative relation R⊆P may reflect a reinterpretation of the inherited perfective aspect of the aorist category, E⊆R, as a tense relation. This could have originated in non-indicative verb forms (including participles) that originally expressed only aspect, which were then reinterpreted as expressing tense (§..).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

2.4 Clausal syntax



. Clausal syntax Rigvedic word order is non-configurational (Hale 1983; Baker 2001a; 2001b), that is, it is relatively unconstrained (‘free’), constituent structure does not encode grammatical functions, and discontinuity of constituents is common. More accurately, it is ‘discourse configurational’ (É. Kiss 1995; 2001): words are arranged in the clause not primarily according to syntactic criteria, but according to their information-structural properties or discourse status.45 As a gross simplification, elements that are more relevant or prominent in the discourse tend to occur earlier in the clause, while less prominent elements appear later. This does not mean, of course, that there are not syntactic constraints on the arrangement of words in a clause, merely that these constraints are fewer than, for example, in English. Modern generative treatments of Sanskrit word order begin with Staal (1967), and for Vedic Sanskrit continues especially in work by Hale (1987a; 1987b; 1995; 1996; 2007), Hock (e.g. 1982; 1989; 1993; 1996; 1997a; 1997b), Schäufele (1988; 1991a; 1991b; 1991c; 1993; 1996), Krisch (1990; 1997; 1998; 2002) and Keydana (2011).46 In this section I provide a brief overview of my approach to Rigvedic clausal syntax, certain aspects of which I have argued for in more detail in Lowe (2014a). .. Constituent order Viti (2008b; 2009; 2010) shows that all possible orderings of S(ubject), O(bject), and V(erb) are attested in Rigvedic Sanskrit, and that the order of these elements is broadly based on information structure, i.e. on the relative discourse prominence and accessibility of different elements. Table 2.6, from Viti (2010: 54), shows the possible orderings of S, V, and O in the Rigveda and her analysis of the differing prominence of these elements in each configuration. +V means the predicate is the ‘main focus of attention’; −V means it is not; > and > > represent relative ranking of arguments in terms of information structure; > > in particular ‘signals that the arguments not only have a different prominence in the context, but often belong also to different lexicalsemantic classes or to different positions of the Animacy Hierarchy’. Viti’s analysis is descriptive, but captures the basic fact that more prominent elements occur further leftward in the clause.47 In more precise terms, it is possible to 45 This, contrasting with the rigid word order of the slightly later prose Vedic texts, led earlier scholars to treat Rigvedic word order as essentially an artificial poetic construct (e.g. Delbrück : ; Benveniste : ). However, Jamison (b) argues that the rigid word order of Vedic prose is itself artificial, ‘a kind of technical discourse . . . developed by restricting the possible types of expression and by investing certain terms, particles, and syntactic constructions with highly conventional, discourse-shaping values’ (Jamison b: ; similarly Hale ). Cf. also Hock (a; ), who attributes many differences between poetic and prose Vedic syntax entirely to genre, rather than to differences of dialect or grammaticality. 46 On Classical Sanskrit word order, and in particular Staal’s ‘wild trees’ approach, see Gillon and Shaer (). 47 Beside Viti’s work, there is little research on the interaction between information structure and word order in the Rigveda. Kobayashi () provides a brief but interesting analysis of certain aspects

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The Rigvedic Sanskrit language Table . Word order according to Viti (2010) Order

Arguments

SOV SVO OSV OVS VSO VOS

S > O S >> O O > S O >> S S > O O > S

Predicate − − − − + +

V V V V V V

treat Rigvedic clausal arrangement as essentially parallel to the clausal arrangement proposed for Ancient Greek by Dik (1995; 2007). According to Dik, Ancient Greek clauses consist, at a basic level, of four ‘slots’ in which different parts of a sentence can appear, as shown in (2.22).48 The leftmost slot is reserved for topical material; focused material appears in the second slot; the verb, when not topicalized or focused, appears in the third, and the final slot contains non-prominent, backgrounded material.49 All ‘slots’ are optional, and the verb can appear in any of the slots as its discourse status requires. Besides the appearance of discourse prominent material towards the left edge of the clause, Rigvedic word order also mirrors Ancient Greek insofar as material following the verb can generally be treated as background information (Gonda 1959). (2.22) S → (Topic) (Focus) (Verb) (Background) It is often assumed that despite the apparent freedom of constituent order there was nevertheless an ‘unmarked’ or ‘canonical’ word order in Rigvedic Sanskrit (and indeed its ancestor, PIE), namely SOV. This is maintained most recently by Hock (2013), and has been used, for example, to account for phenomena such as the deaccentuation of finite verbs in main clauses, supposedly as a result of sentence-final low intonation (Hock 1991; 1999; Klein 1992a). Another way to look at it, however, is that SOV was not ‘unmarked’, but simply the most common constituent order given the typical information-structural arrangement of a clause. That is, subjects are frequently the most discourse-prominent information in a clause, most often topical; and in a simple clause containing only a subject, object, and verb, the object is likely to be more discourse-prominent than the verb, more often focused or a secondary topic. So the frequency of SOV, or phonological effects that may be attributed to its frequency, do of information-structure marking in Vedic prose texts; Banti () discusses the information structure of discontinuous phrases in Vedic prose. 48 A more detailed analysis of Ancient Greek clause structure is provided by Matić (); he distinguishes more positions and information structure categories, but in very broad terms concurs with Dik’s () analysis. 49 As discussed by authors such as Butt and King (), Choi (), Mycock (), and Lowe and Mycock (), the discourse function labels ‘topic’, ‘focus’, ‘background’, etc. are, in reality, cover terms for more complex sets of features. Since the details are unimportant for the present context, I utilize these over-simplistic labels without further discussion.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

2.4 Clausal syntax



not enforce the conclusion that there was ever an underlying configurational SOV word order, either in Rigvedic Sanskrit or in PIE. There are various ways in which the descriptive arrangement in (2.22) can be analysed in formal structural terms. Commonly, syntacticized topic and focus positions are assumed. For example, Dalrymple et al. (forthcoming) suggest the c-structure in (2.23) for Ancient Greek, following Haug (2008a, and p.c.), with a topic/focus position in Spec,CP; Haug (2012: 307) suggests a slightly different but very similar c-structure (2.24); Kiparsky (1995: 153) proposes the tree in (2.25) for Proto-Indo-European, with syntacticized topic and focus positions at the left edge of the clause.

CP

(2.23)

Cˈ

XP Topic|Focus C

S XP Topic

XP Focus

XP∗ Background

Verb

IP

(2.24)

Spec,IP (Topic)

I´ XP

I´

XP

…

I

…

XP

Sˈˈ

(2.25)

Sˈ

TOPIC FOCUS

XP

XP

S

…t…

(pro) …V…

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The Rigvedic Sanskrit language

In this work I utilize Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG) to model the syntax and semantics of participles. In Chapter 3 I provide an introduction to LFG and discuss the features of particular relevance to the analysis of participles. At this point, it is sufficient to note that LFG’s approach to constituent structure, i.e. the syntactic ‘tree’, is relatively unconstrained in comparison with some other grammatical formalisms such as Government & Binding Theory or the Minimalist Program. Only syntactic, constituency-based evidence is admitted for justifying syntactic nodes and projections in the constituent structure, since other types of evidence, such as functional relations and information-structural relations, are neither relevant to nor represented at constituent structure, but to/at other levels of the grammar. This permits some flexibility in LFG’s approach to constituent structure, such as optional heads and specifiers and also exocentric (‘headless’) categories, and reflects the reality of cross-linguistic variation in constituent structure. In purely constituency-based terms, there is little evidence for hierarchy within the Rigvedic clause. There is no evidence, for example, that the initial topic position is ‘higher’ than the rest of the clause, or that the initial topic and focus positions together are ‘higher’ than the rest of the clause. If so, we would expect some evidence that everything in the Rigvedic clause except the topic, or except the topic and focus, formed a constituent, but such evidence is lacking. In addition to the topic and focus positions near the start of the clause, any treatment of Rigvedic syntax has to account for the ‘clitic cluster’, i.e. a position near the left edge of the clause in which certain sets of short, often (but not always) prosodically deficient, functional words congregate (Wackernagel 1892). The ‘clitic cluster’, in the context of the left edge of the Rigvedic clause, has been the subject of much work in the last decades;50 I have discussed it in detail in Lowe (2014a) and I briefly summarize my own approach below. What is important here, however, is that there is, again, no evidence that the clitic cluster is hierarchically distinct from the rest of the clause. The clitic cluster itself forms a constituent within the clause, but there is no evidence, for example, that everything following the clitic cluster forms a constituent, nor that the clitic cluster and everything following it forms a constituent in distinction to the material preceding the clitic cluster. I therefore assume a fundamentally flat structure for the Rigvedic clause, as shown in (2.26). (2.26) S

→

(XP) [topic]

(XP) [focus]

(CCL)

(XP)∗ . . .

The Rigvedic clausal node is the exocentric category S; the clause consists of any number of phrases, XPs, and the clitic cluster, labelled CCL (‘clausally-scoped clitic

50 E.g. Banti (), Hale (a; b; ; ; ), Hock (; ; ; a), Keydana (), and Krisch (; ; ).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

2.4 Clausal syntax



cluster’; Bögel et al. 2010).51 The first XP may be topical or focused; if both a topic and focus are present, the former precedes the latter.52 So, in the following sentence, the first constituent (the first three words) can be analysed as a focused element. There is no overt topic (the continuing topic, the subject, is pro-dropped), the clitic cluster, containing in this case only a single clitic, follows the focused element, and the verb appears in an information-structurally unmarked slot following the clitic cluster.53 (2.27) mahé ks.atra¯´ya śávase hí jajñé to_great to_dominion to_might for was_born ‘For he was born to great dominion (and) might.’ (7.28.3c) (2.28) Syntactic structure for RV 7.28.3c (2.27) S NP

mahé ks.atra¯´ya śávase

CCL

VP

 Adv

V

hí

jajñé

There is some evidence for a CP dominating S, headed by a complementizer in C; the best evidence for this is the positioning of the quotative particle íti. In the Classical language, this particle obligatorily governs either an XP or an S, which it directly follows, and is clearly of category C. In the Rigveda, íti still appears to be in the process of grammaticalization from an adverb. Clearly adverbial uses are still found even in the later book X (2.29), but unambiguous examples of íti as a complementizer, with a clausal complement S, appear even in the family books (2.30). 51 While clitic clusters often function as single syntactic groupings or constituents within the clause (see e.g. Halpern : – with references), there is no traditional XP category which can adequately dominate the varieties of clitics involved. I treat the CCL as an exocentric phrasal category, in opposition to the exocentric clausal category S and the exocentric superclausal category E (fn. ). The syntactic constituency of the CCL is based on the fact that the clitic cluster cannot be broken up by any other element of the clause. The internal structure of such clitic groupings, in languages that have them, is determined not hierarchically but linearly (Perlmutter ; Simpson and Withgott ). So, in Rigvedic Sanskrit any preverb precedes any relative or demonstrative pronoun, which precedes any sentence particle, which precedes any personal pronoun (and there are regular, though not inviolable, orders when more than one element from any one of those categories occurs, e.g. when two sentence particles appear adjacent to one another in the same clause). Note also that the category I refer to here as clitic is in the Rigveda a syntactic category, incorporating words that appear in particular phrase-structure positions (such as the CCL), and not distinguished by any prosodic feature, since some RV clitics are not prosodically deficient (most, but not all, lack lexical accent); possible functional differences between accented and unaccented clitics are discussed by Lühr (). 52 In Lowe (b; a: ) the first position was assumed to be left-dislocated and adjoined to the clause via the ‘E(xpression) Node’ (Banfield ; Aissen ; King ; Jaeger and Gerassimova ; Simpson ); in contrast, in this work left-dislocation, and the exocentric category E, is assumed only in a highly specific context (cf. §.). 53 On the representation Adv  in (.), see §..

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The Rigvedic Sanskrit language

(2.29) na¯´ham tám yá íti bráv¯ıti . veda not=I him know.1sg who thus speak.3sg ‘I do not know the man who speaks thus.’ (RV 10.27.3a) (2.30) ra¯´j¯a cid yám bhágam bhaks.¯´ı ti a¯´ha king.n.sg even whom share.a.sg apportion.imp.2sg=quot say.3sg ‘. . . to whom even the king says “apportion me a share”. ’ (RV 7.41.2d) In (2.30) íti functions as a subordinating conjunction, introducing the clause bhágam bhaks.i ‘apportion me a share’. It is therefore best treated as of category C, sister to S. At least incipiently, then, we can assume a CP for the Rigveda in cases like (2.30), introduced by the rule in (2.31). These instances are relatively rare, however, and it remains the case that the only common clausal category is S. (2.31) CP

→

(S)

C

This is the only real evidence for hierarchy at the clausal level. I assume that coordinating conjunctions do not form constituents with the clause they precede or follow, but that all conjoined clauses, and the conjunctions coordinating them, are sisters, as in (2.32), derived by the rule in (2.33). (2.32)

S S

(2.33) S

→

Conj

(Conj)

S

[(Conj)

S

S]+

The Rigvedic clitic cluster is usually assumed to contain sentential particles, like hí in (2.27), (2.28), and unemphatic personal pronouns. In Lowe (2011b; 2014a) I argue that some instances of preverbs and (non-initial) demonstrative/relative pronouns are in fact proclitics and enclitics respectively, and appear under the clitic cluster node. So for the clause in (2.34), where under traditional accounts the only ‘clitic’ is the pronoun enam ‘him’, we can actually treat it as the third of three clitics in a clitic cluster which appears following the first, topicalized, XP of the clause, as shown in (2.35).54

54 I treat the initial NP in (.) as a topic, although by rule (.) it could equally be analysed as in focus position. The precise nature and distribution patterns of discourse functions in the Rigvedic clause are difficult to determine, but in this particular passage, which comes from the famous ‘frogs’ hymn (on which see Jamison ), the ‘divine waters’ are topical insofar as the context of the hymn is the start of the rainy season.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

2.4 Clausal syntax



(2.34) divya¯´ a¯´po abhí yád enam a¯´yan divine.pl water.pl to when him come.imf.3pl ‘When the divine waters came to him . . .’ (7.103.2a) (2.35) Constituent structure for RV 7.103.2a (2.34) S

NP

divyā´ ā´po

CCL

VP

Pˆ

Cˆ

ˆ N

V

abhí

yád

enam

ā´yan

As argued in detail in Lowe (2011b; 2014a), in certain contexts the constituent structure of the Rigvedic clause does not precisely match the ‘output’ word order. This happens when certain prosodically enclitic words are specified as appearing at the left edge of a clause by phrase-structure rules, a position in which they cannot surface in the output due to their prosodic status as enclitics (enclitics being required to follow at least one non-enclitic word). This affects both enclitics appearing in the clitic cluster, if the pre-CCL topic and focus positions are not filled, and enclitic coordinating conjunctions that appear directly to the left of the clause they conjoin. So, in (2.36), both the enclitic personal pronoun tv¯a ‘you’, the only member of the clitic cluster, and the enclitic clausal conjunction ca, surface within the first constituent of the clause, dyaúś pr.thiv¯´ı yajñíy¯aso ‘Heaven, Earth and the worship-worthy (gods)’. There is no sense in which dyaúh. ‘heaven’ is here topicalized or focused in distinction from the rest of the NP in which it appears; rather, Heaven, Earth, and the other gods, are equally prominent in the context. Therefore we must assume that the optional topic and focus positions preceding the clitic cluster are not filled in this clause, but that the NP dyaúś pr.thiv¯´ı yajñíy¯aso constitutes the first XP following the CCL, and hence, in constituent structure terms, the clitic cluster, consisting of the clitic tv¯a ‘you’, must precede this NP. The clausal conjunction ca ‘and’ must, by (2.32), precede the whole clause in the constituent structure. This is represented in (2.37). (2.36) dyaúś ca tv¯a pr.thiv¯´ı yajñíy¯aso ní hót¯aram . s¯adayante Heaven and you Earth worship_worthy down priest set dám¯aya for_house ‘And Heaven and Earth, (and) the worship-worthy (gods), establish you as priest for the house’. (3.6.3ab)

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The Rigvedic Sanskrit language

(2.37) Constituent structure for RV 3.6.3ab (2.36) S

S

Conj ca

…

S CCL

NP

VP

dyau´s…yajñíyāsah ˙

ní…dámāya

ˆ N

tvā

This lack of isomorphism between the linear order of the ‘output’ and the order implied by the constituent structure, which has been proposed not only for Rigvedic Sanskrit clitics but also for similar clitic phenomena in a variety of languages, is often explained by reference to ‘prosodic inversion’ (Halpern 1995), whereby prosodic constraints on the positioning of such clitics result in their repositioning in the postsyntactic, prosodic component of the grammar. In relation to the Rigveda this is the approach taken, for example, by Hale (1987a; 1987b; 1995; 1996; 2007) and Lowe (2011b). Lowe (forthcoming c) presents an alternative account, in which the ‘repositioning’ is accounted for entirely within the syntactic component of the grammar, despite its clear prosodic basis, making use of the s(yntactic)-string, a level of syntactic representation that encodes only linear order and that is distinct from the constituent structure, carefully constrained within an Optimality-Theoretic approach to the LFG architecture.55 The details of this are irrelevant for current purposes, although the sstring will be discussed in more detail below. .. Phrasal categories Despite the considerable freedom for discontinuity of constituents in the Rigveda, there is clear evidence for the existence of the phrasal categories NP, AdjP, AdvP, PP, VP, and CP. For example, in (2.34), the NP divya¯´ a¯´pah. ‘divine waters’ appears in first position in the clause, preceding the clitic cluster. Given (2.26), it would be possible to treat these two words as separate constituents, the adjective topicalized and the noun focused, but this would make no sense, in information structure terms, for interpreting the clause. More clearly, phrases, including VPs, can appear in the initial topicalization position preceding another constituent that occupies the focus position; this is most

55 For Optimality Theory, originally developed as an approach to phonology, see Prince and Smolensky (/) and McCarthy and Prince (). For Optimality-Theoretic LFG (OT-LFG) see e.g. Bresnan (; ; a), Sells (), and Kuhn (b; a). Important collections on OT approaches to syntax include Dekkers et al. (), Legendre et al. (), and Sells (). OT has also been used to deal with clitics in other grammatical frameworks, e.g. by Anderson (; ), Grimshaw (), and Legendre (; ; ; ).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

2.4 Clausal syntax



clear when the latter is a form of the unambiguously focused interrogative pronoun ká-, as in (2.38) and (2.39).56 (2.38) sám a¯ nam kó asya . śa sumatíbhih. prv attain.pf good_will.i.pl who his ‘Who attained his good will?’ (RV 4.23.2b) (2.39) hár¯ı índrasya ní cik¯aya káh. svit horse.a.du Indra.g prv perceive.pf who q ‘Who do you think has perceived Indra’s two horses?’ (RV 10.114.9d) The existence of phrasal categories is also demonstrated by the appearance of enclitic object pronouns adjacent to their functional governors rather than in the initial clitic sequence ((2.40), (2.41)); for the VP there is also a slight statistical tendency for object arguments to appear adjacent to the verb more frequently than subjects (Schäufele 1991c). (2.40) stenó v¯a yó dípsati no v´r.ko v¯a robber or who desires_harm us.a wolf or ‘which robber or wolf desires to harm us’ (RV 2.28.10c) (2.41) yáś ca páśyati no jánah. who and sees us.a man ‘and the man who sees us’ (RV 7.55.6b) There is no evidence for a DP, or any necessary evidence for other nominal projections such as Quantifier Phrases (QP), or Number Phrases (NumP); nor is there any evidence for IP. Whether or not intermediate phrasal (X ) categories existed is difficult to answer. For most categories there is no evidence, but then it is hard to see what evidence there would be, given the freedom for discontinuity. In English, for example, X phrases can be identified by echo-questions and pro-form replacement, but are not found in all the constructions in which XP level categories are found, like the cleft construction. But even if the same were true in Rigvedic, an X could still participate in processes that were restricted to XPs, by virtue of being able to appear under a discontinuous XP node. It is very unlikely that any syntactic process might be identified that could target only non-discontinuous XPs, and hence unlikely that clear syntactic evidence for most X categories in Rigvedic will be found. Interestingly there is some evidence for C in the following passage:

56 I assume that the interrogative pronoun always appears in the focus position. Butt (, on Hindi/Urdu) and Mycock () argue that question words are not necessarily focused, but can e.g. be backgrounded in echo questions. There are no examples of interrogative pronouns in the Rigveda that require such an analysis.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The Rigvedic Sanskrit language

(2.42) ná voc¯ama ma¯´ sunotéti sómam not say.aor.sbj.1pl don’t press.prs.imp.2pl=quot soma.a.sg ‘We will not say “don’t press the soma”. ’ (RV 2.30.7b) Here the quotative particle íti (which, as I argued above, appears in C) does not appear at the right edge of the CP, but it is followed by the object of the main verb in the S complement of C. There are three possible analyses of this. One is that the object appears in Spec,CP, suggesting that the mother of C and S is not CP, as in (2.31) above, but C , which is itself daughter of CP and sister to the specifier. An alternative, unlikely, analysis is that the object appears not in the CP, but in the superordinate clause. Extraction to a topicalization or focus position in a matrix clause is cross-linguistically common, of course, but in this case we would have to assume rightward extraction to what could only be a background position. This seems inherently unlikely, and since there is no other evidence for such rightward extraction, the possibility can be excluded. The third possibility is that we are dealing here with an intermediate use of íti, somewhere between its lexical adverbial use (2.29) and its functional complementizer use (2.30). Although its function is more complementizerlike in (2.42), its position might still be more adverb-like, enabling it to appear within the phrase for which it functions as complementizer. The evidence for C is, then, unclear at best, and although the definitive answer to this question awaits further work, I will not make use of X level phrases in my analyses of Rigvedic constituent structure.

. Conclusion In this chapter I have briefly introduced the major facts concerning the phonology, morphology and syntax of Rigvedic Sanskrit. In Chapter 3 I provide an introduction to the grammatical theory that I assume in this work, Lexical-Functional Grammar.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

 Lexical-Functional Grammar This chapter provides an introduction to Lexical-Functional Grammar (LFG), the grammatical framework utilized in this work. As a non-transformational, constraintbased theory of grammar, LFG represents the different aspects of an utterance’s structure and meaning as distinct but related modules. Abstract grammatical functions (subject, object, etc.), syntactic dependencies, semantic relations and informationstructural roles are therefore represented separately from the hierarchical syntactic structure. In this, LFG patterns with other constraint-based theories, such as HeadDriven Phrase Structure Grammar (Pollard and Sag 1994; Sag et al. 2003), Role and Reference Grammar (Foley and Van Valin 1984; Van Valin 2003), Simpler Syntax (Culicover and Jackendoff 2005), and Construction Grammar (Croft 2001; Goldberg 2006), but contrasts with the transformationalist tradition, e.g. Government & Binding Theory or the Minimalist Program (Chomsky 1981; 1993; 1995; Bošković and Lasnik 2006), in which such relations and information are represented as part of the syntactic ‘tree’. Insofar as LFG represents these different aspects of meaning and structure separately, its representation of hierarchical syntactic structure is that much freer than in transformationalist theories, which assume an elaborate but highly constrained hierarchical structure in order to accomodate various different types of information in a single representation. In this respect, LFG and similar theories are better suited than transformationalist theories to the analysis of discourse-configurational languages like Rigvedic Sanskrit (cf. §2.4): the module that represents hierarchical structure and constituent order is free to represent that and that alone, and does not need to assume abstract ‘movements’ of elements to cope with the lack of isomorphism between word order, grammatical relations, semantics, information structure, and so on.1 The initial description and formalization of LFG as a grammatical theory was by Kaplan and Bresnan (1982), building on the arguments in Bresnan (1978). Introductions to LFG include Bresnan (2001b), Falk (2001), Asudeh and Toivonen (2010), and Müller (2010: 149–70); Dalrymple (2001) and Dalrymple et al. (forthcoming) are handbooks; important collections of papers include Bresnan (1982b) and Dalrymple et al. (1995). 1 The suitability of LFG for the syntactic analysis of RV Sanskrit was argued for by Schäufele (; a), and most recently by Keydana (: –), who utilizes LFG in his analysis of RV infinitival clauses (though with some mistakes, as noted in Lowe b). Of course even in fairly fixed-word-order languages like English there is no absolute isomorphism between the different aspects of grammatical structure, so there is no sense in which LFG and similar theories are less well suited to the analysis of fixed word-order than discourse-configurational languages.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Lexical-Functional Grammar

. Constituent and functional structure In its original conception (Kaplan and Bresnan 1982), LFG splits the syntactic analysis of an utterance into two components. The ‘constituent structure’ (c-structure) represents the hierarchical syntactic relations between words and constituents in a clause. The ‘functional structure’ (f-structure) represents more abstract syntactic relations, such as grammatical functions, subcategorization, and dependencies. Each structure is formed according to its own set of principles and primitives. So the c-structure represents hierarchical structure as relations between constituents that are defined in purely, or at least primarily, hierarchical terms. Likewise, the abstract syntactic relations represented in f-structure are defined according to purely functional criteria. So the concepts of ‘subject’ and ‘object’, for example, are not defined by association with particular phrase-structure positions, but are theoretical primitives of functional structure, identifiable on language-specific bases by abstract functional features such as binding relations. The c-structure represents the phrasal structure of an utterance by means of the ‘tree’ diagram familiar in many grammatical theories. It represents the structure of the words in a sentence in the actual, surface configuration in which they appear; that is, no underlying movement or rearrangement of material is assumed.2 So for the English sentence in (3.1), the c-structure is as in (3.2). (3.1)

Indra struck river-obstructing Vr.tra.

(3.2) C-structure for (3.1) IP

NP

I´

N´

VP

N

V´

Indra

V

NP

struck

N´ AdjP

N´

Adj´

N

Adj

Vrtra .

river-obstructing 2 For one marginal exception to this proposed in Lowe (b; a; forthcoming c), see the discussion following (.).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

3.1 Constituent and functional structure



The approach to phrasal structure assumed in most LFG literature is largely X -theoretic (Chomsky 1970; Jackendoff 1977). In contrast to the theory of phrase structure proposed by Chomsky (1986), however, all structural positions, including heads and specifiers, are in principle optional (Kroeger 1993; King 1995), as exemplified by the absence of the head of the IP, and lack of specifiers, in (3.2). Beside the strictly X -theoretic structures, certain additional adjunction structures are permitted. Adjunction of an XP phrase to either a YP or Y phrase is widely assumed. Furthermore, in addition to the ‘normal’ set of projecting X categories, a set of ‘non-projecting’ ˆ categories ˆ (Asudeh 2002b).3 X categories is often assumed (Toivonen 2003), notated X 4 do not project phrases, but adjoin to projecting zero-level categories. X is the cover ˆ term for X and X. The major lexical categories assumed in LFG are N(oun), V(erb), Adj(ective), Adv(erb), and P(reposition);5 the major functional categories are D(eterminer), I(nflection), and C(omplementizer).6 These categories are assumed by Bresnan (2001b) to be universally available; however the inventory of phrasal categories in any particular language is not fixed, and a category is only assumed for a given language if there is specific evidence for it. In addition, the existence of a category does not necessarily imply the existence of the corresponding phrasal category (particularly given the existence of non-projecting categories); Simpson (1991), for example, shows that Warlpiri has a category V, and V , but no VP. XP and X phrases, of whatever sort, are ‘endocentric’ (Bloomfield 1933), insofar as they contain a(n albeit optional) head of the same lexical/functional category as the phrase. In addition to endocentric categories, LFG admits the ‘exocentric’ category S (Bresnan 1982a; Kroeger 1993; Bresnan 2001b).7 S is not subject to ordinary X -theoretic constraints: it is a non-headed category that may contain a predicate along with any or all of its arguments. S is most common in non-configurational or discourse-configurational languages (Austin and Bresnan 1996; Nordlinger 1998a), but it is also utilized in some analyses of languages with relatively fixed word order, such

3

The non-projecting categories of Toivonen () are essentially the same as the ‘small’ categories of Sadler and Arnold (); Arnold and Sadler () integrate the two, adopting Toivonen’s terminology and representation. 4 According to Toivonen (), an X ˆ may adjoin only to a node Y , but Spencer () argues for ˆ to YP in Hindi, and adjunction to Y may also be possible. adjunction of X 5 Detailed discussion of the justification for treating Adj and Adv as distinct major categories, rather than as parts of a single category, A, can be found in Payne et al. (). 6 These are the only functional categories widely utilized in LFG, although others are sometimes assumed, such as K for case clitics (Butt and King ; Nemati ; Raza and Ahmed ), Q for quantifiers (Guo et al. ; Wescoat ; Spector ), and more language-specific categories like Ez for the Urdu ez¯afe (Bögel et al. ; Bögel and Butt ); I do not make use of any of these categories in this work. Börjars et al. () discuss the motivations for restricting the inventory of functional categories in LFG. 7 Further exocentric categories are not excluded; indeed the categories E and CCL are exocentric, as mentioned above (Ch. , fn. ).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Lexical-Functional Grammar

as Welsh (Sadler 1997).8 Since S may in principle dominate any number of daughters, its structure is often referred to as ‘flat’. By Occam’s razor an entirely flat structure is the null hypothesis in relation to a language’s phrasal syntax. That is, in principle no hierarchical or phrasal relations should be assumed between words in a sentence unless there is direct evidence for it. Usually, of course, there is. No language entirely lacks hierarchical structure, and many languages, like English, can be shown to be entirely, or almost entirely, endocentric. For a language like Rigvedic Sanskrit, however, evidence is much harder to come by. As discussed in §2.4.1, I assume that at the clausal level RV Sanskrit has an entirely flat syntactic structure, but I assume this only in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary. Rigvedic Sanskrit appears to be highly discourseconfigurational at the clausal level, and so a flat structure may be the correct analysis; but it is also possible that its discourse configurationality is only apparent, and that a fundamentally endocentric clausal structure is obscured by, for example, the poetic nature of the texts. I noted in §2.4.2 that there is clear evidence for the existence of the phrasal categories NP, AdjP, AdvP, PP, VP, CP, and also for a clitic cluster CCL, but that the evidence for intermediate X categories is slim. I assume that clitics appearing within the CCL (and in some other positions) and the category of preverbs are non-projecting, since there is no evidence that they can project phrases. Given these assumptions, the c-structure for the Rigvedic sentence corresponding to (3.1), i.e. (3.3), can be represented as in (3.4). (3.3)

índro vr.trám ávadh¯ın nad¯ı-v´r.tam Indra.n.sg Vr.tra.a.sg strike.aor.3sg river-obstructing.a.sg ‘Indra struck river-obstructing Vr.tra.’ (≈ RV 1.52.2c)

(3.4) c-structure for (3.3)

S NP

VP

AP

N

NP

V

A

índrah ˙

N

ávadhīt

nadīvŕtam ˙

vrtrám ˙ 8 Bresnan (b) permits S even in English for reasons of structural economy, but I restrict its use to cases where there is no evidence for endocentricity.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

3.1 Constituent and functional structure



The c-structure in (3.4) differs in a number of ways from the c-structure of the corresponding English sentence in (3.2). This reflects the fact that there is considerable cross-linguistic variation in phrasal syntactic structure; this variation is clearly represented in LFG’s c-structure. In LFG there is no assumption that the different phrasal structures and surface word orders of the equivalent English and Sanskrit sentences both derive from underlyingly similar or identical structures. However, on a more abstract syntactic level the English and Sanskrit sentences are very similar. In both, the head of the clause, the predicate, is a verb meaning ‘strike’, and in both, this head selects an agent subject ‘Indra’ and a patient object ‘Vr.tra’; in both also, the object is modified by an adjectival adjunct. This abstract syntactic similarity between the two is captured in LFG in the f-structural representation. In fact the same abbreviated f-structure can be used to represent both the English sentence in (3.1) and the Sanskrit sentence in (3.3); this is given in (3.5). (3.5) Abbreviated f-structure for (3.1) and (3.3) ⎤ ⎡ pred ‘strike〈 subj,obj〉 ’   ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢subj pred ‘Indra’ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ ⎡ ⎤⎥ ⎥ ⎢ pred ‘Vr.tra’ ⎥ ⎢  ⎥⎥ ⎢ ⎢  ⎣obj ⎣ ⎦⎦ adj pred ‘r.-o.’ As stated above, f-structure represents abstract syntactic information, such as grammatical functions, subcategorization, binding, dependencies, etc. The f-structure in (3.5) represents the facts common to both English and Sanskrit sentences, namely that the verb ‘strike’ is the functional head, the predicate, and it subcategorizes for a subject and object argument, which are filled by the elements ‘Indra’ and ‘Vr.tra’ respectively, while the object argument is further specified with the adjunct ‘river-obstructing’. F-structures are usually ‘abbreviated’, insofar as only the f-structural information relevant to the point at hand is included. Slightly more detailed functional structures for the English and Sanskrit sentences would differ in certain respects: different tenseaspect values would have to be specified, due to the different tense-aspect systems of the respective languages, and the Sanskrit f-structure would make reference to the nominative and accusative cases of the subject and object respectively, which are not features of this English sentence. Therefore it is at f-structure that abstract functional similarities and differences between the two sentences are captured, in contrast to the transformationalist tradition, where such features would be represented in the syntactic tree.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Lexical-Functional Grammar

(3.6) More detailed f-structure for (3.1) ⎡ ⎤ pred ‘strike〈 subj,obj〉 ’ ⎢ ⎥ past ⎢tense ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢progressive − ⎥ ⎢ ⎥   ⎢ ⎥ ⎢subj ⎥ pred ‘Indra’ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎡ ⎤⎥ ⎢ ⎥ pred ‘Vr.tra’ ⎢ ⎥   ⎢ ⎥ ⎢  ⎦⎥ ⎣ ⎣obj ⎦ adj pred ‘r.-o.’ (3.7) More detailed f-structure for (3.3) ⎡ ⎤ pred ‘strike〈 subj,obj〉 ’ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢tense-aspect aorist ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ pred ‘Indra’ ⎢subj ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ case nom ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎡ ⎤ ⎢ ⎥ pred ‘Vr.tra’ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ ⎥⎥ ⎢ ⎥ case acc ⎢ ⎥ ⎢obj ⎥ ⎢  ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ adj pred ‘r.-o.’ ⎦ F-structures are represented as attribute-value matrices, that is as sets of attributes each of which has a particular value. Attribute–value pairs are the abstract syntactic features that f-structure represents. The attributes in (3.7), for example, are pred, tense-aspect, subj(ect), obj(ect), case, and adj(unct). The value of pred is traditionally called a ‘semantic form’, representing in an abstract way the basic meaning of the syntactic element concerned and any subcategorization requirements it has.9 Semantic forms are ‘uniquely instantiated’, which means that each can only be specified once, and each is also distinct from every other semantic form (even if they appear superficially identical—i.e. if pred ‘Indra’ appeared twice in (3.7), the two ‘Indra’ values would be different). In this work I treat semantic forms like ‘strike〈 subj,obj〉 ’ as units, but they are not atomic, and it is possible to make reference to their components, as discussed by Asudeh et al. (2013: 23). The values of other attributes can be an absolute value (a label), such as aorist, the value of tense-aspect in (3.7), and nom(inative) and acc(usative), values of

9 The term ‘semantic form’ reflects the earlier use of the pred to represent semantic content directly, prior to the development of a distinct semantic representation in LFG (§..). The role of pred in the current LFG framework, i.e. which includes a distinct semantic component, is discussed by Andrews ().

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

3.1 Constituent and functional structure



case in (3.7), or −, the value of progressive in (3.6).10 If an attribute has a single but complex value, this value is itself an f-structure, as the values of subj and obj in the above structures. Certain attributes, such as adj, have as their value a set of f-structures, reflecting the fact that adjunct modifiers are in principle unrestricted in number. C-structure and f-structure are not two independent and unrelated representations of syntactic structure. Separate levels of linguistic structure are related to one another by ‘correspondence functions’; the correspondence function φ relates c-structures to f-structures. Specifications and constraints called ‘functional descriptions’ (f-descriptions) define the possible relations between c-structures and f-structures (and, indeed, other structures). These relations are specified by reference to c-structure nodes, their mothers, and the f-structures projected from those nodes and their mothers. Any c-structure node can be referred to by the variable ∗, and its mother by the variable ∗ˆ (or via the mother function M, as M(∗)). The f-structure projected from any c-structure node is therefore represented as the application of the function φ to the variable ∗, i.e. φ(∗) or ∗φ , and likewise the f-structure projected from a c-structure node’s mother is represented as the application of φ to ∗ˆ , i.e. φ(ˆ∗) or ∗ˆ φ . These functions are commonly abbreviated using the metavariables ↓ and ↑: (3.8) a. ↓≡ φ(∗) ≡ ∗φ b. ↑≡ φ(ˆ∗) ≡ ∗ˆ φ These metavariables enable us to constrain and specify the relation between c-structures and f-structures. The possible c-structures of a language are defined by phrase-structure rules, and the possible f-structure configurations corresponding to those c-structures are specified by annotations on phrase-structure rules. So, in English the clausal node IP dominates an (optional) NP node in the specifier position (SpecIP) and an I node; the NP in SpecIP always corresponds to the subject of the predicate, that is in f-structure terms the subj of the f-structure that corresponds to the clause. By the principle that c-structure heads are f-structure heads, the f-structure corresponding to the I is the same f-structure that corresponds to the IP, since they are both clausal heads. We can represent this by means of the following phrase-structure rule: (3.9) IP

→

(NP) (↑ subj) =↓

I ↑=↓

The annotation (↑ subj) =↓ specifies that the the f-structure corresponding to the NP (↓) supplies the value of the attribute subj in the f-structure corresponding 10 In (.) I treat tense-aspect as a unitary attribute with value aorist. Alternatively, it would be possible to assume two distinct features, tense and aspect, with values present/past/future/ immediative and imperfective/perfective/anterior/posterior respectively.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Lexical-Functional Grammar

to the NP’s mother (↑). The annotation ↑=↓ specifies that the f-structure corresponding to the I (↓) and the f-structure corresponding to the IP (↑) are the same. These phrase-structure annotations are commonly represented below the relevant nodes in the tree representation of the c-structure. We can therefore annotate the tree in (3.2) with the specifications that define the corresponding c-structure; this is shown in (3.10). (3.10) C-structure and f-structure for (3.1) IP

NP

I´

(↑ subj) =↓

↑=↓

‘strike〈subj, obj〉’

pred subj

N´

VP

↑=↓

↑=↓

N

V´

↑=↓

↑=↓

Indra

pred

‘Indra’

pred

‘Vrtra’ .

obj

V

adj

pred

‘r.-o.’

NP

(↑ pred) =‘Indra’ ↑=↓

(↑ obj) =↓

struck

N´

(↑ pred) =‘strike〈subj, obj〉’

↑=↓

AdjP

N´

↓∈ (↑adj)

↑=↓

Adj´

N

↑=↓

↑=↓

Adj

Vrtra . (↑ pred) =‘Vrtra’ .

↑=↓ river-obstructing (↑ pred) =‘river-obstructing’

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

3.1 Constituent and functional structure



The arrows linking the c- and f-structures in (3.10) represent the projection of f-structure from c-structure as defined by the annotations. Only the projection from XP nodes has been shown; by the ↑=↓ annotations on the other nodes, the I , VP, V , and V map to the same f-structure as the IP, the Adj and Adj nodes map to the same f-structure as the AdjP, and the N and N nodes map to the same f-structures as their NP ((great)grand)mothers respectively; the pred values are contributed by the lexical items represented here as the terminal nodes in the tree (but cf. §3.3.2 below). The annotation ↓∈ (↑ adj) under the AdjP node means that the f-structure corresponding to the AdjP (↓) is a member of the adjunct set within the f-structure corresponding to the AdjP’s mother (↑); this annotation differs from the others only because the adj attribute takes a set as its value. We can now compare the c-structure to f-structure correspondence for the Sanskrit sentence, shown in (3.11). Although the c-structure differs considerably from the English sentence, many of the same annotations appear, resulting in a very similar f-structure. I have added also the case and tense-aspect specifications, contributed by the lexical items concerned. The annotation on the AdjP node, ↓∈ (↑ (gf)adj), is a little more complicated than those introduced so far: it specifies that the f-structure corresponding to the AdjP (↓) is a member of the adjunct set (adj) either within the f-structure corresponding to the mother of AdjP (↑) or within an f-structure that itself serves as the value of an attribute gf within the f-structure corresponding to the mother of AdjP; gf is an abbreviation over governable grammatical function attributes in f-structure, that is, it can refer to any one of subj, obj (as here), obl, comp or xcomp. This annotation and others like it license discontinuous constituents, such as the object phrase in the Sanskrit sentence under discussion, which is split by the verb. I assume that the adjunct phrase modifying the object is not within the VP, but appears as an independent daughter of S; the annotation on the AdjP node permits the AdjP to serve as an adjunct to the object at functional structure despite being completely separated from it in c-structure terms. The f-descriptions in the c-structure tree and under the terminal nodes in (3.11) are the minimum required to construct the associated f-structure. In fact, the lexical entries of the words concerned will make considerably more detailed descriptions of the f-structure they must be associated with than represented here. For example, the verb form ávadh¯ıt specifies more than just its basic meaning, argument structure, and

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Lexical-Functional Grammar

(3.11)

pred

‘strike〈subj, obj〉’

t.-a.

aorist

subj

pred

‘Indra’

case

nom

pred case

‘Vrtra’ . acc

adj

pred

S

obj NP

VP

(↑ subj) =↓

↑=↓

N

NP

AdjP

↑ =↓

(↑ obj) =↓

↓∈ (↑ (gf)adj)

´ındrah ˙ (↑ pred) =‘Indra’

N

Adj

↑ =↓

↑=↓

‘r.-o.’

(↑ case) =nom vrtrám ˙ (↑ pred) =‘Vrtra’ .

V

↑= ↓

nadīvŕtam ˙ (↑ pred) =‘r.-o.’

(↑ case) =acc ávadhīt (↑ pred) =‘strike〈subj, obj〉’ (↑ tense-aspect) =aorist

tense-aspect; it is also the element that determines the case-marking of the subject and object and constrains the person and number of the subject; so we can augment the f-descriptions supplied by the verb as follows: (3.12) ávadh¯ıt

(↑ pred) =‘strike〈 subj,obj〉 ’ (↑ tense-aspect) =aorist (↑ subj case) = nom (↑ subj num) = sg (↑ subj person) = 3 (↑ obj case) = acc

F-structures are subject to ‘well-formedness conditions’ that constrain their formation. One of these is ‘Consistency’, which requires each f-structure attribute to have at most one value (which may be a set, as with the attributes adj and xadj). This condition, in conjunction with the f-descriptions of the sort in (3.12), enforce agreement. So, the f-descriptions in (3.12) must match those supplied by the subject and object; otherwise one f-structure attribute would be specified for two distinct values. For example, if ávadh¯ıt were used with a plural subject, that subject would

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

3.1 Constituent and functional structure



contribute the f-description (↑ num) = pl, meaning that the subject’s number attribute would have two different values, as shown in (3.13). ⎤ ⎡ .. .. (3.13) . ⎥ ⎢. ⎢ ⎡ ⎤⎥ ⎥ ⎢ . . ⎥ ⎢ . .. ⎢subj ⎣. ⎦⎥ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ num ∗ sg/pl ⎥ ⎥ ⎢ ⎦ ⎣. . .. .. Such an f-structure would violate the requirement for Consistency, and hence is invalid. Agreement between adjectives and the nouns they modify is achieved in a similar way. For example, the adjective nad¯ıv´r.tam ‘river-obstructing’ in (3.3) is in the accusative singular masculine, and so requires accusative case, singular number, and masculine gender of its governing noun.11 The adjective therefore contributes at least the f-descriptions in (3.14), three of which specify its own case, number, and gender values, and three of which specify that the case, number, and gender values of the noun it modifies are respectively the same as its own.12 (3.14) nad¯ıv´r.tam

(↑ pred) =‘river-obstructing’ (↑ case) = acc (↑ num) = sg (↑ gend) = masc (↑ case) = ((adj ∈↑) case) (↑ num) = ((adj ∈↑) num) (↑ gend) = ((adj ∈↑) gend)

All the f-descriptions we have seen so far are defining equations, stating what a particular value is. Other sorts of f-descriptions are also possible. Constraining equations, represented by =c , do not directly specify a value, but effectively require it to be specified elsewhere. Existential constraints require or forbid the appearance of f-structure attributes, regardless of their values. For example, the f-description (↑ subj) requires the f-structure ↑ to have an attribute subj, but does not specify what its value may be; similarly the f-description ¬(↑ subj) requires that the attribute subj does not appear in the f-structure ↑. So accusative-case nouns like vr.trám ‘Vr.tra’ in (3.3) would not make any direct specification as to the grammatical function that they can be employed in, since the accusative in Rigvedic Sanskrit is not only an object 11

Assuming that the accusative singular feminine nad¯ıv´r.tam is a separate (homophonous) lexical item. The f-description (adj ∈↑) uses ‘inside-out functional uncertainty’ (Halvorsen and Kaplan ) to refer to the f-structure that has the attribute adj of which the f-structure corresponding to nad¯ıv´r.tam is a value. 12

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Lexical-Functional Grammar

case but also, for example, an adjunct case (among other things marking a goal); they might, however, specify that they cannot be used as subjects, since subjects are never accusative in Sanskrit. This could be stated as ¬(subj ↑).13 The appearance or non-appearance of grammatical function attributes in an f-structure is more generally constrained by the two other well-formedness conditions (besides Consistency, above): Completeness and Coherence. Completeness requires that all arguments (i.e. governable grammatical functions) subcategorized for in a pred feature must be present in that f-structure; Coherence requires all argument functions in an f-structure to be subcategorized for in that f-structure’s pred. That is, all and only the governable grammatical function attributes subcategorized for in the pred of an f-structure must be present in that f-structure. So, the subcategorization specified in the semantic form of ávadh¯ıt, ‘strike〈 subj,obj〉 ’, means that a well-formed f-structure in which this serves as the value of pred must contain a subj feature and an obj feature, and must not contain any other argument feature, such as obl or comp. That is, the subcategorization specified in the semantic form ‘strike〈 subj,obj〉 ’ is (at least on a purely f-structural level) equivalent to a series of existential constraints: (↑ subj), (↑ obj), ¬(↑ obl), ¬(↑ comp), ¬(↑ xcomp), etc.14 As stated, in the initial formulation of LFG, the grammatical analysis of an utterance consisted of only c-structure, f-structure, and the correspondence function φ. This model of functions between structures was extended in later work to include projections to various other levels of linguistic structure. The most important of these other structures is semantic structure, to which we now turn.15

. Semantic structure In this section I first provide an introduction to glue semantics, and then provide a detailed model of event semantics for verbal meanings that I will assume in the rest of this work. .. Glue semantics Most work on semantic composition and the syntax–semantics interface in LFG utilizes ‘glue semantics’ (‘glue’; Dalrymple et al. 1993; 1996; 1999; 2002, Dalrymple 1999; 2001).16 In glue, meanings are paired with instructions on how to combine them with other meanings in order to produce a coherent unified meaning. These 13

This is a kind of negative ‘constructive case’ (Nordlinger b). That Completeness and Coherence are somewhat superfluous in the current LFG system that includes the resource-sensitive glue semantics (§..) is noted by Kuhn (b), Andrews (), and Asudeh and Giorgolo (); but Lowe (b) argues that in some contexts they may still have independent value. 15 The overall architecture assumed in LFG will be discussed in more detail in §.. 16 Introductions to glue semantics can be found in Crouch and van Genabith () and Crouch and de Paiva (). 14

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

3.2 Semantic structure



pairings are called ‘meaning constructors’, and are the units of semantic composition. The instructions on combination are expressions of glue logic, which is a fragment of linear logic (Girard 1987; 1995).17 Meanings can be expressed using any adequate semantic representation; the most common representation is predicate logic, but I will use Discourse Representation Theory (DRT; Kamp et al. 2011), more specifically Compositional Discourse Representation Theory (CDRT; Muskens 1996), following Bary and Haug (2011).18 As an example, let us take a slightly simplified version of the Sanskrit sentence treated above, with the c-structure and f-structure in (3.15). A representation of the meaning of this sentence, in simplified CDRT terms, ignoring for the moment event semantics, is given in (3.16). (3.15)

índro vr.trám ávadh¯ıt Indra.n.sg Vr.tra.a.sg strike.aor.3sg ‘Indra struck Vr.tra.’ (≈ RV 1.52.2c) S

pred

‘strike〈subj, obj〉’

t-a

aorist

subj

NP

VP

(↑ subj) =↓

↑=↓

obj

pred

‘Indra’

case

nom

pred

‘Vrtra’ . acc

case

N

NP

V

↑=↓

(↑ obj) =↓

↑=↓

índrah ˙ (↑ pred) =‘Indra’

N

ávadhīt

↑=↓

(↑ pred) =‘strike〈subj, obj〉’ (↑ tense-aspect) =aorist

(↑ case) =nom vrtrám ˙ (↑ pred) =‘Vrtra’ ˙ (↑ case) =acc

(3.16)

Indra Vr. tra struck(Indra, Vr. tra)

17

For more details on the fragment of linear logic assumed, see Asudeh (: –, –). Some of the meaning representations utilized here depends on the theory of partial types for CDRT developed by Haug (b). 18

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Lexical-Functional Grammar

The meaning is represented in a ‘box’, a Discourse Representation Structure (DRS), which consists of two parts.19 The upper part of the DRS represents the ‘universe’ of discourse referents; the lower part contains the DRS conditions, i.e. the set of truth-evaluable claims that are made in the utterance or discourse. In the sentence under consideration there are two discourse referents, Indra and Vr.tra, and the single condition is that Indra struck Vr.tra. Such a meaning must of course be constructed from the meanings of the three words in the sentence.20 The noun índrah. ‘Indra’ contributes the (simplified) meaning in (3.17), the noun vr.trám ‘Vr.tra’ the meaning in (3.18), and the verb ávadh¯ıt ‘struck’ contributes the meaning in (3.19). (3.17) Indra (3.18) Vr.tra (3.19)

λy.λx.

struck(x, y)

The combination of these meanings by functional application to produce the meaning in (3.16) must be constrained so that, for example, we end up with struck(Indra, Vr. tra) and not struck(Vr. tra, Indra). In glue, semantic composition takes place at ‘semantic structure’ (s-structure), which is related to f-structure by a correspondence function σ , in entirely parallel manner to the relation between c-structure and f-structure via the function φ. The meaning of the name Indra, for example, appears in the semantics of the sentence under discussion (3.15) by its association with a semantic structure projected from the f-structure that contains the feature pred ‘Indra’. This is specified by the meaning constructor that appears in the lexical entry for índrah.: (3.20) Indra : ↑σ This meaning constructor pairs the meaning in (3.17) with a term of glue logic, which states simply that the meaning (on the left hand side of the colon) is associated with the semantic structure projected via the function σ from ↑; the semantic structure projected from ↑ is denoted ↑σ . We can represent this in schematic terms, as in (3.21).

19 I use the ‘box’ representation for Discourse Representation Structures (DRSs) throughout since it is more easily readable, and more intuitive for the non-specialist. 20 Meanings are largely contributed by lexical items (words), but it is also possible for meanings to be contributed by c-structure nodes (cf. Lowe b: ff.).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

3.2 Semantic structure (3.21)



NP

(↑ subj) =↓

i: pred

‘Indra’

iσ:

N

↑=↓ índrah ˙ As above, the solid line represents the projection of f-structure from c-structure (φ), constrained by the f-description in the lexical entry for this word, which states (↑ pred) = ‘Indra’; I have labelled this f-structure i. The dashed line represents the projection of semantic structure from f-structure (σ ), and again the lexical entry specifies this projection, by (3.20). The semantic structure projected from the f-structure i is iσ ; the meaning in (3.17) is associated with this semantic structure by (3.20). The meaning constructor for the verb pairs its meaning with a more complex term of glue logic, which provides instructions on how to combine the meanings of the subject and object with that of the verb to produce the full meaning: (3.22)

λy.λx.

struck(x, y)

: (↑ obj)σ  (↑ subj)σ ↑σ

The meaning of ávadh¯ıt is represented as a relation between two entities x and y that holds if it is true that x struck y. The glue expression with which this meaning is paired refers to three semantic structures: the semantic structure projected from the f-structure in which the verb appears (↑σ ), the semantic structure projected from the f-structure that is the value of (↑ obj), and the semantic structure projected from the f-structure that is the value of (↑ subj). It relates these by the linear implication operator of linear logic, , and states, roughly, that if the associated meaning is combined with the meaning of its f-structure object, and then with the meaning of its f-structure subject, it will produce a complete semantic structure. We can again represent this schematically, using the same sentence under discussion but now omitting the c-structure. (3.23)

pred s: subj obj

‘strike〈subj, obj〉’ i: pred

‘Indra’

sσ :

v: pred

‘Vrtra’ .

iσ : vσ :

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Lexical-Functional Grammar

Thus far I have simplified the representation of the meaning of names in CDRT for the purposes of exposition. The meaning constructor for the name ‘Indra’ is not, in fact, as in (3.20) but as in (3.24); the meaning of ‘Vr.tra’ will be equivalent. (3.24)

λP.

x ⊕ P(x ) : ∀α(↑σ  α)  α Indra(x )

The meaning side here differs from that in (3.17) and (3.20) by treating the name as a condition: it is not simply that there is a discourse referent Indra, but that there is a discourse referent x who is asserted to be Indra. The glue side specifies that this meaning can combine with any meaning that requires it for semantic completeness; for example, if it functions as the subject of a verb and the verb requires a meaning for its subject, then this meaning can fill that role. Linear implication on the glue side of meaning constructors corresponds to functional application on the meaning side. We can therefore represent the combination of meanings for this sentence in a logical proof, instantiating the glue expressions with the s-structure labels from (3.23); this is given in Fig. 3.1. Figure 3.1 shows firstly the application of the meaning of the object, Vr.tra, to the verb, producing a meaning that requires a subject meaning in order to be complete. The meaning of the subject, Indra, is then applied to this, resulting in a complete meaning for the sentence. .. Event semantics So far, I have represented the meaning of a verb like ‘strike’ as λx.λy.strike(x, y), where x and y are both the syntactic and semantic arguments of the verb. This is, clearly, a considerable simplification, since it does not represent tense and aspectual information, nor the semantic (thematic) roles that the syntactic arguments have in relation to the predicate. The representation of tense and aspect is particularly important for the semantic analysis of participles, since a considerable part of their semantic complexity lies in the temporal and aspectual relation between the event predicated by participles and that predicated by their matrix verbs. In this section I present an event semantics in the glue framework and utilizing CDRT, that I will build on in Chapter 5 in my analysis of participial semantics. Early work on tense and aspect in LFG (e.g. Butt 2001 and Glasbey 2001) represented such information purely in the f-structure. Fry (2005) was one of the first to propose a model of event semantics for LFG. More recently, Haug (2008c; 2010) and Bary and Haug (2011) present a detailed and relatively comprehensive model of the semantics of tense and aspect in LFG, in the context of participial modification (see also Lowe 2012a). The approach presented here largely follows their work, but departs from it in certain minor ways.

i

i i

i

i

i

i

i x2 Vrtra(x2) ˙

⊕ P(x2) : (vσ

sσ )

sσ

λy.λx.

λx.

x2 Vrtra(x2) ˙ struck(x, x2)

: iσ

struck(x, y)

: vσ

(iσ

sσ )

λP.

sσ

x1 Indra(x1)

⊕ P(x1) : (iσ

sσ)

sσ

: sσ

Fig. . Glue proof for ‘Indra struck Vr.tra’ (example (3.15))

3.2 Semantic structure

x1 x2 Indra(x1) Vrtra(x2) ˙ struck(x 1, x2)

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi

λP.

 i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Lexical-Functional Grammar

I assume a ‘Neo-Davidsonian’ event representation, in which verbs are predicates not of their syntactic arguments but of an event argument, while thematic roles are semantic predicates of events and syntactic arguments (Dowty 1989). That is, the meaning of a verb like ‘strike’ is more accurately represented as λy.λx.λe.strike(e) ∧ agent(e, x) ∧ patient(e, y), or, in DRT terms: (3.25) λy.λx.λe.

strike(e) agent(e, x) patient(e, y)

This term is an abstraction over events and entities that is satisfied if there is an event e of striking, an agent x of the striking event and a patient y of the same striking event. This meaning can be considered a composition of the basic verbal meaning, which refers simply to a striking event, and a particular argument structure imposed upon that event, which specifies the event as having an agent and patient. The basic meaning of the verb ‘strike’ is paired with the glue term shown in the meaning constructor in (3.26). The glue term states that if the meaning is combined with a meaning that supplies an event variable of the type referred to (↑σ ev), then the basic verbal meaning ↑σ is satisfied. (3.26)

λe.

strike(e)

: (↑σ ev) ↑σ

There has been considerable work on the representation and analysis of argument structure relations in LFG, detailed consideration of which is beyond the scope of this work.21 Early work in LFG represented the relation between syntactic arguments and semantic roles as part of the ‘semantic form’ of a verb, i.e. the value of its pred feature at f-structure (Kaplan and Bresnan 1982; Bresnan 1982a; 1982c). Butt et al. (1997) proposed that argument structure (a-structure) be represented as a separate projection, between c- and f-structure, such that the correspondence function φ is in fact a composition of a function α, by which a-structure is projected from c-structure, and λ, by which f-structure is projected from a-structure. A simpler analysis is proposed by Asudeh and Giorgolo (2012), according to which argument structure relations are captured entirely in s-structure and in the mapping to s-structure from f-structure. So the lexical entry of a particular verbal form will specify

21 See e.g. Butt (); Alsina (); Ackerman and Moore (); Kibort (; ; ), and papers in Butt and King () and King and de Paiva ().

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

3.2 Semantic structure



the relation between its syntactic arguments and semantic roles; for example, the active, transitive form of the Sanskrit verb ‘strike’, ávadh¯ıt, will specify the following.22 (3.27) ávadh¯ıt

(↑ pred) =‘strike〈 subj,obj〉 ’ (↑ subj)σ = (↑σ agent) (↑ obj)σ = (↑σ patient)

These argument structure specifications will be associated with meaning constructors which, on the meaning side, introduce the relevant semantic roles as predicates of the associated event, and, on the glue side, link these semantic roles to the appropriate syntactic arguments. So the specification (↑ subj)σ = (↑σ agent) will be paired with the following meaning constructor.23 (3.28)

λP.λx.λe.[

agent(e, x)

⊕ P(e)] :

((↑σ ev)  ↑σ )  (↑ subj)σ  (↑σ ev)  ↑σ This meaning constructor combines with a meaning constructor of the type in (3.26), and returns a meaning constructor that requires both an event meaning and an agentive subject meaning in order to be complete. The specification (↑ obj)σ = (↑σ patient) is associated with a meaning constructor entirely parallel to that in (3.28): (3.29)

λP.λx.λe.[

patient(e, x)

⊕ P(e)] :

((↑σ ev)  ↑σ )  (↑ obj)σ  (↑σ ev)  ↑σ Combining these two meaning constructors with the basic verbal meaning constructor (3.26) produces the meaning constructor in (3.30). The meaning side is identical to that in (3.25), while the glue side states that meanings for the subject, object, and event are required for the verbal meaning to be satisfied. (3.30) λy.λx.λe.

strike(e) : (↑ obj)σ  (↑ subj)σ  (↑σ ev)  ↑σ agent(e, x) patient(e, y)

22 I use traditional argument-structure attributes like agent, patient, etc. as s-structure attributes rather than Asudeh and Giorgolo’s arg1 , arg2 , etc. Although this may be redundant (Asudeh and Giorgolo : ), it is more explicit, and avoids confusion with the similar arg, arg, etc. which Asudeh et al. () use as f-structure features in their analysis of semantic forms. 23 Since valency does not determine the semantic roles of arguments, the meaning constructors used by Haug (c) and Lowe (a: ) to encode ‘transitivity’ etc. are inadequate for combining argument structures with verbal meanings, and are at best abbreviations of the more specific meaning constructors presented here.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Lexical-Functional Grammar

The functional descriptions in (3.27) are inherently connected to the respective meaning constructors in (3.28) and (3.29). That is, when the equation (↑ subj)σ = (↑σ agent) appears in a lexical entry, the meaning constructor in (3.28) will necessarily be introduced, and when the equation (↑ obj)σ = (↑σ patient) appears, the meaning constructor in (3.29) must likewise be introduced. The fact that these functional descriptions and meaning constructors are intrinsically paired can be represented in LFG using ‘templates’ (Dalrymple, Kaplan, and King 2004; Asudeh et al. 2008; 2013). A template is effectively a label that abbreviates one or more functional descriptions, and thereby captures generalizations, such as the fact that (↑ subj)σ = (↑σ agent) implies (3.28). The relevant templates here are subj-ag and obj-pat, defined as in (3.31); templates are ‘called’ using the prefix @, as in the lexical specification for ávadh¯ıt given in (3.32).24 ⎫ ⎧ (3.31) a. ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪(↑ subj)σ = (↑σ agent) ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎬ ⎨ ⊕ P(e)] : λP.λx.λe.[ subj-ag ≡ ⎪ ⎪ agent(e, x) ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ ((↑σ ev)  ↑σ )  (↑ subj)σ  (↑σ ev)  ↑σ ⎭ ⎧ ⎫ b. ⎪ ⎪ (↑ obj)σ = (↑σ patient) ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎨ ⎬ obj-pat ≡ ⊕ P(e)] : λP.λx.λe.[ ⎪ ⎪ patient(e, x) ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎩((↑ ev)  ↑ )  (↑ obj)  (↑ ev)  ↑ ⎪ ⎭ σ σ σ σ σ (3.32) ávadh¯ıt

(↑ pred) =‘strike〈 subj,obj〉 ’ @subj-ag @obj-pat

Templates do nothing more than substitute the relevant functional descriptions. So (3.32) is precisely equivalent to (3.33), except that it captures both the generalization mentioned above—that the relevant functional equations and meaning constructors pair together—and the generalization of the ‘subject-agent’ and ‘object-patient’ patterns across all verbs in which they appear, since such verbs can all call the same template or templates.

24 These templates will of course apply to all active forms of the basic root; different templates would be required for passive stems, as well as for causatives, desideratives, etc.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

3.2 Semantic structure (3.33) ávadh¯ıt



(↑ pred) =‘strike〈 subj,obj〉 ’ (↑ subj)σ = (↑σ agent) (↑ obj)σ = (↑σ patient) ⊕ P(e)] : agent(e, x) ((↑σ ev)  ↑σ )  (↑ subj)σ  (↑σ ev)  ↑σ λP.λx.λe.[

λP.λx.λe.[

⊕ P(e)] : patient(e, x) ((↑σ ev)  ↑σ )  (↑ obj)σ  (↑σ ev)  ↑σ As discussed, the lexical specifications in (3.32) or (3.33) will, in combination with the basic meaning of the verb (3.26), produce the meaning constructor in (3.30). Every finite verbal form also contributes an aspectual meaning, and a tense meaning. In line with the Reichenbachian approach to tense and aspect described in §2.3.5, the meaning of aspect is essentially to relate an event time (E) to a reference time (R). The meaning constructors in (3.34) represent the meanings of the four aspects assumed in this work. (3.34) a. imperfective:

e ⊕ P(e )] : τ (e ) ⊇ t ((↑σ ev)  ↑σ )  (↑σ rt)  ↑σ λP.λt.[

e ⊕ P(e )] : τ (e ) ⊆ t ((↑σ ev)  ↑σ )  (↑σ rt)  ↑σ

b. perfective:

λP.λt.[

c. anterior:

λP.λt.[

d. posterior:

λP.λt.[

e ⊕ P(e )] : τ (e ) ≺ t ((↑σ ev)  ↑σ )  (↑σ rt)  ↑σ e ⊕ P(e )] : τ (e )  t ((↑σ ev)  ↑σ )  (↑σ rt)  ↑σ

The function τ maps eventualities to their temporal extensions; so τ (e) is the temporal extent of the eventuality e.25 These aspect meaning constructors specify a relation between τ (e) and a time t, which is the reference time of the eventuality, and thereby bind the event variable.26 The glue side of the aspect meaning constructors states that the meaning of aspect, when combined with a basic verbal meaning that requires an event meaning ((↑σ ev) ↑σ ), produces a verbal meaning that requires a 25

Krifka (: ). As noted by Haug et al. (: ), the assumption that aspect binds the event variable is common to most compositional theories of aspect including Kamp and Reyle (), W. Klein (), and the gluebased event semantics of Haug (c), Bary and Haug (), and Lowe (a). 26

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Lexical-Functional Grammar

meaning for its reference time (↑σ rt) in order to be satisfied. This is shown in (3.35), which represents the application of (3.34c) to (3.30), since ávadh¯ıt, as an aorist verb form, has anterior aspect (cf. §2.3.5). (3.35)

e strike(e ) : (↑ obj)σ  (↑ subj)σ  (↑σ rt) ↑σ λy.λx.λt. τ (e ) ≺ t agent(e , x) patient(e , y)

The reference time R of an eventuality is existentially quantified only in relation to a perspective time P: this is the function of tense, as discussed in §2.3.5. The meaning constructors for the four tense relations assumed in this work are therefore as shown in (3.36). (3.36) a. present: λP.λt.[ b. past: λP.λt.[

t ⊕ P(t  )] : ((↑σ rt)  ↑σ )  (↑σ pt)  ↑σ t ⊇ t

t ⊕ P(t  )] : ((↑σ rt)  ↑σ )  (↑σ pt)  ↑σ t ≺ t

c. future: λP.λt.[

t ⊕ P(t  )] : ((↑σ rt)  ↑σ )  (↑σ pt)  ↑σ t  t

d. immediative: λP.λt.[

t ⊕ P(t  )] : ((↑σ rt)  ↑σ )  (↑σ pt)  ↑σ t ⊆ t

By these meaning constructors, the meaning of tense combines with a meaning that requires a reference time, and produces a meaning that requires not a reference time but a perspective time (↑σ pt) in order to be complete. Combining ‘immediative’ tense (cf. § 2.3.5) with the meaning in (3.35) therefore produces the following: (3.37)

e t  strike(e ) τ (e ) ≺ t  λy.λx.λt. : (↑ obj)σ  (↑ subj)σ  (↑σ pt)  ↑σ t ⊆ t agent(e , x) patient(e , y)

So the meaning side of (3.37) represents the aspectual and tense properties of the aorist verb form ávadh¯ıt, as well as its basic semantics and argument structure. It is not a complete meaning, however, because it still requires a perspective time (↑σ pt) and meanings for its arguments. I assume that in the case of a finite verb form, it is the property of finiteness that binds the perspective time and produces a full verbal (and clausal) meaning.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

3.2 Semantic structure (3.38)



t  e finiteness: λP.[

∂

tr ρ(t  , tr )

⊕ P(t  , e )] : ((↑σ pt) ↑σ ) ↑σ

The perspective time of an eventuality must be fixed contextually; often it may be equivalent to the ‘now’ of speech time (S), but it may also be fixed relative to the reference time of an eventuality previously introduced in the discourse. In the meaning representation, this is achieved, following Bary and Haug (2011) and Haug (2013b), using the presupposition operator ∂ (Beaver, 1992), which introduces a condition which, in informal terms, looks for a suitable time (tr ) and a relation (ρ) between that time and the perspective time of the verb which will enable the perspective time to be fixed. On the glue side, a dependency on a meaning for a perspective time is satisfied, producing a full meaning for the clausal s-structure ↑σ .27 The full meaning for the Sanskrit sentence in (3.15) can therefore be obtained by applying the meaning in (3.38) and the meanings of the subject and object (which will proceed in entirely parallel manner to the simplified presentation given in section 3.2.1) to the meaning in (3.37). The resulting meaning is shown in (3.39). (3.39)

e t  t  x  x  strike(e ) τ (e ) ≺ t  t ⊆ t agent(e , x ) patient(e , x ) : ↑σ Indra(x ) Vr.tra(x ) tr ∂ ρ(t  , tr )

That the individual meaning constructors correctly combine to produce the outcome in (3.39) can be demonstrated by a logical proof showing the composition of the glue terms. The glue proof for the semantic derivation of the sentence in (3.15), as

27 The glue side of the finiteness meaning constructor is simpler than the equivalent suggested by Bary and Haug (). In RV Sanskrit it is not necessary to permit it to apply to temporal dependencies not only of finite verbs but also of participles (the equivalent construction in RV introduces its own temporal presupposition, cf. §.. and (.) furthermore the optionality of finiteness assumed by Bary and Haug () and licensed by them in the glue can be handled rather as optionality in the lexicon.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Lexical-Functional Grammar

(sσ EV)

sσ

((sσ EV) sσ ) (sσ EV) (iσ (sσ EV )

iσ vσ ((sσ EV) ((sσ RT)

sσ ) sσ )

((sσ PT)

sσ )

(sσ EV)

iσ

(sσ RT ) sσ

sσ )

sσ sσ

vσ

(sσ EV)

(iσ

(sσ EV)

sσ

sσ (sσ PT)

sσ

sσ

sσ )

((sσ EV) sσ ) (sσ EV) (vσ

sσ )

iσ ((sσ RT) ((sσ PT )

sσ ) sσ )

Fig. . Event-semantic glue proof for example (3.15)

presented in this section and instantiating the term ↑σ in the glue expressions with the relevant labels from (3.23), is given in Fig. 3.2.

. Wider architecture I have dwelt on semantic structure and the representation of verbal semantics since it is of considerable importance in the analysis of participles. In architectural terms, however, semantic structure is just one level of grammatical representation, alongside c-structure, f-structure, and the other projections assumed in LFG. Although they will be of limited interest to us in the following chapters, in this section I complete the description of the LFG grammatical architecture by introducing these other projections and their relations to those already discussed. As mentioned above, the original LFG conception of parallel c- and f-structure representations was later generalized to permit, in principle, any number of parallel structures, or projections, connected via a correspondence function (Kaplan 1987; 1989; Halvorsen and Kaplan 1988). The relation between projections can be represented schematically using arrows; so the architecture we have seen so far can be represented as in (3.40). (3.40)

c-structure

φ

f-structure

σ

s-structure

Example (3.40) represents the projection of f-structure from c-structure by the function φ, and the projection of s-structure from f-structure by the function σ . The arrangement of the wider grammatical architecture, including projections for prosody, information structure, and possibly morphology and argument structure, is more controversial. As discussed above, Butt et al. (1997) assume an a(rgument)structure located between c- and f-structure, but Asudeh and Giorgolo (2012) argue that this is unnecessary. For Bögel et al. (2009), Giorgolo and Asudeh (2011b), and Asudeh (2012: 53) c-structure is projected from p(rosodic)-structure, while for Butt and King (1998) and Mycock (2006; 2010: 292) p-structure is projected from

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

3.3 Wider architecture



c-structure. Butt et al. (1996) propose that m(orphological/morphosyntactic)structure is projected from c-structure, separately from the projection of f-structure; Frank and Zaenen (2002) argue rather that m-structure is projected from f-structure; Asudeh (2012: 52) represents m-structure as located between the phonological string and p-structure; Dalrymple et al. (forthcoming) argue that no separate m-structure is required in the LFG architecture. King (1997) and Butt and King (1997) propose that i(nformation)-structure is projected from c-structure and projects to s-structure, while Choi (1996) assumed the opposite direction of information flow; more recently Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011) and Asudeh (2012) assume rather that i-structure is projected from s-structure, while Lowe and Mycock (2014) propose that i-structure is not an independent structure within the projection architecture. For present purposes I adopt the architecture assumed in Mycock and Lowe (2013), which builds on that proposed by Dalrymple and Mycock (2011) and Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011); this architecture is schematized in (3.41).28 (3.41)

c-structure

f-structure

σ

s-structure

ι

i-structure

π

Lexical Entry s-form p-form

f

s-string p-string β p-structure

According to this conception of the architecture, i-structure is projected from s-structure, while c-structure is projected from the string, which is where, in different ways, both the lexicon and prosody are connected to the wider grammar. In the following sections I will briefly introduce i-structure and the string/lexicon/prosody interface in turn. .. Information structure Information structure refers to the organization of information in a sentence according to properties such as discourse newness/givenness and prominence. Following Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011), information structure is represented as a projection from semantic structure, which effectively categorizes meanings according to whether

28 Other recent works that discuss the LFG projection architecture include Bögel (; ), Bögel et al. (), Giorgolo and Asudeh (b), and Lowe (b).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Lexical-Functional Grammar

they are topical, focused, or backgrounded.29 Let us return again to the sentence in (3.15); we can assume that the subject of the clause, Indra, is topical, since he is the topic of the hymn as a whole and is mentioned in the previous verse, and we can assume, at least for the sake of argument, that the verb and object are in focus.30 (3.42) índro vr.trám ávadh¯ıt Indra.n.sg Vr.tra.a.sg strike.aor.3sg topic focus focus ‘Indra struck Vr.tra.’ (≈ RV 1.52.2c) Information structure can, but need not, be closely related to phrase-structure position. The phrase-structure rule proposed above for Rigvedic Sanskrit (2.26) is repeated here as (3.43), with the addition of annotations. The annotations on the first and second optional XPs determine the information structural status of the phrases they contain. (3.43) S

→

(XP) ↑σι =↓σι ((↓σ df)=topic)

(XP) ↑σι =↓σι ((↓σ df)=focus)

(CCL) ↑=↓

(XP)∗ . . .

We can assume that the first word of the sentence in (3.42) appears in the first XP slot of the clause. It is possible that the focused VP appears in the second XP slot, but it is perhaps more likely that its i-structure status is determined not configurationally but contextually here; that is, the VP appears not under the second XP slot, which is specified for focus, but in a later, unspecified XP slot.31 Considering just the topical subject of this clause, the c-structure, f-structure, and s-structure can be represented in the following way:

29 I-structure is limited to representing sentence-internal information structuring, although it depends to a certain extent on extra-sentential features like discourse newness/givenness. Cross-sentential discourse structure is more commonly referred to as ‘d(iscourse)-structure’ (except that O’Connor  uses the terms ‘i-structure’ and ‘d-structure’ somewhat differently). There has been little work on d-structure in LFG (exceptions include King and Zaenen  and Gazdik ); I do not consider it further here. 30 Discourse functions such as ‘topic’ and ‘focus’ are in reality complex notions, but I abstract away from this complexity here. Butt and King () distinguish four major discourse functions, topic, focus, completive information, and background information, defined according to different combinations of the more primitive features ±new and ±prominent. So, for Butt and King () topic is +prominent and −new, focus is +prominent and +new, completive is −prominent and +new, and background is −prominent and −new. Choi () similarly defines four discourse functions according to the features ±new and ±prominent. Lowe and Mycock () propose somewhat different i-structure primitives about± and update±, distinguishing four discourse functions: TopicE (Switch Topics, about+ and update+), TopicC (Continuing Topics, about+ and update−), FocusNI (New-Information Focus, about− and update+), and Background Information (about− and update−). 31 This is the most likely analysis, since if a CCL clitic were to appear in the clause, it would be much more likely to appear following the first word than the last.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

3.3 Wider architecture (3.44)



S s : subj NP

VP

(↑ subj) =↓

↑=↓

↑σι=↓σι ((↓σ df)=topic)

↑σι=↓σι sσ : agent

i : pred

‘Indra’

iσ : df topic

N ↑=↓

índrah ˙ (↑ pred) =‘Indra’ Indra ∈ (↑σι (↑σ df))

The annotation ↑σι =↓σι on the NP and VP nodes is assumed to appear on all c-structure nodes in the same clause, and simply ensures that there is exactly one i-structure for any one clause. The annotation ((↓σ df)=topic) on the NP node specifies a feature df topic for the semantic structure with which the NP is associated; this can be seen in the s-structure labelled iσ in (3.44). Features such as these appearing in s-structure are the basis on which i-structure is built; meaning constructors are categorized at i-structure according to the values of these features. This categorization is achieved by means of f-descriptions in lexical entries, such as appears under the terminal node in (3.44), repeated below: (3.45) Indra ∈ (↑σι (↑σ df)) Here, Indra is an abbreviation for the meaning constructor that conveys the meaning of the noun (3.20). Example (3.45) states that the meaning constructor is categorized at information structure according to the value of its df attribute in semantic structure. So, because the value of the s-structure attribute df for the noun índrah. in (3.44) is topic, its meaning will appear in the topic set at i-structure. This is shown in (3.46).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Lexical-Functional Grammar

(3.46)

S s : subj NP

VP

(↑ subj) =↓

↑=↓

↑σι =↓σι ((↓σ df)=topic)

↑σι=↓σι sσ : agent

i : pred

‘Indra’

iσ : df topic

N ↑=↓ sσι : topic

Indra

índrah ˙ (↑ pred) =‘Indra’ Indra ∈ (↑σι (↑σ df))

The categorization of the focused VP at i-structure will proceed along entirely parallel lines, except that in this case, given the c-structural analysis assumed for this clause, the value of df at s-structure for both the verb and the object will be contributed by the pragmatic context rather than a specific annotation on a c-structure node. .. The string and prosodic structure In early versions of the LFG architecture, c-structure is conceived of as projected from the ‘string’, the linear sequence of words that make up a spoken or written utterance (Kaplan 1987; 1989; Asudeh 2006); that is, the words in an utterance are, on the surface, related to one another in purely linear terms, while the c-structure represents the underlying hierarchical relations between linearly ordered elements. The projection of c-structure from the string is via the correspondence function π . On this conception, the words themselves do not (or at least need not) appear in c-structure, but in the string. So while we have thus far followed traditional practice and represented words as the terminal nodes in the c-structure, in fact it is more precise to represent them in a separate syntactic level, the string. The c-structure in (3.15), for example, may be better represented as in (3.47), with the words themselves appearing in the string, and the c-structure projected from this via π .

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

3.3 Wider architecture (3.47)



S

NP (↑ subj) =↓ N c-structure

VP

↑=↓ NP (↑ obj) =↓

π

N

V

π

π string:

índrah ˙

vrtrám ˙

ávadhīt

Ordinarily, string units map one-to-one to c-structure nodes, preserving the same relative order, as in (3.47). There are other possibilities, however. Lowe (forthcoming a), building on work by Wescoat (2002; 2005; 2007; 2009), argues that π is a relation, not a function, meaning that single string units are able to map to more than one c-structure node. Lowe (forthcoming c) argues that in highly restricted circumstances (involving clitics) it is possible for the linear order of units in the string to differ from the relative order of corresponding c-structure nodes. Neither of these possibilities will be of great relevance to us, and they will not be considered further. Dalrymple and Mycock (2011) propose a more detailed conception of the string that permits it to function as the interface between the syntactic and prosodic components of the grammar; this is further developed by Mycock and Lowe (2013), whose proposals I follow here. The string is conceived of as the parsed signal, i.e. the parsed spoken or written utterance. The parsing has two aspects, syntactic and phonological, resulting in two ‘sides’ to the string, called the s(yntactic)-string and the p(honological)-string. That is, a signal is simultaneously broken down into minimal syntactic units (words) and minimal prosodic units (for our purposes, syllables).32 From the resulting syntactic string the c-structure is projected via π , while from the resulting phonological string the p(rosodic)-structure is projected, via the correspondence function β.33 The lexicon is key in relating the two sides of the string: lexical entries contain information about both the s(yntactic)-form and the p(honological)-form of a word, so that an s-string must consist of a sequence of s-forms whose lexically corresponding p-forms 32

Nothing depends on taking the syllable as the minimal prosodic unit; the mora, or some other prosodic unit, could equally well be utilized. 33 Mycock (: ).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Lexical-Functional Grammar

match the sequence of units in the p-string. Following Mycock and Lowe (2013), s-string and p-string units are represented as attribute-value matrices, and the s- and p-forms of words appear as the values of an attribute fm in the relevant string AVM; p-forms are given in broad IPA representation. So the lexical entry for the noun ‘Indra’ will contain the following two specifications, where • refers to an associated s-string element, and to an associated p-string element: (3.48) (•fm) = ‘índrah.’ ( fm) = índ˜ah On the basis of these, and parallel specifications for the other words, (3.47) can be redrawn as (3.49). The s-string consists of three units that map to c-structure via π . The p-string consists of seven units, corresponding to the seven syllables in the prosodic representation of the utterance. These units are matched with s-string units via lexical specifications such as those in (3.48), and from these p-string units p-structure is projected, via β. Since there is little evidence for the rules of prosodic structure in Rigvedic Sanskrit, and since it is of little relevance for present purposes, I omit the representation of p-structure. Note that it is perfectly possible for one p-string unit to be associated with more than one s-string unit (or vice versa). (3.49)

S

NP

VP

(↑ subj) =↓

↑=↓

c-structure

N

NP (↑ obj) =↓

π

V

π

N π

s-string:

p-string:

p-structure

fm ‘´ındrah’ ˙

fm índ

fm

au

fm ‘vrtrám’ ˙

fm

vt

fm

á

fm ‘ávadhīt’

fm má

fm va

fm d i t

β

β

β

β

β

β

β

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

3.4 The lexicon and morphology



Putting this together with the f-, s- and i-structure representations discussed above gives us a full (though of course much abbreviated) grammatical analysis of the sentence; this is shown in (3.50).

. The lexicon and morphology As a lexicalist theory, LFG assumes that the lexicon consists, first and foremost, of morphologically complete words. A word may be clearly related to, or clearly derived from, another word, but such relations and derivations are internal to the lexicon and are essentially irrelevant outside it (e.g. in the syntactic derivation). So, the English 3sg. present walks and the past walked are separate lexical items, distinct from one another and from the non-3sg. present walk. Undeniably the words are related via certain paradigmatic associations and morphological processes, and undeniably the words share many syntactic and semantic features, including their basic lexical meaning; these facts allow us to describe these lexical items as belonging to the same lexeme in abstract terms. But on a lexical level, all three must be considered separate words. This is not to say that morphology is irrelevant in LFG, nor that morphology has not been the subject of considerable work in LFG.34 But it does mean that we can treat the syntactic word as the minimal morphosyntactic unit under consideration, in contexts such as the present where smaller units are not specifically under discussion. As we have seen, lexical entries contain a wealth of information, including information about c-structure category, f-structure properties, meaning, and phonological form. So, combining the sorts of information seen in (3.51), (3.26), (3.32), (3.33), (3.34), (3.36), (3.38), (3.45), and (3.48), and using templates to call the meaning constructors as defined above, the lexical entry for the Sanskrit verb form ávadh¯ıt ‘struck’ must contain at least the information in (3.51).35

34 Work of particular note on morphology in LFG includes Butt et al. (), Sadler and Spencer (), Frank and Zaenen (), Kaplan and Butt (), and Dalrymple et al. (forthcoming: ch. ). 35 As in (.), the bolded word in the antepenultimate line of the lexical entry abbreviates the meaning of the verb (here its basic lexical meaning combined with its argument structure and tense-aspect properties).

i

i i

i

i

i

i

i (3.50)

f

S

pred ‘strike〈subj, obj〉’ s : subj

v : pred

‘Vrtra’ .

VP ↑=↓

(↑ subj) =↓ c-structure

‘Indra’

NP

N

V

(↑ obj) =↓ π

σ

N

sσ :

π

π s-string:

p-string:

fm ‘´ındrah’ ˙

fm índ

fm

au

fm

á

focus .. .

agent

iσ : df

topic

patient vσ : df

focus

fm ‘ávadhīt’

fm ‘vrtrám’ ˙

fm v t

df .. .

fm má

fm va

fm d i t

topic ι

p-structure

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi

obj NP

i : pred

β

β

β

β

β

β

β

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

sσι :

focus

Indra strike Vrtra .

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

3.4 The lexicon and morphology (3.51)

ávadh¯ıt



V (↑ pred) = ‘strike〈 subj,obj〉 ’ (↑ tense-aspect) = aorist (↑ subj case) = nom (↑ subj num) = sg (↑ subj person) = 3 (↑ obj case) = acc @subj-ag @obj-pat @anterior @immediative @finiteness λe.

: (↑σ ev) ↑σ strike(e) struck ∈ (↑σι (↑σ df)) (•fm) = ‘ávadh¯ıt’ ( fm) = ávad| i‰t Cross-linguistically, participial formations and other non-finite verbal categories often display a ‘mixture’ of verbal and nominal features (see esp. Nikitina 2008). This is the case, for example, with the English ‘participle’/‘gerund’ in -ing, which can take both nominal and verbal dependents and is analysed as a ‘mixed category’ by Bresnan (1997), Bresnan and Mugane (2006), and Seiss (2008). Verbal adjectives and nouns are often discussed in relation to the realization of an underlying verbal argument structure by purely nominal structures (Rappaport 1983; Iida 1987; Laczkó 2000; Kibort 2005; 2012), and the existence of verbally derived nouns and adjectives that show verbal object government in particular are rare (Lowe, 2013a; 2013b; 2014c). Rigvedic participles, on the other hand, show only verbal features, with the exception of their adjectival agreement features. That is, they have the same sorts of dependents, realized in the same way, as finite verbs—for example the verbal object case, accusative, for objects, rather than the genitive, which is the usual case for dependents of nominals.36 Exceptions to this are not, in fact, synchronic participles but forms that have been lexicalized as nouns or adjectives.

36 Keydana () claims the same for RV infinitives; the evidence is slightly less clear in that case, however (Lowe b).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Lexical-Functional Grammar

According to Haspelmath (1996: esp. 58ff.), inflectional morphology is usually characterized by preservation of the internal syntax of the base, whereas derivational morphology is usually characterized by the alteration and assimilation of the internal syntax of the base to the ‘internal syntax of primitive members of the derived wordclass.’ So participles, which regularly preserve the argument structure of corresponding finite forms, are best analysed as ‘inflectional’ forms of verbs. This means that participles are verbs in categorial terms. They share many features with finite verbs, and so their lexical entries will look very similar. Considering again a finite and √ participial form of the verb kr. ‘make’ ((2.1), repeated as (3.52), and (2.14), repeated as (3.53)), the respective lexical entries for these forms ((3.54) and (3.55)) will contain much of the same information, reflecting the fact that they are two inflectional forms of the same lexeme. (3.52) kr.-n.v-ánti make-prs-3pl.act.ind ‘They make’ (3.53) kr.-n.v-ántah. make-prs-ptc.act.n.pl.m ‘making’ (3.54)

kr.n.vánti

V (↑ pred) = ‘make〈 subj,obj〉 ’ (↑ tense-aspect) = present (↑ subj case) = nom (↑ subj num) = pl (↑ subj person) = 3 (↑ obj case) = acc @subj-ag @obj-pat @imperfective @present @finiteness λe.

: (↑σ ev) ↑σ make(e) make ∈ (↑σι (↑σ df)) (•fm) = ‘kr.n.vánti’ ( fm) = k ≈vánti

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

3.4 The lexicon and morphology (3.55)

kr.n.vántah.



V (↑ pred) = ‘make〈 subj,obj〉 ’ (↑ tense-aspect) = present (↑ vform) = participle (↑ case) = nom (↑ num) = pl (↑ gend) = masc (↑ case) = (↑ subj case) (↑ num) = (↑ subj num) (↑ gend) = (↑ subj gend) (↑ obj case) = acc @subj-ag @obj-pat @imperfective @present λe.

: (↑σ ev) ↑σ make(e) make ∈ (↑σι (↑σ df)) (•fm) = ‘kr.n.vántah.’ ( fm) = k ≈vántah

The main differences between the lexical entry for the finite verb form (3.54) and that for the participle (3.55) are that the former specifies the number of its subject and calls the finiteness meaning constructor, while the latter defines the case, number and grammatical gender of its subject by reference to its own case, number and gender features, and does not call the finiteness meaning constructor. In all other respects, at least those represented here, they are the same; the differences reflect the difference between the verbal agreement features of the finite form versus the adjectival agreement features of the non-finite form, and the difference in finiteness between them. The verbal status of the participle is perhaps most clear in comparison with a non-verbal form. In §6.6.2 I distinguish the genuine participle sunvánt- ‘pressing’ to √ su ‘press’ from the homophonous lexicalized form sunvánt- ‘presser (of Soma)’. The respective lexical entries for the nominative singular masculine of these two words are given in (3.56) and (3.57).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

 (3.56)

Lexical-Functional Grammar sunván

V (↑ pred) = ‘press〈 subj,obj〉 ’ (↑ tense-aspect) = present (↑ vform) = participle (↑ case) = nom (↑ num) = sg (↑ gend) = masc (↑ case) = (↑ subj case) (↑ num) = (↑ subj num) (↑ gend) = (↑ subj gend) (↑ obj case) = acc @subj-ag @obj-pat @imperfective @present λe.

: (↑σ ev) ↑σ press(e) press ∈ (↑σι (↑σ df)) (•fm) = ‘sunván’ ( fm) = sunván (3.57)

sunván

N (↑ pred) = ‘presser’ (↑ case) = nom (↑ num) = sg (↑ gend) = masc λx.

presser_of _Soma(x) (↑σ var)  (↑σ restr) presser ∈ (↑σι (↑σ df)) (•fm) = ‘sunván’ ( fm) = sunván

:

The lexical entry for the noun appears considerably simpler than that of the participle, since the noun lacks the verbal argument structure and tense-aspect features found in verbal forms.37 The loss of these features is a key part in the lexicalization of such forms as nouns and adjectives. In this way the paradigmatic status of individual

37 It would be possible to assume an event variable for the noun, and perhaps default imperfective aspect and present tense, but I pass over such complexities here.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

3.5 Conclusion



word forms can be represented indirectly, without requiring us to make use of any particular morphological theory or representation.

. Conclusion Having introduced the model of grammatical analysis that is assumed in this work, we are ready to look in detail at the syntax and semantics of Rigvedic participles. We begin, in the next chapter, by looking at their syntactic properties.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

 The syntax of participles . Introduction This chapter analyses the syntactic employment of participles in the Rigveda, providing both a descriptive and formal account of all the syntactic contexts in which they occur. As non-finite verb forms, participles are exclusively, or almost exclusively, used for embedded predications, i.e. to predicate some eventuality of some entity, but within the syntactic (and very often semantic) scope of another predication, usually that of the matrix verb. Participial phrases, as headed by morphologically adjectival participles, are largely employed as adjuncts in syntactic terms, although some nonadjunct uses are found.1 There would be very little of interest to say about participles in the Rigveda if they all displayed a single syntactically and semantically regular relationship to the stem or verb from which they are derived, and displayed a common syntactic and semantic function within their clause. In this chapter and the next we will see that participles display a wide variety of functions within their clause; in Chapter 6 we will see that there is a similarly wide variation in the syntactic and semantic relations between participles and their corresponding verbal stems. It should be emphasized that this is not necessarily the case for a non-finite verbal category. The Sanskrit absolutive, for example, is morphologically, syntactically, and semantically much more uniform than the participles: the absolutive in -tv¯a is derived largely from transitive, telic verbal roots (or, later, derived stems like the causative) by a single, regular morphological process; it always shares the meaning and argument structure of the verb from which it is derived; syntactically, it can be used only as a clausal adjunct; and in semantic terms, it displays simple relative past time reference almost without exception (Tikkanen 1987: 121ff.). √ The following example of the absolutive hatva¯´ ‘having slain’ from the root han ‘slay’ is representative.

1 For an overview of participles as predicate adjuncts, see Fabricius-Hansen and Haug (b). The syntax of participial phrases is the subject of several papers in Fabricius-Hansen and Haug (a); on the syntax of participial phrases from a rather different formal perspective, see Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou (), with references.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.1 Introduction



(4.1) yó hatva¯´him árin.a¯ t saptá síndh¯un who slay.abs=serpent.a release.imf seven river.a.pl ‘Who, having slain the serpent, released the seven rivers.’ (RV 2.12.3a) The absolutive hatva¯´ in (4.1) is a clausal adjunct, predicating an eventuality that is temporally prior to that of the matrix verb. The subject of the absolutive phrase is necessarily the subject of the main clause (the functional subject, not necessarily the nominative argument). These properties are common to all absolutives in -tv¯a. In contrast, such invariant syntax and semantics are not a feature of participial clauses. Partly, the functional range of participles is shared with adjectives and is explained by the wide functional range of adjectives. However, the multifunctionality of participles extends beyond that of adjectives on both a syntactic and semantic level. The syntactic differences are both overt and non-overt; that is, some are clear at the surface syntax level while others can only be represented at a more abstract level. The existence of non-overt syntactic distinctions between different uses of participles means that the syntactic analysis of a particular form is often dependent on subjective interpretation; nevertheless, in the majority of instances the syntactic employment of a participle is clear. Traditional treatments of the syntax of participles in Sanskrit (e.g. Speyer 1886: §§358ff., pp. 278ff.) and most other Indo-European languages distinguish three major roles in which participles can be employed. These do not, however, precisely correlate with the distinctions that can be made under modern syntactic analysis. One of the most common uses of participial clauses is as adjuncts within noun phrases, predicating an eventuality of the head of the nominal phrase, much like a relative clause. I refer to this use as the ‘adnominal’ use of participles. All participles are adnominal in terms of agreement, insofar as they agree in number, gender, and case with a noun in the clause, but adnominal participles also syntactically and semantically modify the noun with which they agree. This use is identical to the most common employment of adjectives, as nominal adjuncts, and in certain respects this use of participles can be considered the least verbal, and the most adjectival or nominal, of their uses. It correlates with what is more commonly referred to in traditional grammars as the ‘attributive’ use of participles. The other common use of participles is as clausal adjuncts, functionally controlled by an argument or adjunct in the matrix clause, and predicating an eventuality alongside and in interaction with the predication of the matrix verb. This role I designate ‘converbal’; converbal participles do not constitute a part of the noun phrase headed by the noun with which they agree, but function instead as a separate constituent within the clause. Similarly, their semantic contribution is not restricted to the noun with which they agree, but is made at the clausal level, sometimes specifically

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

modifying or contributing to the primary predication (that of the main verb), or else making an additional predication alongside and in interaction with that of the main verb.2 I use the term ‘converbal’ since this is effectively the functional range attributed to ‘converbs’ in typological literature; the relation between participles and converbs will be discussed in detail in §7.3. Where adnominal participles are termed ‘attributive’, converbal participles are often termed ‘predicative’, which reflects the clausal predication made by such forms, though a variety of alternative terms are found.3 Participial phrases can also function as closed clausal adjuncts, i.e. without the participle’s subject being functionally controlled by an element of the matrix clause. This is the ‘absolute’ use of participles, to adopt the traditional terminology, in which the subject of the participle appears within the participial phrase and plays no independent role in the matrix. In all other respects, in particular their semantics, such participial clauses are very similar to converbal participial clauses. Less commonly, and in some respects less certainly, participial phrases can function as clausal complements to certain types of verb. Some verbs of perception can appear with a clausal complement headed by a participle, and participles may also be found as complements of auxiliary verbs in periphrastic constructions, though this is not certain for the Rigvedic period. These two uses, in some respects similar but in other respects highly distinct from one another, I refer to as ‘complementary’ uses of participles. In certain contexts, participles appear to be syntactically more independent of a finite verb than is usually assumed to be possible; such ‘independent’ participles are discussed in §4.6. In the following sections, I discuss in detail the syntax of the adnominal, converbal, absolute, and complementary uses of participles in turn (§§4.2–4.6). Subsequently, I discuss two more general issues in the syntax of Rigvedic participles: the coherence of the participial VP (§4.7) and the relative transitivity of participles in comparison with associated finite verbal stems (§4.8).

2 The range of semantic predication therefore covers both the ‘participant-oriented’ expressions associated with depictive constructions and the ‘event-oriented’ expressions associated with converbal constructions, as distinguished by Schultze-Berndt and Himmelmann () and Himmelmann and Schultze-Berndt (). 3 Pinkster (: ff., n. ) lists a number of such terms used for the equivalent function in Latin, including ‘subject/object adjunct’, ‘appositional adjective’, ‘secondary predication’, ‘apposition’, and ‘converbal apposition’. Lowe (a) uses the label ‘adverbial’; Haug et al. () use the label ‘adverbal’. On the undesirable ambiguity of the traditional terms ‘predicative’ and ‘attributive’ for the two major uses of participles, see Vester (), although her suggested alternatives ‘restrictive’ and ‘non-restrictive’ are equally problematic.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.2 Adnominal participles



. Adnominal participles Participles are morphologically adjectival, and show adnominal agreement, that is, they must agree with the head of a noun phrase (even if that head is omitted). Adnominal participles are also ‘adnominal’ insofar as they modify, both syntactically and semantically, a noun phrase. Consider the participles in the following examples. (4.2) yásminn índrah. . . . / óko dadhé which.l.nt Indra . . . home.a established brahman.yántaś=ca nárah. speak_sacred_formulae.prs.ptc.act.pl.m=and men ‘In which (place) Indra . . . / established his home, and (likewise did) men who speak sacred formulae.’ (RV 2.19.1cd) (4.3) tá a¯ ditya¯´sa urávo gabh¯ıra¯´/ ádabdh¯aso ¯ those Adityas wide.pl deep.pl undeceivable.pl dípsanto bh¯ury-aks.a¯´h./ antáh. paśyanti deceive.des.prs.ptc.act.n.pl.m many-eyed.pl within see vr.jinótá s¯adhú crooked=and straight ¯ ‘Those Adityas, the wide, the deep,/ the undeceivable, the keen to deceive, the many-eyed,/ see both crooked and straight (ways) within (a man)’ (RV 2.27.3a–c) In (4.2), the participle restricts the set of possible referents of the NP: the reference of the NP is not to ‘men’ generally, but only those men who speak the sacred formulae. This is a very common use of adjectives cross-linguistically, as of course in English, and also in Sanskrit, as in the following passage: dhuh. (4.4) kr.s.n.ám . ca sám . ca várn.am arun.ám . and together place black.a and colour.a red.a ‘They placed together the black colour and the red (colour).’ (RV 1.73.7d) In (4.3), on the other hand, the participle merely adds a further description to an already fully defined NP; it is a non-restrictive modifier, in this case an epithet of the ¯ divine Adityas. Epithets are extremely common in the Rigveda and often occur in long series, as in (4.3). Semantically there is a difference between restrictive and nonrestrictive uses of participles (and other modifiers); syntactically they are identical, however, and it is only the context that determines which we are dealing with, i.e. whether the referent of an NP is already fully identifiable without the additional information supplied by the modifier (as in (4.3) but not in (4.2)). Adjectives can be used in just the same way, as with the four other epithets in (4.3).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

In this respect adnominal participles are remarkably similar to relative clauses, which likewise have restrictive and non-restrictive uses.4 The semantic and functional parallel between adnominal participles and relative clauses is reflected in the formal analysis presented below, which treats adnominal participial clauses somewhat like reduced relative clauses. Some writers (e.g. Peterson 2004) have argued that nonrestrictive relative clauses are ‘syntactically’, not just semantically, distinct from restrictive relatives, being functionally separate from the clause in which they occur, such that two different syntactic analyses must be given for the two types of relative clause. Such arguments would presumably carry over into an analysis of adnominal participial clauses. However, Arnold (2007) and Arnold and Sadler (2010) show that there is no need to assume distinct syntactic representations for the two types. The difference between restrictive and non-restrictive modificatory clauses is fundamentally semantic, and in LFG it is possible to represent the difference purely in the semantics, while making no distinction in the syntactic representation. In functional terms, adnominal participle phrases are adjuncts, and therefore appear as values of the attribute adj at f-structure (just like the epithetic adjective nad¯ı-v´r.tam ‘river-obstructing’ in (3.5), (3.6), and (3.7)). This is represented in (4.5), for the relevant part of (4.3). The subject of the participle is controlled by a null pronominal element ‘pro’ that is the equivalent of an explicit relative pronoun in a full relative clause, and appears as the value of the attribute rel-topic in the fstructure of the participial clause. The functional control relation between the subj and the rel-topic in the participial f-structure is represented by a line connecting the f-structure that is the value of subj and the f-structure that is the value of reltopic. The line indicates that the same f-structure is the value of both attributes. The null pronoun is semantically identified with the noun that the participle modifies; semantic identity is represented by a dashed line connecting the two f-structures. By this semantic identification, the null pronoun is constrained to adopt the case, number, and gender features of the head noun; these features are therefore necessarily features of the participle’s subject, since the null pronoun is also the participle’s subject; the participle must agree with its subject and in this way agrees with the noun that it modifies (cf. the f-descriptions for adjectival agreement in (3.14), (3.55), and (3.56)).

4

On Sanskrit relative clauses, see e.g. Hock (; ), and esp. Hettrich ().

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.2 Adnominal participles



(4.5) From RV 2.27.3ab ((4.3) above) pred ‘Ādityas’ case nom num pl gend masc

spec

pred ‘those’ pred stem vform tense-aspect case num gend

adj rel-topic

‘deceive〈subj, obj〉’ desiderative participle present nom pl masc pred case num gend

‘pro’ nom pl masc

pred

‘pro’

subj obj .. .

.. .

In this way, adnominal participles are functionally similar to relative clauses in English with gapped heads. For example, the f-structure for the noun phrase the man I saw can be represented as in (4.6). As discussed, there is no syntactic difference between restrictive and non-restrictive adnominal modifiers, so the f-structure for the noun phrase in (4.2) will be entirely parallel, as shown in (4.7).5

5

From here on I omit representing agreement features such as case, num, and gend.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

(4.6) F-structure for the man I saw pred ‘man’

spec

pred ‘the’ pred ‘see〈subj, obj〉’ tense-aspect simple-past

adj

rel-topic

pred

‘pro’

subj

pred

‘I’

obj (4.7) From RV 2.19.1d ((5.2) above) pred ‘man’

adj

pred vform

‘speak_sacred_formulae〈subj〉’ participle

rel-topic

pred

‘pro’

subj

Haug and Nikitina (2012: 298) argue that adnominally (their ‘attributively’) used participles can be formalized at f-structure as open adjuncts (xadj, for which see §4.3 on converbal participles), their subject functionally controlled not by a null pronominal element but directly by the noun that the participle modifies. They argue that this provides a more unified analysis of participial agreement features; it also renders the f-structural representation simpler, but it results in a cyclical f-structure, where the value of the participial subj is an f-structure within which that subj is embedded, as shown in (4.8). (4.8)

pred ‘Ādityas’

adj .. .

pred subj .. . .. .. ..

‘deceive〈subj,obj〉’ .. . .. .

This is an undesirable result; moreover, there is no difference in the agreement properties of adnominal and converbal participles under the more traditional analysis assumed here, since in both cases the participle agrees with its subject. In the case of

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.2 Adnominal participles



adnominal participles the ‘path’ of agreement is more complex, but it is mediated by principles independent of the participle itself, namely the properties of rel-topic and the null pronoun. Participles are of category V; therefore participial phrases are VPs. In order to distinguish clearly between participial and non-participial Vs and VPs, I will use the following abbreviations in phrase-structure rules and c-structures:6 (4.9)

a. Ptc ≡

V (↓ vform) = participle b. PtcP ≡ VP (↓ vform) = participle

In phrasal terms, adnominal participle phrases are optional PtcP daughters of the NP that they modify. They are specified as members of the adj set at f-structure, and as having a rel-topic feature with null head (pred ‘pro’) that controls their subj. The relevant phrase-structure rule is given in (4.10).7 ⎞ ⎛ (4.10) PtcP ⎜ ⎟  ⎟ ⎜↓ ∈ (↑ adj) N ⎟ ... NP → . . . ⎜ ⎜(↓rel-topic) = (↓subj) ⎟ , ↑=↓ ⎝ ⎠ (↓rel-topic pred) = ‘pro’ The optionality of the PtcP and the head N (as well as any other elements of the phrase) licenses discontinuity of the NP. In (4.11), for instance, the participial phrase is separated from the noun it modifies by the adjunct instrumentals. In the c-structure for this clause, given in Fig. 4.1, there are two NP nodes corresponding to the noun phrase ‘Agni, who makes his dwelling among all beings’: one dominates only the head, N, while the other dominates only the modifying PtcP. Although separate at c-structure, at functional structure the two parts of the phrase are united in the fstructure that supplies the value of obj ((4.12)). (4.11) jígharmi agním ghr.téna/ pratiks.iyántam . havís.a¯ . sprinkle.1sg Agni.a oblation.i ghee.i make_dwelling.prs.ptc.a.sg.m bhúvan¯ani víśv¯a creatures.a all.a.pl ‘I sprinkle Agni with the oblation, with ghee, who makes his dwelling among all creatures.’ (RV 2.10.4ab) 6 An alternative representation would be to use complex c-structure categories (cf. e.g. Kuhn a; Frank and Zaenen ; Falk ; Crouch et al. ). The complex category equivalents to Ptc and PtcP would be V[ptc] and VP[ptc] . 7 The internal structure of the PtcP will be discussed in more detail in §..

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles S

VP ↑=↓

NP (↑ obj) =↓

NP (↑ obj) =↓

NP (↑ obj) =↓

V

N

NP

NP

PctP

↑=↓

↑=↓

↓∈↑

↓∈↑

↓∈ (↑ adj)

jígharmi

agním .

N ↑=↓

N ↑=↓

↑=↓

havís.ā

ghr.téna

pratiks.iyántam.

Ptc

NP (↑ obj) =↓ N ↑=↓

D (↑ spec) =↓

bhúvanāni

víśvā

Fig. . C-structure for RV 2.10.4ab (example (4.11))

(4.12) RV 2.10.4ab ((4.11) above) pred ‘sprinkle〈subj,obj,oblinstr〉’ pred ‘pro’ person 1 subj case nom num sg

pred ‘Agni’ case acc

obj adj

pred vform

‘dwell_among〈subj,obj〉’ participle

rel-topic

pred ‘pro’

subj obj

.. .

pred ‘creatures’ spec

pred

‘all’

.. .

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.2 Adnominal participles



It is possible for the head of a noun phrase to be null, in which case a modifier such as an adjective or participial phrase effectively supplies the pred and meaning for the NP. In this case the adnominal function becomes all but nominal, i.e. the adnominal participle functions almost as if it were a noun. In (4.13), there is no explicit noun that functions as the head of the accusative NP object of the main verb, but the accusative participial phrase semantically restricts the possible set of referents of the NP to one (person, we can infer) who commits sin. (4.13) ma¯´ no vadhaír varun.a yé ta is..ta¯´v/ énah. neg us weapons.i Varun.a.v which your will.l sin.a kr.n.vántam asura bhr¯ın.ánti do.prs.ptc.act.a.sg.m asura.v punish.3pl ‘Do not (strike) us, Varun.a, with the weapons which at your will/ punish him who commits sin, O asura.’ (RV 2.28.7ab) The f-structure for the object noun phrase in (4.13) is given in (4.14). The structure is entirely parallel to those in (4.5) and (4.7), except that the noun’s pred is null (‘pro’); by the semantic identity of the participle’s subject with the noun (via the former’s functional identity with the participle’s rel-topic), a meaning for the otherwise meaningless null noun is supplied. (4.14) from RV 2.28.7ab ((4.13) above) pred ‘pro’ case acc num sg gend masc

adj

pred vform

‘make〈subj,obj〉’ participle

rel-topic

pred

‘pro’

pred

‘sin’

subj obj

This configuration can be contrasted with the functional structure for a lexicalized participle, which is a synchronic noun that derives diachronically from a participle. In §3.4 I provided lexical entries for both the synchronic participle sunvánt- ‘pressing’ and the lexicalized sunvánt- ‘presser’. If the former were used as an adnominal participle in a noun phrase with a null head, we would have the f-structure in (4.15). The f-structure for the lexicalized noun is very different ((4.16)).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

(4.15)

pred ‘pro’

adj

(4.16)



pred vform

‘press〈subj,obj〉’ participle

rel-topic

pred

subj .. .

.. .

‘pro’

 pred ‘presser’

In the case of these words, the participle’s selection for an object argument provides a way of distinguishing the two, but in the case of an intransitive participle that existed alongside a homophonous noun, there would be very little to indicate which we were dealing with. This use of adnominal participles explains why participles more commonly lexicalize as nouns than adjectives, even though they are morphologically and syntactically more similar to adjectives: in this configuration they effectively fill the role of a noun, and so can be directly reinterpreted as actually being a noun, without any intermediate reanalysis as a lexical adjective.

. Converbal participles The second major use of participles is the ‘converbal’ use. As discussed above, converbal participles are indistinguishable from adnominal participles in terms of morphology and agreement, but syntactically and semantically they modify the clause and/or the main predicate of the clause rather than the NP with which they agree; note the following example: (4.17) vís.u¯ co áśv¯an yuyuj¯aná ¯ıyata/ ékah. separated.a.pl horses.a yoke.pf.ptc.med.n.sg.m speeds alone ‘Having yoked the separated horses, he speeds (off)/alone.’ (RV 6.59.5cd) In (4.17) the participial phrase, vís.uco áśv¯an yuyuj¯anáh. ‘having yoked the separated horses’, predicates something about the subject of the main clause, with which it agrees in number, person, and gender, at the clausal level. This predication is distinct from the predication of the main verb of the clause, but these two predications necessarily interact and produce a combined predication for the clause. An alternative way of looking at it would be that the participial phrase adds to the predication made by the main verb and thereby modifies it. The converbal use of participles therefore differs from the adnominal use in the level at which the predication is made: the former makes a predication at the clausal level, the latter at the nominal level. If we were to force

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.3 Converbal participles



an adnominal interpretation on the participial phrase in (4.17), for example, it would mean the following: (4.18) ‘The one who had yoked the separated horses speeds (off) alone.’ In informal terms, we could represent the clausal predication under the adnominal reading as speed(x), where x = ‘the one who had yoked the separated horses’, while under the converbal reading the clausal predication would be something like yoked_horses(x) ∧ speed(x), where the referent of x is determined by the context. √ In (4.17) yuyuj¯aná- is the perfect mediopassive participle of the root yuj ‘yoke’; as headed by a perfect participle, the participial phrase expresses an eventuality8 that took place before the eventuality expressed by the main verb. In such cases it is conceptually unproblematic to treat the predications made by the participle and matrix verb as two distinct predications, one following the other. In the case of converbal participles with present-tense reference, on the other hand, the predication made by the participial phrase is roughly concomitant with that of the main verb (as discussed in more detail in §5.5.1). There is therefore considerably more scope for mutual interaction between the two predications. (4.19) áthód asth¯at svayám átkam vás¯anah. . garment.a wear.stv.ptc.n.sg.m and=up stood own ‘And he has stood up, wearing his own garment.’ (RV 4.18.5c) (4.20) a¯vív¯asanto dasayanta bhu¯´ ma win.des.prs.ptc.n.pl.m exhaust earth.a ‘Desiring to win the earth, they exhaust themselves (with words).’ (RV 5.45.3d) In (4.19) the eventuality of ‘wearing’ expressed by the stative participle vás¯ana‘wear’) temporally overlaps with the eventuality of ‘standing up’ expressed by the main verb. This temporal overlap appears to be all that is implied: there does not appear to be any further semantic or pragmatic connection between the two eventualities.9 In (4.20) the ‘desiring to win’ expressed by the participle a¯ vív¯asant√ (present participle to the desiderative of van ‘win’) likewise temporally overlaps with the ‘exhausting’ of the main verb, but here it is possible to infer more than simple temporal overlap: it is because they desire to win the earth that they end up exhausting themselves.10 We can therefore speak of a ‘causal’ relation between the √ ( vas

8

I use ‘eventuality’ (Bach : ) as a generic term for anything that can be predicated, whether state, activity, accomplishment, achievement, or semelfactive. It is equivalent to the term ‘situation’, used e.g. by W. Klein () and introduced by Comrie (). 9 For more detailed discussions of the temporal-aspectual relationships implied by the different tenseaspect stem participles see §.. 10 On this verse, the interpretation of which has been the subject of some dispute, see Jamison (a: ), followed by Jamison and Brereton ().

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

predications of the participial phrase and main verb. The different sorts of relationship that are possible between participial and matrix verb predications will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5. They are a semantic, perhaps even pragmatic, matter and are not distinguished syntactically. Participles in converbal function are usually found in the nominative; the accusative is less common, and other case forms are rarer. In part this distribution has a pragmatic explanation: participial predications are more commonly made about the subject of a sentence, since the subject often has a topical role in its clause. Nominative noun phrases are in general more common than noun phrases in other cases, since every clause has a subject, and subjects are most commonly nominative, while not every clause has an object or oblique argument or adjunct. Even so, there is still a statistical skew towards converbal participles occurring in the nominative. Approximately 70 of the participles in the Rigveda are nominative, 15 are accusative, 5 are genitive, 5 are dative, the other case forms are rare. Yet as many as 90 of converbal participles are nominative, while less than half of adnominal participles are nominative. So the preponderance of nominative case participles over those in other cases in the Rigveda is largely attributable to the converbal use of participles.11 Although most converbal participles are nominative, converbal participles are attested in all cases except the vocative, and there is little restriction on which element of a clause a converbal participle may agree with. Any argument of a main verb can be so modified: example (4.21) shows a converbal participle agreeing with an accusative object argument, and (4.22) shows one agreeing with an oblique argument in the dative case. (4.21) yám átyam iva v¯ajínam/ mr.jánti yós.an.o dáśa/ váne whom horse.a like prize_winning.a groom women ten wood.l kr¯´ı l.antam átyavim play.prs.ptc.act.a.sg.m through_sieve ‘(Soma) whom, like a prize-winning horse,/ the ten young women groom,/ as he plays in the wooden vessel through the sieve.’ (RV 9.6.5) (4.22) avasyaté stuvaté kr.s.n.iya¯´ya/. . . seek_help.prs.act.ptc.d.sg.m praise.prs.act.ptc.d.sg.m Kr.s.n.iya.d vis.n.a¯ pvàm . dadathuh. Vis.n.a¯pva.a gave.2du ‘You two gave Vis.n.a¯pva/ to Kr.s.n.iyai as hei was seeking help and praising.’ (RV 1.116.23) 11 The figures given are necessarily approximate due to the fact that in many instances the interpretation of a particular participle is uncertain, but the tendency is sufficiently clear despite this.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.3 Converbal participles



It is less clear whether we would expect converbal participles to modify nouns which are syntactically adjuncts rather than arguments. Many syntactic processes are constrained to apply only to certain sorts of grammatical function, for example only to subjects, or only to subjects and objects, according to the relative ranking of grammatical functions in the ‘grammatical function hierarchy’.12 In particular, some processes are restricted to the governable grammatical functions (subj, obj, objθ , obl, (x)comp) and cannot apply to modifers ((x)adj). Crosslinguistically, converbal participial constructions are rarely found modifying modifiers. In English, converbal participles almost always agree with subjects, occasionally objects (Kortmann 1995), but examples of adjunct agreement can be found: Mohanan (1983: 651–2, fn. 7) notes constructions such as Having left Boston, it is now clear to me what I should do, and similar examples are mentioned by Haug et al. (2012: 144). There are a few examples of converbal participles modifying what look like adjuncts in the Rigveda, but it is usually hard to be absolutely sure of the correct interpretation. Example (4.23) shows a participle agreeing with what is most likely a dative of advantage; but here the dative might arguably be interpreted as an oblique argument, or even the subject of a possessive construction. Example (4.24) shows an apparently converbal participle (functionally parallel to the converbally used adjective j¯ıvá-) agreeing with an ablative adjunct, but again it might be marginally possible to treat the ablative as an argument of the verb. Example (4.25) shows what I take to be a converbal participle agreeing with a possessive genitive, which is undeniably a nongovernable grammatical function. In this case, however, an adnominal interpretation of the participle cannot be excluded. (4.23) pravátvat¯ıyám pr.thiv¯´ı marúdbhyah./ pravátvat¯ı of_swift_crossing.f=this.f earth.f Maruts.d of_swift_crossing.f dyaúr bhavati prayádbhyah. heaven becomes go_forth.prs.ptc.act.d.pl.m ‘This earth (becomes) of swift crossing for the Maruts,/ heaven becomes of swift crossing for them as they come forth.’ (RV 5.54.9ab)

12 Discussed, in relation to LFG, by Dalrymple (: –), and deriving from the ‘accessibility hierarchy’ of Keenan and Comrie (). In LFG terms, subj is the highest governable grammatical function, obj the second highest, obl is lower, and (x)adj lower still.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

(4.24) dáśa ma¯´s¯añ chaśay¯anáh./ kum¯aró ádhi m¯atári/ niraítu ten months.a lie.pf.ptc.n.sg.m child in mother.l come_out.imp j¯ıvó áks.ato/ j¯ıvó j¯´ı vanty¯a ádhi alive unharmed alive live.prs.ptc.act.ab.sg.f from ‘Let the child, having lain/ ten months in the motheri ,/ come forth alive, unharmed,/ alive from (her)i alive.’13 (RV 5.78.9) (4.25) pávam¯anasya te vayám/ pavítram abhyundatáh./ Pavam¯ana.g you.g we sieve.a drench.prs.ptc.g.sg.m sakhitvám a¯´vr.n.¯ımahe friendship.a choose.1pl ‘We choose the friendship/ of you, the Pavam¯ana,/ as you drench the sieve.’ (RV 9.61.4) We can conclude that converbal participles preferentially occur when agreeing with the highest element on the grammatical function hierarchy, the subject, but are not excluded from agreeing with objects and obliques. It may be marginally possible, as with the equivalent English participle construction, for them to agree also with nongovernable grammatical functions, but there are no wholly unambiguous examples. Further discussion of this issue appears in the analysis of absolute participles (§4.4). In functional terms, converbal participial clauses are instances of the grammatical function xadj. The clausal function xadj differs from adj in that it is an ‘open’ function: as an open function, the subject of an xadj is not internal to it but is supplied by an external element. In other respects it is similar to adj: it is not a governable function but a modifier function, and since there can be multiple xadj modifers of a clause, it is represented as taking a set value in the f-structure. The subject of an xadj is defined by functional control of the subject position by an argument in the matrix clause. The functional structure for (4.17), repeated as (4.26), is given in (4.27). The subject of the participial adjunct is functionally controlled by the (null) subject of the matrix verb. The control is determined by agreement: the participle is constrained to agree with its subject, and therefore its controller, in case, number and gender. (4.26) vís.u¯ co áśv¯an yuyuj¯aná ¯ıyata/ ékah. separated.a.pl horses.a yoke.pf.ptc.med.n.sg.m speeds alone ‘Having yoked the separated horses, he speeds (off)/ alone.’ (RV 6.59.5cd)

13

I.e. the mother alive, as well as the child; this is hard to render into English.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.3 Converbal participles



(4.27) RV 6.59.5cd ((4.17)) pred ‘speed〈subj〉’

subj

xadj

pred pers case num gend

‘pro’ 3 nom sg masc

pred tense vform case num gend subj

‘yoke〈subj,obj〉’ perfect participle nom sg masc pred ‘horses’

obj

adj

adj

pred ‘separated’

pred ‘alone’

In phrase-structural terms, converbal participles head PtcPs (i.e. participial VPs) just as adnominal participles do. However, the PtcP is not a constituent of the NP with which the participle agrees, but is a separate constituent at the clausal level. The phrase-structure rule in (4.28) licenses such a PtcP as one of the optional daughters of the clausal node S, specified for inclusion in the xadj set at f-structure. The annotation (↓ subj) = (↑ gf) states that the subject of the PtcP is identical with (i.e. functionally controlled by) a grammatical function gf in the clausal f-structure. gf is an abbreviation here for the disjunction of the grammatical functions that can control the subject of an xadj. A partial definition of gf is provided in (4.29), on the assumption that the subject of an xadj can be controlled only by the matrix subj, obj, and obl, and not also e.g. adj (cf. above). The c-structure for (4.17), showing the converbal PtcP as a daughter of S, is given in (4.30). ⎛ ⎞ (4.28) PtcP ⎜ ⎟ S → . . . ⎝↓∈ (↑ xadj) ⎠∗ . . . (↓subj) = (↑gf) (4.29) gf ≡ {subj|obj|obl}

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

(4.30) C-structure for RV 6.59.5cd ((4.17) above) S

VP ↓∈(↑xadj) NP (↑obj)=↓ AdjP ↓∈(↑adj)

N ↑=↓

Adj ↑=↓

áśv¯an

VP ↑=↓

AdjP ↓∈(↑adj)

V ↑=↓

V ↑=↓

Adj ↑=↓

yuyuj¯anáh.

¯ıyate

ékah.

vís.u¯ cah.

. Absolute participles The absolute use of participles is similar to the converbal use insofar as the participial phrase functions as a clausal adjunct; it differs from the converbal use in that it is a closed adjunct, that is, its subject is not controlled by an element in the matrix clause, but appears inside the participial phrase and has no independent function in the matrix clause.14 In Rigvedic Sanskrit, absolute participles and their subjects appear in the locative case, the construction being known as the ‘locative absolute’. In (4.19), (4.21), and (4.22), the nouns with which the converbal participles agree (nominative, accusative, and dative nouns respectively) each have a grammatical function in the matrix clause, as determined by the selectional properties of the matrix verb: the nominative noun is the matrix subject in (4.19), the accusative is the matrix object in (4.21), and the dative is an indirect object in (4.22). Example (4.31), on the other hand, is one of the standard examples of a Classical Sanskrit locative

14 Besides this use, the term ‘absolute’ is also used to refer to a participle (or even verb) to a transitive stem used intransitively (cf. §.). To avoid confusion I will use the term ‘absolute’ only to refer to absolute constructions as discussed in this section.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.4 Absolute participles



absolute quoted in the Indian grammatical tradition.15 The subject of the participle duhyam¯an¯asu is the locative plural gos.u ‘cows’, but that locative has no grammatical function in the matrix clause. (4.31) gos.u duhyam¯an¯asu gatah.. dugdh¯asv a¯ gatah. cows.l milk.prs.ps.ptc.l.pl.f went milked.l.pl.f returned ‘When the cows were being milked he left. When they had been milked he returned.’ (K¯aś. ad As..t. 2.3.37) Absolute participial clauses pattern closely with converbal participial clauses. Both function as clausal adjuncts, and their semantic range is equivalent;16 the only difference is the syntactic status of the participle’s subject in the main clause.17 In f-structural terms an absolute participle heads an adj rather than an xadj, since its subject is internal to the adjunct rather than controlled by an external element. The f-structure for the first sentence of (4.31) is given in (4.32). (4.32) ad As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 2.3.37 ((4.31) above) ⎤ ⎡ pred ‘went〈 subj〉 ’

 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢subj pred ‘pro’ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ ⎧⎡ ⎤⎫⎥ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ pred ‘be_milked〈 subj〉 ’ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢vform participle ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪⎢ case locative ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢num ⎥⎪ ⎪ pl ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥⎬⎥ ⎨⎢ ⎢ ⎢gend ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎢adj fem ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎤⎥ ⎡ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥⎪ ⎪⎢ pred ‘cows’ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎥ ⎪⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢case locative⎥⎥⎪ ⎢ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎥ ⎪⎢subj ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢num pl ⎥⎥⎪ ⎢ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎣ ⎦ ⎪ ⎪ ⎣ ⎦ ⎪ ⎪ ⎦ ⎣ ⎪ ⎪ ⎭ ⎩ gend fem

15 I exemplify this construction with an example from Classical Sanskrit, since the Rigvedic construction is of questionable status, as discussed below. Example (.) appears in the K¯aśik¯avr.tti ad As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı .. (yasya ca bh¯avena bh¯avalaks.an.am), the rule that licenses the locative absolute in Classical Sanskrit. The K¯aśik¯avr.tti is the most widely used commentary on the As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı, dating from around the th c. ad and attributed to V¯amana-Jay¯aditya; for this example see the edition by Dwarikadas Shastri and Shukla (– : vol. : ) and von Böhtlingk (: ). 16 I discuss only locative absolutes with temporal functions here, but Bhatt () discusses examples of locative absolutes with non-temporal senses such as cause. 17 Tikkanen (: –) states: ‘in many cases . . . conjunct [i.e. converbal] participles are . . . suppletive forms of participles in absolute constructions’; similarly Luraghi (). On the typology of absolute participial constructions, and their relation to converbal constructions, see e.g. Haspelmath (: §., pp. –) and Nedjalkov (: §).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

In terms of c-structure, an absolute participial clause is not, as in the case of adnominal and converbal participial clauses, a verbal phrase (PtcP), since the subject argument is also a constituent within the absolute clause. The absolute clause is therefore an S, dominating a PtcP and a subject NP; as a clausal adjunct the absolute S is an optional daughter of the matrix S.18 The phrase-structure rule that licenses the locative absolute clause is given in (4.33); the c-structure for the first sentence of (4.31) above is given in (4.34). ⎛ ⎞ (4.33) S ⎜ ⎟ ⎜↓∈ (↑ adj) ⎟ ⎟ ... S → ... ⎜ ⎜(↓case) = locative ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ (↓vform) = participle (4.34) C-structure for ‘gos.u duhyam¯an¯asu gatah.’ ((4.31) above) S

S ↓∈(↑adj)

VP ↑=↓

NP (↑subj)=↓

PtcP ↑=↓

V ↑=↓

N ↑=↓

Ptc ↑=↓

gatah.

gos.u

duhyam¯an¯asu

Absolute participial constructions are found in many old Indo-European languages, and have been widely studied.19 Whether the absolute use of participles can be reconstructed directly to the proto-language is uncertain, since they are rarer and semantically more restricted in the oldest attested stages of many Indo-European languages. This is true also in Sanskrit. In Classical Sanskrit both locative and genitive absolutes are well attested, but in the Rigveda only the locative absolute occurs, and that rarely and apparently in an early stage of development; this is why I exemplified 18 The same analysis is provided by Haug and Nikitina () and Nikitina and Haug () for the equivalent absolute construction, and the closely related ‘dominant participle’ construction, in Latin. 19 See esp. the monographs by Keydana (), Maiocco (), and Ruppel (a). On the difficulties of analysing absolute constructions, see Sluiter ().

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.4 Absolute participles



the locative absolute above with an example not from the Rigveda but from Classical Sanskrit.20 From an Indo-Iranian perspective it is perhaps accidental that no absolute constructions are found in Old Avestan; an impersonal locative absolute construction is attested in Younger Avestan. The development of absolute constructions has been the subject of much debate, and here the evidence of the Rigveda is highly important since, as stated, the locative absolute seems to be in an early stage of development in this period. Although in syntactic and semantic terms the absolute use has more in common with the converbal than adnominal use, it is widely agreed that the absolute construction originated in an adnominal construction.21 Given the rarity, discussed above, of converbal participles modifying adjuncts, both cross-linguistically and in early Indo-European languages like Rigvedic Sanskrit, it is unlikely that the absolute construction could have evolved from a converbal use of participles agreeing with locative adjuncts. However, the precise mechanism of reanalysis from adnominal to absolute construction remains a matter of debate. In phrase-structural terms, the development is relatively trivial: a NP adjunct with a PtcP dependent is reanalysed such that the dependent becomes the head, and the original head becomes a dependent, as shown in (4.35). S ↓∈(↑adj)

NP ↓∈(↑adj)

(4.35)

N ↑=↓

PtcP ↓∈(↑adj) Ptc ↑=↓

⇒

NP (↑subj)=↓

PtcP ↑=↓

N ↑=↓

Ptc ↑=↓

In functional terms, the development involves a reanalysis from an adnominal structure, as in (4.5), into the clausal adjunct structure seen in (4.32). The most significant change in this respect is the reanalysis of the participial pred as the head of the clausal adjunct in place of the nominal pred, and the relegation, as it were, of the nominal pred to the role of subj within the participial f-structure, via their semantic identity. The reanalysis is likely to have originated in time expressions that make reference to natural phenomena, such as the rising and setting of the sun, or the coming of

20 The development of the Sanskrit genitive absolute, which is entirely absent from the Rigveda, has been discussed by Ruppel (b). 21 This is the analysis e.g. of Keydana (: ff.), Ziegler (), Ruppel (a), and Nikitina and Haug ().

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

the dawn. Such expressions are the most common type of absolute, or proto-absolute, found in the Rigveda (Ruppel 2012a: 127–71). The following Rigvedic passage is quoted by Ruppel (2012a) as an early example of an unambiguous locative absolute in Sanskrit: (4.36) yád adyá su¯´ rya udyatí/ príyaks.atr¯a r.tám . because today sun.l go_up.prs.ptc.l.sg.m of_dear_rule.n.pl.m truth.a dadhá established.2pl ‘Since today when the sun was going up/ you of dear rule established truth.’ (RV 8.27.19ab) The locative phrase su¯´rya udyatí clearly functions as a temporal adjunct, fixing the time of the action of the matrix verb to the rising of the sun, and in combination with the other temporal adjunct adyá, fixing the time to the sun’s rising ‘today’. This is not, however, as unambiguous a locative absolute as Ruppel assumes. In the Rigveda the locative case is used to express both physical and temporal location; the latter may derive ultimately from the former by metaphorical extension, but in synchronic terms both are fully established and productive uses of the locative. The second half of verse 8.27.19, for example, contains locative singular forms of the nouns nimrúc‘setting’, prabúdh- ‘awakening’, and madhyám . dina- ‘midday’, referring to the temporal locations ‘time of the (sun’s) setting’, ‘time of (people’s) awakening’, and ‘time of midday’. Similarly a noun like us.ás- ‘dawn’ can be used in the locative (us.ási) to locate an event ‘at the time of the dawn’. This temporal use of the locative is most appropriate with nouns that refer to something relatively transitory. So the dawn, or the midday, are of relatively short extent, and it is therefore conceptually unproblematic to refer to an event as happening ‘at’ dawn, or ‘at’ midday. With nouns that refer to more permanent entities, this is more difficult but not impossible. So the locative of su¯´ rya‘sun’, without any modification, would literally mean ‘at the time of the sun’, which can be interpreted as referring to a period of daytime. In comparison with the dawn or midday, daytime is relatively long, so it specifies a somewhat broader temporal location for an event than nouns like ‘dawn’. Natural phenomena like the sun and the dawn (and e.g. storms) are changing, nonstatic phenomena. So the sun as it rises appears different, and in a different location, from the sun at its height, and the sun as it sets appears different again. This licenses a possible ambiguity for such nouns between unique reference and more generic reference. So there is one sun, or at least one sun every day, but it is also possible to conceive and speak of ‘the rising sun’, the ‘risen sun’, and ‘the setting sun’ as having distinct referents. In this way a phrase like su¯´rya udyatí in (4.36) can be interpreted as a noun phrase with an adnominal participial adjunct, meaning ‘at the time of the rising sun’, where ‘rising’ is interpreted restrictively, specifying the particular (manifestation

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.4 Absolute participles



of the) sun being referred to.22 Since the period of the sun’s rising is relatively short, this permits a more specific temporal reference than is possible simply with the noun ‘sun’. In a similar way, the locative phrase in (4.37) can be interpreted as a noun phrase containing an adnominal participial adjunct that restricts the reference of the noun ‘dawn’ to that (manifestation/portion of the) dawn where light first breaks. (4.37) ta¯´ v¯am adyá ta¯´v aparám ./ dct.a.du you.du today dct.a.du now huvemochánty¯am us.ási call.opt.1pl=light_up.prs.ptc.l.sg.f dawn.l ‘You two indeed, you two we would call upon now today at the dawn as it breaks.’ (RV 1.184.1ab) Restrictive adnominal constructions such as these must be the locus for the reanalysis of the nominal phrase as a locative absolute. Since ‘the sun’ is at least somewhat ambiguous between unique and generic reference, a noun phrase like su¯´rya udyatí can be interpreted in two ways: as referring to the rising sun in distinction from the risen or setting sun, or as referring to the one and only sun during the period in which it rises. The latter interpretation, where the sun is conceived as a unique and unitary entity, requires that the participle is head of the phrase and the noun its subject, i.e. a locative absolute proper. The locative phrase in (4.36), then, is necessarily ambiguous since it is the very type of phrase that must have been reanalysed in the creation of the locative absolute.23 Ambiguous in a slightly different way are locative phrases like the one in (4.38): since a ‘sacrifice’ is something with both a particular physical and temporal location (i.e. it happens in a particular place, at a particular time), it is possible to interpret the phrase prayatí yajñé either as a locatival noun phrase expressing physical and temporal location with a non-restrictive participial adjunct (translation a below) or as a locative absolute expressing temporal location with reference to a particular point in the sacrifice (translation b below).

22 The more common phrase su ¯´rye údite ‘when the sun has/had arisen’ probably had a similar original meaning, i.e. ‘at the time of the (just) risen sun’. 23 The development proposed here shares some similarities with, but also differs significantly from, the development proposed by Ruppel (a). Ruppel (a) assumes that the noun ‘sun’ cannot have any inherent temporal locational reference, but I see no reason why it should not. Ruppel’s analysis of the locative absolute is based on the assumption that it is a fundamentally nominal construction, i.e. that the noun is the head, and that any possibility that the head noun alone may bear temporal or locational meaning implies that there is no reason to assume a locative absolute proper. Under the analysis proposed here, on the other hand, there is a clear syntactic difference between an adnominal construction and an absolute construction, and there is no reason to think that the absolute construction was blocked in cases where the noun concerned could conceivably have temporal or locational meaning. The key difference is whether the noun or the participle is head of the adjunct, and not whether the noun was able to stand alone as a locative adjunct without modification.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

(4.38) yád adyá tv¯a prayatí yajñé asmín/ because today you.a go_forth.prs.ptc.act.l.sg.nt sacrifice.l this.l hótaś cikitvó ’vr.n.¯ımah¯ıhá priest.v perceive.pf.ptc.act.v.sg.m chose.1pl=here a. ‘Because we chose you, O perceptive priest, here today at this sacrifice which was then underway.’ b. ‘Because we chose you, O perceptive priest, here today as this sacrifice was beginning.’ (RV 3.29.16ab) Unambiguous examples of the locative absolute are harder to find in the Rigveda, but there are a few.24 Once phrases such as that in (4.36) had been reanalysed, the construction could be extended to nouns for which a specific temporal or physical locality is inappropriate and that necessarily have unique reference. In (4.39) we have one of the best examples of a genuine locative absolute in the Rigveda, since the PN Daurgaha cannot be interpreted either as the head of a locatival adjunct expressing physical or temporal location or as having generic reference. Likewise in (4.40) the locative noun dh¯ıs.ú ‘thoughts’ cannot possibly head an adjunct expressing temporal or physical location, since thoughts are not easily associated with either. (4.39) asma¯´kam átra pitáras tá a¯ san/ saptá ´r.s.ayo daurgahé our here fathers.n they were seven seers Daurgaha.l badhyám¯ane bind.ps.prs.ptc.l.sg.m ‘Our fathers were here, the seven seers, when Daurgaha was bound (for the sacrifice).’ (RV 4.42.8ab) (4.40) índr¯a-varun.a nu¯´ nú v¯am sís.a¯sant¯ıs.u dh¯ısv ./ Indra-Varun.a.v now now you.a.du win.des.prs.ptc.l.pl.f thoughts.l a¯´/ asmábhyam . śárma yachatam prv us.d shelter.a extend.imp.2du ‘O Indra-Varun.a, right now as our poetic thought seeks to win you, extend to us shelter.’ (RV 1.17.8) In the case of ambiguous locative phrases, such as those in (4.36), (4.37), and (4.38), we cannot establish for certain whether a nominal or participial adjunct analysis is correct. For example, if we were to interpret (4.38) as containing a nominal locative adjunct, it would have the f-structure given in (4.41), whereas with a locative absolute it would have the f-structure given in (4.42). An unambiguous locative absolute such as that in (4.40) would of course have the analysis in (4.43).

24

The following two examples are not mentioned by Ruppel (a).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.4 Absolute participles



(4.41) RV 3.29.16ab ((4.38), translation a) compform ‘because’ ‘choose〈subj, obj〉’ pred

subj

pred

‘pro’

obj

pred

‘you’

pred

‘today’

pred

‘here’

pred

‘priest’

adj pred adj

spec

adj

pred

‘perceptive’

‘sacrifice’ pred

‘this’

pred tense vform subj rel-topic

‘go_forth〈subj〉’ present participle pred ‘pro’ case loc

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

(4.42) RV 3.29.16ab ((4.38), translation b) ⎤ ⎡ compform ‘because’ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢pred ‘choose〈 subj,obj〉 ’ ⎥ ⎢

 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢subj pred ‘pro’ ⎥ ⎢

 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢obj pred ‘you’ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎫ ⎧

 ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ pred ‘today’ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢

 ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ pred ‘here’ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎡ ⎤ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪⎢pred ‘priest’ ⎥ ⎢  ⎪ ⎪ ⎥

 ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎣ ⎦ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ adj pred ‘perceptive’ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎬⎥ ⎨ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢adj ⎡ ⎤ ⎥ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ pred ‘go_forth〈 subj〉 ’ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪⎢tense present ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪⎢vform participle ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎡ ⎤ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ pred ‘sacrifice’ ⎪ ⎪ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪

 ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎣ ⎦⎦⎪⎥ ⎣subj ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎦ ⎣ ⎪ spec pred ‘this’ ⎪ ⎭ ⎩ (4.43) RV 1.17.8 ((4.40) above) ⎡ ⎤ pred ‘extend〈 subj,obj,obl〉 ’ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢vform imperative ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

 ⎢ ⎥ ⎢subj ⎥ pred ‘pro’ ⎢ ⎥

 ⎢ ⎥ ⎢obj ⎥ pred ‘shelter’ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥

 ⎢ ⎥ pred ‘us’ ⎢obl ⎥ ⎢ ⎫⎥ ⎧

 ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ pred ‘Indra-Varun a’ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ . ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪

 ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ pred ‘right now’ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎡ ⎤⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ pred ‘win〈 subj,obj〉 ’ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎨⎢stem ⎥⎬⎥ desiderative ⎢ ⎢ ⎥ ⎥ ⎢adj ⎢tense present ⎥⎪⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ vform participle ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪

 ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎢subj ⎥⎪ ⎪ ⎪ pred ‘thoughts’ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪ ⎪ ⎢ ⎥ ⎪⎣

 ⎪ ⎪ ⎦⎪ ⎣ ⎦ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎭ ⎩ obj pred ‘you’

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.5 Complementary participles



It is not inconceivable that both constructions might have existed alongside one another after the development of the locative absolute. However, the potential ambiguity caused by this, particularly with examples such as (4.38), means that there is likely to have been pressure towards blocking the nominal interpretation of such locatival adjuncts. Although, then, it is possible to see the origins of the locative absolute construction in the Rigvedic data, it cannot be ruled out that we should interpret all examples of ‘possible’ or ‘proto-’ absolute constructions as genuine locative absolutes on a synchronic level.

. Complementary participles Another way in which participial phrases can be employed, beside adnominal and converbal uses, is as clausal complements within verb phrases, which I refer to as the ‘complementary’ use of participles. Although in some respects a unified phenomenon, two main types of complementation may be distinguished, ‘completive’ and ‘periphrastic’, depending on the type of matrix verb involved; these will be discussed in turn. .. Completive participles I use the term ‘completive’ for participles that function as complements to verbs. In the Rigveda this is highly restricted, to one or two verbs of perception; as with the absolute use of participles, this construction is found much more widely in the Classical language, but it is nonetheless a fully distinct construction even in the Rigveda. It √ is most clearly, and almost exclusively, attested with the verb man ‘think’, in two different configurations. In the first the participle appears in the nominative, heading an open complement of the matrix verb and functionally controlled by the subject of the matrix verb. The following three examples are among the best examples in the Rigveda.25 (4.44) yéna tokásya tánayasya s¯ataú/ mam . s¯ımáhi who.i offspring.g familial.g obtaining.l think.opt.1pl jig¯ıva¯´m tvót¯ah. . sas conquer.pf.ptc.n.pl your_help_having ‘With whom, having your help, we would consider ourselves to have conquered in the obtaining of our own offspring.’ (RV 6.19.7cd) (4.45) sómam manyate papiva¯´n Soma.a thinks drink.pf.ptc.act.n.sg.m ‘He thinks (that) he has drunk Soma.’ (RV 10.85.3a)

25

These were already noted by Delbrück (: ).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

(4.46) páśyan manye mánas¯a cáks.as¯a ta¯´n/ yá imám . see.prs.ptc.n.sg.m think.1sg mind.i eye.i those.a who this.a yajñám áyajanta pu¯´ rve sacrifice.a sacrificed ancient.pl ‘I think that I see with mind and eye those ancient ones who made this sacrifice.’ (RV 10.130.6cd) In f-structure terms, such participles head an open complement xcomp. As a complement, the xcomp is subcategorized for by the matrix verb. The f-structure for (4.45) is provided in (4.47); as an open complement, the subject of the participle is functionally controlled by the subject of the matrix clause. (4.47) RV 10.85.3a ((4.45) above) pred ‘think〈subj, xcomp〉’

subj

xcomp

pred case pers num gend

‘pro’ nom 3 sg masc

pred tense vform subj

‘drink〈subj,obj〉’ perfect participle

obj

pred

‘Soma’

As a verbal complement, the PtcP in this construction is an optional daughter of the matrix VP, as in the phrase-structure rule in (4.48). The participle’s subject is identified with the matrix subject by the f-description (↑ subj) = (↓ subj). ⎛ ⎞ (4.48) PctP ⎜ ⎟ VP → . . . ⎝(↑ xcomp) = ↓ ⎠ ... (↑ subj) = (↓ subj) √ The same verb man ‘think’ can also select for a subj, obj and participial xcomp, in which case the participle’s subject position is controlled by the matrix object; this is shown in (4.49). The f-structural and c-structural analyses ((4.50), (4.51)) are very similar to those of the subject control construction. (4.49) sád íd dhí te . . . mánye sáhah. exist.prs.ptc.a.sg.nt indeed for you.g . . . think.1sg power.a ‘For I consider your power (to be) truly existent.’ (RV 6.18.4a)

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.5 Complementary participles



(4.50) RV 6.18.4a ((4.49) above) pred ‘think〈subj, xcomp〉obj’

subj

obj

xcomp

(4.51) VP

pred pers num

‘pro’ 1 sg

pred case num gend

‘power’ acc sg nt

adj

pred

‘your’

pred tense vform subj

‘exist〈subj〉’ present participle

⎛ ⎞ PctP ⎜ ⎟ → . . . ⎝(↑ xcomp) = ↓ ⎠ . . . (↑ obj) = (↓ subj)

There is no evidence that the matrix verb imposes semantic restrictions on the object argument, so I treat this as a ‘raising’ construction, although a non-raising √ analysis is equally possible. Besides man ‘think’, the evidence for other verbs taking participial clausal complements in the Rigveda is less certain. The most probable √ examples are all, like man, verbs of perception.26 In (4.52) the participial phrase √ can be interpreted as a complement of the matrix verb dr.ś ‘see’, with its subject functionally controlled by the matrix object; the same may be the case with the √ participial phrase in (4.53) in relation to the matrix verb caks. ‘look at’. (4.52) arun.ó m¯a sakŕ.d vŕ.kah./ patha¯´ yántam dadárśa hí . tawny me.a suddenly wolf path.i go.prs.ptc.a.sg.m saw for ‘For a tawny wolf suddenly saw me going along the path.’ (RV 1.105.18ab) (4.53) par¯ayat¯´ı m m¯atáram ánv acas..ta go_past.prs.ptc.a.sg.f mother.a at looked ‘He looked at his mother going past.’ (RV 4.18.3a)

26

Cf. Delbrück (: –).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

√ In contrast to the unambiguous examples with man, however, it is possible to interpret the participial phrases in both these cases as instances of converbal use. So (4.52) might be equally well interpreted ‘a tawny wolf saw me as I was going along the path’, and (4.53) as ‘he saw his mother as she was going past’. Given the lack of unambiguous examples of participial complements to verbs of seeing, it may therefore be best to assume that these are not complement constructions. Despite its highly restricted distribution, the completive use of participles is notably reminiscent of participial complementation with verbs of perception in other IndoEuropean languages. The construction with object agreement is found in a number of languages, including Hittite, Vedic Sanskrit, Avestan, Greek, Latin, and Old Saxon. On this basis Lühr (2008) argues that this construction, which she calls ‘accusativus-cumparticipio’, can be reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European. The restriction to verbs of cognition, specifically ‘thinking’, in Rigvedic Sanskrit may represent the original locus of the construction: a unique feature of participial complements in comparison with other non-finite complementation strategies, in particular infinitive complements, is that they can express tense-aspect distinctions. Physical perception—sight, hearing, etc.—is most commonly restricted to a present state of affairs, while cognitive processes such as though, realization, inference, etc. are not so restricted. That is, one generally physically sees that something is the case, not that something has been or will be the case, while it is as natural to think that something has been or will be as to think that something is the case.27 The development of participial complementation would have had most expressive potential, then, with verbs of cognition. For the Rigveda, it is not clear that the construction had necessarily developed beyond verbs of this sort. Both nominative and accusative complement constructions are also found with adjectival complements: the accusative construction is seen in (4.54), while the nominative appears in (5.14). Lühr (2008) treats adjectival complements in such constructions as underlyingly participial, arguing that a copular participle must be implied. This would require us to assume the f-structure in (4.55) for the sentence in (4.54). (4.54) ádh¯a manye br.hád asuryàm asya therefore think.1sg great.a divine_power.a his ‘I therefore consider his divine power (to be) great.’ (RV 6.30.2a)

27 Indeed, when we say in English e.g. I see that Henry was here, or I see that you will go far, the verb see is not being used in the sense of pure physical perception; rather, it refers to a cognitive process of inference—usually based on physical perception, but not necessarily—and a cognitive process in any case.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.5 Complementary participles



(4.55) RV 6.30.2a ((4.54)), null participial copular analysis: compform ‘therefore’ ‘think〈subj, xcomp〉obj’ pred

subj obj

pred

‘pro’

pred

‘divine power’

adj

pred

pred subj

‘null-be〈xcomp〉subj’

xcomp

pred xcomp

subj

‘his’

‘great〈subj〉’ pred

However the null copular in Sanskrit is usually restricted to the present indicative (as the ‘unmarked’ form of the verb). Moreover, a copular participle construction would not be equivalent to the construction seen in the examples above, because the √ copula verb  as ‘be’ does not make tense-aspect distinctions in the participle, having only a present participle. There is no reason to assume that the participial construction is the only possible construction here, and that an accusative-infinitive, for example, or a simple double accusative, was impossible. An analysis such as that in (4.55) is an unnecessarily complex treatment of what is actually a relatively uncomplicated sentence. A preferable analysis is to take the adjective simply as the main predicate of the complement clause, as in (4.56).28

28 There are a number of possibilities for formalizing null-copula clauses in LFG (cf. Rosén ). Following Dalrymple, Dyvik, and King (), Falk (), Nordlinger and Sadler (), and Laczkó (), I assume that different f-structural analyses may be valid for different constructions, even within the same language, depending on the syntactic properties of the construction concerned. This contrasts with the uniform approach to such clauses assumed by Butt et al. (), Attia (), Sulger (), and Dione (). I assume the ‘single-tier’ analysis here, as being the most economical and representationally simple, but cf. fn. . The technicalities of subject selection by nouns and other non-verbal elements in null-copula clauses, as seen in the subject selection by the adjective br.hánt- ‘great’ in (.) and (.), is treated in Lowe (b).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

(4.56) RV 6.30.2a ((4.54)), adjective as predicate analysis compform ‘therefore’ pred ‘think〈subj, xcomp〉obj’

subj obj

xcomp

pred

‘pro’

pred

‘divine power’

adj pred subj

pred

‘his’

‘great 〈subj〉’

On this analysis, adjectival complementation is syntactically identical to the participial complementation seen in the examples above, the only difference being the lack of explicit tense-aspect marking in the former. Complementation can therefore be considered a feature of adjectival syntax in general, and not a feature specific to participial syntax, at least in origin. The diachronic evolution of participial complementation can be modelled neatly in LFG. Taking example (4.53), which as discussed is syntactically and semantically ambiguous, we can trace a path from a verbal construction without clausal complementation to a raising construction. (4.57)

Diachrony of complementation Stage 1: ‘look at〈 subj,obj〉 ’ with participial xadj Stage 2: ‘look at〈 subj,obj,xcomp〉 ’ Stage 3: ‘look at〈 subj,xcomp〉 obj’

In stage 1 the participial clause is an open clausal adjunct in agreement with the object of the matrix verb, corresponding to the meaning ‘he looked at his mother as she was going past’ for (4.53). In stage 2 the participial clause is reanalysed as an obligatory component of the clause, selected by the matrix verb. Stage 3 involves the loss of semantic government by the matrix verb of its object argument, although it still governs it syntactically; we therefore have raising. Stages 2 and 3 roughly represent the English translation ‘he saw the mother going past’, i.e. ‘what he saw was the mother going past’. As discussed, in the case of verbs of seeing it is not certain that there has been any development beyond stage one in the Rigvedic language, but in the case of √ man ‘think’ (and perhaps other less common verbs of thinking) we are dealing with either stage 2 or stage 3. F-structures corresponding to these three stages are provided in (4.58), (4.59), and (4.60).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.5 Complementary participles



(4.58) RV 4.18.3a ((4.53)): diachronic development stage 1

pred

‘look at〈subj, obj〉’

subj

pred

‘pro’

obj

pred

‘mother’

xadj

pred tense vform subj

‘go past〈subj〉’ present participle

(4.59) RV 4.18.3a ((4.53)): diachronic development stage 2

pred

‘look at〈subj,obj,xcomp〉’

subj

pred

‘pro’

obj

pred

‘mother’

xcomp

pred tense vform subj

‘go past 〈subj〉’ present participle

(4.60) RV 4.18.3a ((4.53)): diachronic development stage 3

pred

‘look at〈subj,xcomp〉obj’

subj

pred

‘pro’

obj

pred

‘mother’

xcomp

pred tense vform subj

‘go past 〈subj〉’ present participle

In principle a fourth stage in this process could be envisaged, in which the matrix verb loses syntactic control over its object argument, with the result that it ceases to be an argument in the matrix clause. However, participial complementation never develops to this stage in the history of Sanskrit: the case of the participle clause’s subject is always determined by the object case of the matrix verb, showing that it remains an object despite losing its semantic relation with the matrix verb. (4.61) Diachrony of complementation, stage 4: ‘look at〈 subj,comp〉 ’

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

In diachronic terms then, the development of this type of complementation involves the integration of a participial clause with the matrix verb such that it becomes an obligatory argument of the matrix predicate, and the converse dissociation of the object argument from the matrix verb. This latter development partially parallels the dissociation of the locative noun from the matrix clause in the development of the locative absolute. .. Periphrasis The second type of complementary functionality is ‘periphrasis’. A similar diachronic development to that seen with complementary participles underlies the evolution of periphrasis involving participial verb forms. In Sanskrit, periphrastic verbal forms involving participles developed unambiguously only after the Rigvedic period. In Classical Sanskrit, for example, present participles can occur with certain finite verbs to form a periphrastic present progressive tense.29 In the following passage, from the Hitopadeśa (late 1st millenium ad), a form that morphologically belongs to the verb √ a¯ s ‘sit’ is used as an auxiliary with a present participle to express continuing iteration of the eventuality expressed by the participle. (4.62) sa ca paś¯un¯am vidadh¯ana . vadham . he and animals.g slaughter.a distribute.prs.ptc.med.n.sg.m ev¯aste indeed=aux.prs.3sg ‘And he [the lion Durd¯anta] is (continually) meting out slaughter to the animals.’ (Hitopadeśa 2, 13.19) It is unclear to what extent such a construction may have developed already in the Rigveda. In a number of passages it is possible to interpret a sequence of finite verb and participle in such a way, that is essentially without the lexical meaning of the finite verb and with the lexical meaning of the participle as the main predicate; but in all instances it is equally possible to read the full semantic force of the finite verb.30 The following passage is typical. 29 On the periphrastic constructions found in Classical Sanskrit, see Whitney (: §§–,  √i ‘go’; also pp. –). √ The verb most frequently used √ as an auxiliary in the high Classical period is √ common √ is car√‘move’. At a later stage sth¯a ‘stand’ becomes the most common auxiliary. Forms of as ‘be’, a¯ s ‘sit’, or bh¯u ‘become’ can also serve as auxiliaries with present, perfect, and future participles. 30 Delbrück (: §, pp. –) discussed several possible examples in the Rigveda, accepting a few, mainly late, instances but generally playing down the frequency of this formation in the early language. Knobl (: –) briefly discusses the varying views of Geldner and Renou on the extent of this construction in the Rigveda but does not reveal his own opinion. The construction is accepted by Dahl (forthcoming: §..), who quotes examples from the Rigveda, including .., .., .., and ... All the passages quoted by Dahl, however, are parallel to those quoted in this section: they could be interpreted as periphrasis, but need not be.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.5 Complementary participles



(4.63) pávam¯anah. sam kr.n.vánn/ índr¯aya . taním es.i Pavam¯ana melody.a go/aux.prs.2sg make.prs.ptc.act.n.sg.m Indra.d soma pari-s.icyám¯anah. Soma.v around-be_poured.prs.ptc.n.sg.m ‘As Pavam¯ana you go (on?) making melody, when you are poured around, O Soma, for Indra.’ (RV 9.97.14cd) This verse could be interpreted to mean that Soma moves and makes melody when he is poured around, or it could mean that he goes on making melody as he is poured around. Unlike the Classical Sanskrit example (4.62), although we can interpret the finite verb in an auxiliary-like manner, with weakened sense, it is equally possible to read the full force of the finite verb. The same pattern appears with all alleged and possible examples of the construction in the Rigveda, such as those in (4.64), (4.65), and (4.66): (4.64) yásy¯a anantó áhrutas/ tves.áś caris.n.úr arn.aváh./ ámaś cárati whose endless unbroken mighty moving wavy force goes/aux.3sg róruvat roar.prs.ptc.n.sg.m ‘(Sarasvat¯ı) whose endless unbroken mighty moving wavy force goes (on?) roaring.’ (RV 6.61.8) s¯urír (4.65) sá devát¯a vasuvánim dadh¯ati/ yám . . he among_the_gods wealth_winner.a makes whom patron arth¯´ı pr.chám¯ana éti request_having ask.prs.ptc.n.sg.m goes/aux.3sg ‘He makes (him) a winner of riches among the gods, he whom the patron with his request goes (to/on?) asking.’ (RV 7.1.23cd) (4.66) víśv¯any anyó bhúvan¯a jaja¯´na/ víśvam anyó abhicáks.a¯n.a all.a other beings.a produced all.a other observe.prs.ptc.n.sg.m eti goes/aux.3sg ‘One has produced all beings, the other goes (about/on) observing everything.’ (RV 2.40.5ab) In all these examples the sense of movement is not excluded, though it is not √ absolutely necessary in any. Since it is these two verbs of movement,  i ‘go’ and √ car ‘move’, that are the most frequent auxiliaries in Classical Sanskrit, it is here that we would expect to see evidence of burgeoning auxiliary status in the Rigveda. Although it certainly cannot be ruled out in examples like (4.66), there is no positive evidence: we do not find constructions used with subjects for which, or in contexts

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

where, physical movement is excluded. There are fewer possible examples with the √ √ √ √ other roots that later develop auxiliary status ( a¯ s ‘sit’, sth¯a ‘stand’,  as ‘be’, bh¯u ‘become’); perhaps the best example is the following: (4.67) praja¯´bhyah. pus..tím vibhájanta a¯sate . children.d prosperity.a distribute.prs.pts.n.pl.m sit/aux.3pl ‘They (the priests) sit/keep on distributing provisions to the children.’ (RV 2.13.4a) √ Although here the finite verb a¯ sate, 3pl. present of a¯ s ‘sit’, might be interpretable as an auxiliary, the subject of the verb is, significantly, the priests, who are frequently characterized as sitting during the rites. The full force of the finite verb is therefore not inappropriate here, and there is no necessity to assume a periphrastic construction.31 There are therefore no clear examples in the Rigveda where the finite verb cannot be given its full semantics and must be interpreted as an auxiliary. Nevertheless, the √ √ frequent use of present participles with the verbs of motion  i ‘go’ and car ‘move’ in contexts where the expression of movement is not distinctly more prominent than the eventuality expressed by the participle may suggest the beginnings of the periphrastic present progressive in Sanskrit. The f-structural representation of periphrastic formations, particularly in English, has been the subject of considerable debate in LFG. It is possible to treat auxiliaries either as control/raising verbs, selecting a non-finite clausal complement, or as ‘feature carriers’: as words that contribute information about tense, aspect, modality, etc. to the f-structure but do not contribute a pred value. The former analysis results in a ‘multiclausal’ f-structure, the latter in a ‘monoclausal’ f-structure. For example, if we were to treat the periphrastic verbal complex in (4.62) under the multiclausal analysis, its f-structure would be as in (4.68), whereas under the monoclausal analysis it would be as in (4.69). In the former, the finite verb contributes the primary pred value for the clause, and selects a participial complement, whereas in the latter the primary pred value for the clause corresponds to the lexical meaning of the participle, and the fact that a periphrastic verb form is involved is reflected only in the specific aspectual properties that appear in the clause’s f-structure.32

31 The same finite verb, with the same subject, appears at .., where Dahl (forthcoming) assumes periphrasis. 32 The monoclausal analysis corresponds to the treatment of auxiliaries in Chomsky (: ).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.5 Complementary participles



(4.68) Hitopadeśa 2, 13.19 ((4.62)), multiclausal analysis

compform pred tense

‘and’ ‘sit〈xcomp〉subj’ present

subj

pred

‘he’ ‘distribute〈subj,obj,obldat〉’ present participle

xcomp

pred tense vform subj obj

pred

‘slaughter’

obldat

pred

‘animals’

pred

‘always

pred

‘indeed’

adj

(4.69) Hitopadeśa 2, 13.19 ((4.62)), monoclausal analysis ⎤ ⎡ compform ‘and’ ⎥ ⎢ ⎢pred ‘distribute〈 subj,obj,obldat 〉 ’⎥ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢tense present ⎥ ⎢   ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ progressive + ⎥ ⎢aspect ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ iterative + ⎥ ⎢

 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢subj pred ‘he’ ⎥ ⎢

 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢obj pred ‘slaughter’ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢

 ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢obldat pred ‘animals’ ⎥ ⎢ ⎧

⎥ ⎢ ⎫ ⎥ ⎢ ⎪ ⎪ ⎨ pred ‘always’ ⎬ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢adj

 ⎦ ⎣ ⎪ ⎩ pred ‘indeed’ ⎪ ⎭ A multiclausal treatment of English auxiliaries was first proposed by Falk (1984); in contrast, Butt et al. (1996) argue for a monoclausal analysis.33 Falk (2003) shows that the English auxiliary system in fact displays both monoclausal and multiclausal constructions, depending on the auxiliary concerned. The semantic unity of a periphrastic 33 Cf. also e.g. Dyvik () and Hertzenberg () on the representation of auxiliaries and periphrasis in LFG.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

verb form does not require a monoclausal representation at f-structure, but nor does the fact that multiple verb forms are involved in a single periphrastic complex require a multiclausal representation.34 The monoclausal or multiclausal status of a particular periphrastic construction partly reflects the degree of grammaticalization of the auxiliaries involved. As in English, it may be that in Classical Sanskrit different auxiliaries are grammaticalized to different extents and require different analysis. As for the Rigvedic data, there is certainly no evidence for the development of a monoclausal construction, and it is questionable to what extent a full-blown multiclausal construction has developed. We may, however, see a certain degree of grammaticalization towards multiclausal periphrasis. All possible examples or periphrasis in the Rigveda can be treated as involving simple converbal participles, contributing a predication alongside that of the lexical meaning of the finite verb. The possibility that we see the beginnings of √ √ periphrasis in the common occurrence of participles with the verbs  i ‘go’ and car ‘move’ where the sense of movement is weak or diminished can be modelled, however, in parallel manner to the development of complementation discussed above.35 As stated, a Rigvedic example such as (4.63) can be analysed as in (4.70), with a simple converbal participial clause. Between that and a multiclausal periphrastic construction, however, we might expect the structure in (4.71), in which the participial clause is selected by the matrix verb, but the persistence of the matrix verb’s lexical meaning is reflected in its semantic government of its subject argument (represented by the appearance of subj inside the angled brackets in the verb’s pred value, rather than outside, as in (4.68). (4.70) RV 9.97.14c (from (4.63)), converbal participle analysis

pred

‘go〈subj〉’

subj

pred pers num

xadj

‘Pavamāna’ 2 sg

pred tense vform subj

‘make〈subj,obj〉’ present participle

obj

pred

‘melody’

34 A monoclausal analysis of periphrasis has a natural correlate in the clearly motivated multiclausal analyses of single-word verb forms such as the Japanese causative (Matsumoto, ; : with references). 35 The development of periphrasis has been discussed e.g. by Larsson (), who treats the development of the periphrastic perfect tense in Swedish.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.6 ‘Independent’ participles



(4.71) RV 9.97.14c (from (4.63)), proto-periphrastic analysis

pred subj

xcomp

‘go〈subj,xcomp〉’ pred pers num

‘Pavamāna’ 2 sg

pred tense vform subj

‘make〈subj,obj〉’ present participle

obj

pred

‘melody’

The three stages of development are summarized in (4.72); they are notably similar to the three stage development of complementation suggested in (4.57). A monoclausal construction might represent the fourth stage, in which the grammaticalization of the auxiliary proceeds to the stage where it no longer has any independent selectional properties. (4.72)

Diachrony of periphrasis Stage 1: ‘go〈 subj〉 ’ with participial xadj Stage 2: ‘go〈 subj,xcomp〉 ’ Stage 3: ‘go〈 xcomp〉 subj’

. ‘Independent’ participles A feature of participial syntax that distinguishes participles not only from finite forms of verbs, but in fact from most other categories of word, including adjectives, nouns, and even some other non-finite verbal categories, is that they are not standardly or regularly able to function as the primary predicate in a finite clause. Finite verbs necessarily function as primary predicates in their clauses, of course; it is also regular for nouns and adjectives, and less commonly adverbs and prepositions, to supply the primary predication in a nominal clause. In the following verse, for example, there are five distinct clauses but no finite verb; in each clause, the predicate is a noun phrase (twice ellipsed):

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

(4.73) yó radhrásya codita¯´ yah. kr.śásya/ yó brahmán.o who abject.g encourager who poor.g who brahmin.g na¯´dham¯anasya k¯ıréh./ yuktágr¯avn.o yó avita¯´ be_in_need.prs.ptc.g.sg poet.g yoked-pressing_stones.g who helper suśipráh./ sutásomasya sá jan¯asa índrah. fair-lipped pressed-soma.g he men.v Indra ‘He who (is) the encourager of the abject, who (is the encourager) of the poor, who (is the encourager) of the brahmin poet in need, who (is) the fair-lipped helper of he who has yoked the pressing stones, of he who has pressed Soma: he, O Men, (is) Indra.’ (RV 2.12.6) The restriction against participles appearing as the main predicate in a finite clause is not simply because they are non-finite verb forms. Infinitives, for example, are not infrequently used as the as the main predicate in a clause. Keydana (2013) distinguishes two distinct syntactic employments of infinitives as matrix predicates, one which he analyses as involving a null copula (‘prädikative Infinitive’, here (4.74)) and one in which he analyses the infinitive itself as supplying the clausal pred value (‘Matrixinfinitive’, here (4.75)). (4.74) naís.a¯´ gávy¯utir ápabhartava¯´ u not=this pasture take_away.inf pcl ‘This pasture (is) not to be taken away.’ (RV 10.14.2b) v¯am indr¯agn¯ı a¯ huvádhyai (4.75) ubha¯´ both.a.du you.a.du Indra-Agni.v.du call_on.inf ‘(I) will call on you both, Indra-Agni.’ (RV 6.60.13a) Participles not infrequently appear in verses that lack finite verbs, but in the vast majority of such cases a finite verb can unambiguously be inferred from the context, or it is another element in the clause that functions as the primary predicate. In (4.76), for instance, the preverb a¯´ at the start of the verse stands for the common sequence of a¯´ plus motion verb meaning ‘come’; in (4.77) the adjective ja¯´gr.vi- ‘wakeful’ functions as the primary predication in a nominal sentence, with the participial phrase functioning converbally. (4.76) a¯´ bhándam¯ane us.ás¯a úp¯ake to rejoice.prs.ptc.n.du.f dawn.du nearby ‘Dawn and Night, rejoicing, (come) near to (each other).’ (RV 3.4.6a) (4.77) ya¯´ ja¯´gr.vir vidáthe śaśyám¯an¯a who wakeful ritual.l recite.prs.ps.ptc.n.sg.f ‘Which (is) wakeful when recited at the ritual.’ (RV 3.39.1c)

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.6 ‘Independent’ participles



Participles are therefore a particularly dependent category of verb form, unable, under regular circumstances, to be used independently of another predicate. One merely apparent exception to this is when an adnominal participle is the only expressed element in a noun phrase which functions as the predicate in a nominal sentence. In (4.78) it is the noun phrase within which the participle functions as an adjunct, and not the participle phrase itself, that is the primary predicate. The f-structure for the predicated noun phrase is given in (4.79), entirely parallel to (4.14) above.36 Such constructions are therefore only apparent exceptions: in functional terms it is the null head of the noun phrase, and not the participle, that heads the predicated phrase. The same analysis applies in a number of passages including, for example, the first clause of (4.80). (4.78) anyáh. karta¯´ su-k´r.tor anyá other maker well-doer.g.du other ‘One of the two good-doers (is) the accomplishment.’ (RV 3.31.2d)

r.ndhán accomplish.prs.ptc.act.n.sg.m maker, the other the one who brings to

(4.79) From RV 3.31.2d ((4.78) above) pred ‘pro’

adj

pred vform subj rel-topic

‘accomplish〈subj〉’ participle pred case num

‘pro’ nom sg

(4.80) dhenúh. pratnásya ka¯´myam dúh¯an¯antáh. . milk_cow ancient.g desirable.a produce_milk.stv.ptc.n.sg.f=between putráś carati dáks.in.a¯ y¯ah./ a¯´ dyotaním . vahati śubhráy¯amos.ása son goes Daks.in.a¯.g to light.a conveys of_shining_way=dawn.g stómo aśvín¯av aj¯ıgah. praise_song Aśvin.a.du awoke

36 The clausal f-structure for this example can be obtained on the single-tier analysis of null-copular clauses only on the assumption that a semantic form like ‘pro〈 subj〉 ’ is possible. Otherwise, a double-tier predlink analysis would be required (cf. fn. ).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles ‘The milk-cow (is) the one who yields the desirable (milk) of the ancient one; the son of Daks.in.a¯ goes between (heaven and earth); she whose way is shining (Dawn) conveys the light here; the praise hymn of Dawn has awoken the Aśvins.’ (RV 3.58.1)

Occasionally, this restriction on participles as primary predicates appears to be broken for poetic effect. Stephanie Jamison (p.c.) has observed that the participle in the first p¯ada of (4.81) is used to disclose and emphasize that the speaker is a woman, since participles, and not finite verb forms, mark gender. There is clearly a poetic emphasis on the feminine gender in the first hemistich: every word, except the unspecified ahám ‘I’, either is inherently feminine (the four nouns ‘autumn’, ‘evening’, ‘morning’, and ‘dawn’) or shows unambiguous feminine agreement (the adjective and the two participles).37 We cannot easily infer a finite verb, there is nothing else in the verse that might serve as the primary predication, and it does not seem reasonable to interpret the participle as an adnominal modifier within a null-headed noun phrase; so we must accept this as a genuine exception to the generalization that participles cannot function as primary predicates. (4.81) p¯urv¯´ı r ahám śaśram¯an.a¯´/ dos.a¯´ . śarádah. many.a.f I autumns.a become_tired.pf.ptc.n.sg.f evening.i vástor us.áso jaráyant¯ıh./ mina¯´ti jarima¯´ śríyam . morning.g dawns.a age.prs.ptc.a.pl.f diminishes beauty.a age tanu¯´ n¯am/ ápy u¯ nú pátn¯ır v´r.s.an.o jagamyuh. bodies.g to pcl now wives.a bulls come.opt.3pl ‘Through many autumns I (have been) wearing myself out, through evening, through morning, through the ageing dawns. Age diminishes the beauty of (female) bodies; let the bulls (men) now come to their wives.’ (RV 3.58.1) This is a poetic construction, and not part of the normal functional range of participles. It is impossible to be certain of the full extent of such poetic licence in the Rigveda. In the case of (4.81) there is a clear poetic and discourse-relevant motivation for the use of a participle in place of a finite verb. It is conceivable that the same analysis might apply to the participle in (4.80), but the adnominal analysis certainly works, and there is no clear poetic evidence in favour of the alternative. Other explanations have been proposed for apparently ‘independent’ participial clauses such as those in the first p¯adas of (4.80) and (4.81). Keith (1909) and Renou (1936b: §§60–5, pp. 38–45), among others, have treated such phrases as a result of anacoluthon, which is an alternative poetic rationale from that advanced above, and which may in some instances be valid. Oertel (1926: 39–45) treats participial phrases of this sort as ‘nominative absolutes’, syntactically parallel to locative absolutes but in the 37 On other linguistic features of this and other hymns in the Rigveda that are specifically associated with women’s speech, see Jamison ().

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.6 ‘Independent’ participles



nominative case. Holland (1986: 181) accepts several of Oertel’s examples and compares them with the nominative absolute in Gothic (e.g. Mark 6: 21), proposing ‘nominative absolute participial constructions as the oldest type of absolute construction, in fact, as the only type of absolute construction actually reconstructible to Proto-IndoEuropean . . .’. Yet there is little support for assuming that such a construction existed in Sanskrit. Examples of ‘independent’ participial clauses are relatively rare, most can be treated without problem under one of the analyses discussed above, and in many cases an absolute interpretation is semantically implausible. A subset of apparently ‘independent’ participial phrases can be analysed along lines similar to the locative absolute, however. These involve a participial phrase, usually containing an explicit subject, appearing in the nominative case at the start of a clause, the subject of which is implicitly identified with a non-nominative argument or adjunct in the matrix clause. In (4.82) the nominative participle phrase at the start of the line has the same referent as the genitive te in the main part of the clause. In (4.83) there are two such nominative participle clauses (filling p¯adas a and c) which have the same referent as the pronouns asmát and nah., both ‘us’, in the two main clauses. (4.82) su¯´ ra up¯aké tanvàm ví yát te céty . dádh¯ano/ sun.g near self place.prs.med.ptc out which you.g shines am´r.tasya várpah. immortal.g form ‘Placing yourself near the sun, that form of you, immortal, shines widely.’ (RV 4.16.14ab) (4.83) dhruva¯´su tv¯asú ks.itís.u ks.iyánto/ vy àsmát secure.l these.l dwelling_places.l dwell.prs.ptc.n.pl.m from us.ab áditer pa¯´śam . várun.o mumocat/ ávo vanv¯ana¯´ bond.a Varun.a release.sbj aid.a win.prs.med.ptc.n.pl.m Aditi.g upásth¯ad/ y¯uyám p¯ata svastíbhih. sád¯a nah. lap.ab you.pl protect.imp.2pl prosperity.i always us.a ‘Dwelling in these secure dwelling places, Varun.a will release the bond from us; winning aid from the lap of Aditi, protect ye us always with your prosperity.’ (RV 7.88.7) Keydana (1997), while rejecting the existence of nominative absolutes as proposed by Oertel (1926) and Holland (1986), recognizes a distinct participial construction in examples such as (4.82) and (4.83), which he labels ‘nominativi pendentes’. Locative absolutes, and absolute constructions more generally across old Indo-European languages, are not in principle restricted to first position in the clause, whereas this construction is; moreover, the subjects of absolute participles generally do not have any independent role in the matrix clause, whereas this is the case in the

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

construction seen here. Keydana (1997: 320) treats these ‘nominativi pendentes’ as topicalized phrases which are ‘soweit aus dem Satz herausgehoben, daß sie prinzipiell ihre Kasusmarkierung verliert und im Nullkasus, dem Nominativ steht’ (‘extracted out of the clause to such an extent that they essentially lose their case marking, and appear in the “null” case, the nominative’). In formal terms it is possible to treat such phrases as left-dislocated phrases that serve as topics or as scene-setting devices. Such phrases can be represented at c-structure as specifiers of the exocentric E node, which immediately dominates a left-dislocated phrase and the clausal node S (cf. §2.4). In functional terms, left-dislocated participial phrases are adjuncts, the subjects of which are anaphorically identified with an entity in the main clause. The functional structure for the sentence in (4.82) is given in (4.84); the phrase-structure rule that licenses leftdislocated participial phrases is given in (4.85).38 (4.84) RV 4.16.14ab ((4.82)) pred ‘shine_widely 〈subj〉’

pred

‘form’

spec

pred

‘that’

pred

subj adj

adj case

pred vform adj

‘you’ pred

‘immortal’

gen

‘place〈subj,obj,oblθ 〉’ participle

subj

pred

‘pro’

obj

pred

‘self ’

pred

‘near〈obj〉’

oblθ

obj

pred

‘sun’

38

In descriptive, and partially in formal terms, this construction is similar to the Biblical (and occasionally Classical) Greek construction in which the subject of an initial, scene-setting genitive absolute can function as an argument (usually subject or object) of the main clause. Another similar but distinct construction occurs in Vedic prose (paralleled in Latin and Greek), in which a clause-initial participial (or absolutive) phrase is followed by a resumptive pronoun that picks out the subject of the non-finite phrase and introduces the matrix clause; the construction is discussed by Hock (). This might conceivably continue the Rigvedic construction seen here, or might reflect a separate development.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.7 The participial VP (4.85) E

→

S ↓∈ (↑ adj) (↓ vform) = participle (↓ case) = nom



S ↑=↓

Lubotsky (1989) observed that many present stems in -áya- with zero-grade root are attested only in the participle and in the 3pl. injunctive with ending -anta. Lubotsky argues that the injunctives were created as metrical substitutes for the n.pl.m. form of the participle, which ends in -antah.. Insofar as injunctives are finite verb forms, these can only have been simple metrical substitutes for ‘independent’ participles, i.e. participles used as primary clausal predicates. As we have seen, however, participles are used only very rarely in such a way; it may be preferable to assume that they are not so much simple metrical substitutes as analogical formations created for metrical reasons (though employed very differently from the forms they were based on). In any case, alternative explanations of the 3pl. -áya- injunctives in -anta have been suggested (Jamison 1979a; 1983a), and so we cannot draw any conclusions about the syntactic employment of participles from their (possible) basis for the creation of finite injunctives.

. The participial VP As discussed at the start of this chapter, as verb forms, participles are of category V, and like finite verbs head verb phrases; for convenience, I used the abbreviation PtcP for verb phrases headed by participles. Evidence for the existence of a PtcP parallels that for finite VPs (cf. §2.4 above); for example, PtcPs can appear in the clause-initial topic position, preceding the clitic cluster; so, in (4.86) the participial phrase amr.tatvám . ráks.am¯an.a¯ sah. ‘protecting their immortality’ precedes the second position clitic enam ‘him’. (4.86) amr.tatvám ráks.am¯an.a¯sa enam . . / deva¯´ agním . dh¯arayan immortality.a protect.prs.ptc.n.pl.m him gods Agni.a supported dravin.oda¯´m wealth_giving.a ‘Protecting their immortality, the gods supported him as Agni, giver of wealth.’ (RV 1.96.6cd) The elements of a participial clause, consisting of the participle itself and any nonsubject arguments, are most often contiguous (as can be observed from the vast majority of examples throughout this work), but this is not obligatory: the PtcP may be discontinuous, and in principle any element or elements of the matrix clause may

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

occur between discontinuous parts of a PtcP.39 In (4.87) the (intransitive) main verb intervenes between the participle and its object; in (4.88) the object of the main verb intervenes between the participle and its object, and at the same time the participle itself intervenes between the main verb and its object (the decision as to which object goes with which action can only be determined contextually). The f-structure and cstructure (4.88) are given as (4.89) and Fig. 4.2 respectively. (4.87) pracetáyann ars.ati va¯´cam ém¯am make_perceived.prs.ptc.act.n.sg.m runs voice.a forward=this.a ‘Making this (his) voice perceived, he runs forward.’ (RV 9.97.13d) (4.88) nah¯´ı nv àsya mahima¯´nam indriyám . / svàr for_not now his greatness.a Indric.a sun.a gr.n.ánta a¯ naśúh. praise_sing.prs.ptc.act.n.sg.m obtained ‘For they have not now, (by) praise-singing his Indric greatness, obtained the sun.’ (RV 8.3.13cd) (4.89) RV 8.3.13cd ((4.88)) pred ‘obtain〈subj,obj〉’

subj

pred

‘pro’

obj

pred

‘sun’

pred vform subj

‘praise-sing〈subj,obj〉’ participle pred

xadj obj

‘greatness’ pred

‘his’

pred

‘Indric’

adj

pred

‘not’

pred

‘now’

adj

39 There are no examples of locative absolutes (or proto-absolute constructions) with discontinuous constituents in the Rigveda. This may simply be due to their rarity rather than any specific requirement for continuity, but it is worth noting that absolute phrases are of category S, not PtcP, so are likely subject to different constraints. In Maiocco’s (: –) sample of Classical Sanskrit locative absolutes, a mere . are discontinuous due to interruption by a matrix clause element, and a further . by particles, but he provides no statistics regarding other types of participial clause in Classical Sanskrit against which to compare those figures.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.7 The participial VP



S

CCL ↑=↓

PtcP ↓∈(↑ xadj)

ˆ Adv N ↓∈(↑ adj) ↓∈(↑gf∗ adj)

NP (↑ obj) =↓

AdvP ↓∈(↑ adj)

Adv ↑=↓ nahı¯´

asya

nú

N ↑=↓

AdjP ↓∈(↑ adj)

mahimanam ¯´

Adj ↑=↓

NP PtcP VP (↑ obj) =↓ ↓∈(↑ xadj) ↑=↓ N ↑=↓ svàr

Ptc ↑=↓

V ↑=↓

gr.n.ántah. a¯naśúh.

indriyám

Fig. . C-structure for RV 8.3.13cd (example (4.88))

Discontinuous PtcPs are found with participles in both adnominal and converbal function; more commonly the latter (as in (4.87) and (4.88)), but there are also clear examples of the former. In (4.90), the (genitive case) object of the epithetic participle ra¯´jantam is separated from the participle by the noun that the participle modifies and by another modifier of that noun.40 (4.90) ra¯´jantam agním ray¯ına¯´m . yajatám . rule.prs.ptc.act.a.sg.m Agni.a worship_worthy.a riches.g ‘(We praise) . . . Agni, the worship-worthy, who rules over riches.’ (RV 6.1.8d) Discontinuous participial constituents are licensed by the PS-rule in (4.91). Both the head and its dependents are optional within a PtcP, which permits them to appear separately under distinct PtcP nodes, as seen in Fig. (4.2).41 (4.91)

 PtcP →

  XP Ptc XP ∗, ∗ , (↑gf)=↓ | ↓∈ (↑ (x)adj) ↑=↓ (↑gf)=↓ | ↓∈ (↑ (x)adj)

40 There is no finite verb in the verse, which consists entirely of accusative-case epithets of the god, nor can any be inferred from adjacent verses; hence any verb which makes sense can be supplied in the context, such as ‘praise’ in the gloss given. 41 Haug (: , fn. ) and Snijders (: ) note a formal problem in the unification at f-structure of discontinuous adjunct phrases such as participial phrases. The annotation ↓∈ (↑ (x)adj) on both parts of a discontinuous adjunct ensure that both parts appear in the relevant adjunct set at f-structure, but does not ensure that they form part of the same f-structure within the set. Formally, this problem is unresolved, but in practical terms it is important to note that separate parts of a discontinuous adjunct can form part of the same f-structure, and if they are not united at f-structure then an incoherent f-structure will result.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

A PtcP can of course appear as a continuous phrase within a clause, and this is most often the case. When discontinuity is not enforced for information-structural and similar reasons (e.g. putting the object early in order to focus or topicalize it), continuity is encouraged by the ‘Economy of Expression’ constraint on c-structure, which works to enforce the smallest possible c-structure, and therefore penalizes discontinuity.42 .. Preverbs and tmesis The term ‘preverb’ refers, in the context of Rigvedic Sanskrit, to a set of adverbs with directional or spatial semantics which form close syntactic relationships with verbal roots and stems, and which modify the meanings of verbal stems with which they √ √ appear. So while the verb gam means ‘go’, the combination of gam with the preverb √ √ a¯´ ‘this way, up to’, i.e. a¯´- gam, means ‘come’, and the combination of gam with ápa ‘away’, means ‘go away, depart’. In some cases the meaning of the whole is not √ predictable from the combination of its parts, as with ádhi- i ‘understand, study, √ learn’, from ádhi ‘over, above’ and  i ‘go’. Verb forms consisting of a primary verbal element and a modifying preverb are therefore a kind of phrasal or particle verb construction.43 When modifying finite verbs, preverbs have a number of possible positions. They can appear adjacent to, usually directly preceding, the verb itself; alternatively they can appear discontinuous from the verb, though still within the VP, usually in one of the clause-initial discourse function positions. In addition, preverbs modifying finite  within the CCL, as discussed in §2.4.1 (with verbs can appear as non-projecting Advs example (2.35)) and in Lowe (2011b; 2014a). The relative positioning of preverbs that modify participial verb stems is in some respects similar, but differs in interesting ways. In the majority of instances, preverbs that modify participles are ‘prefixed’ to the participial stem, losing their inherent accent and essentially forming a compound with that stem; this is possible, but considerably rarer, with finite verbal stems. This can be seen in the form pracetáyant- in (4.87), which is formed from the preverb prá ‘forth’ and the participle stem cetáyant-, √ from the causative present stem of the verb cit ‘perceive, appear’ (Jamison 1983a: 57– 8, 74, 161–3). Those that do not form compounds (around one-fifth of all participlemodifying preverbs) can appear in a number of positions relative to the participle. They can appear directly preceding the participle but not compounded ((4.92)), directly following the participle ((4.93)), at the start of the participial constituent 42

On ‘Economy of Expression’ see Bresnan (b) and Toivonen (). The lexical status of particle verbs, and the mechanisms of their construction, have been the subject of some debate, but these issues are not relevant to the current discussion. In this work I assume, for the sake of argument, that all preverb–verb combinations are lexically specified. For further discussion of these issues, and particle verb constructions more generally, see den Dikken (), Müller (), Dehé et al. (), Ackerman et al. (), and Laczkó (). 43

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.7 The participial VP



((4.94)), at the end of the participial constituent ((4.95)), or in another position within the participial constituent, adjacent neither to the verb nor to either edge of the constituent ((4.96)). (4.92) ná tv¯a gabh¯ıráh. puruh¯uta síndhur/ na¯´drayah. [pári not you.a deep much_invoked.v river not=mountains around varanta s.ánto]PtcP be.prs.ptc.n.pl.m covered ‘Neither the deep river, O much invoked one,/ nor the mountains surrounding (you) covered you.’ (RV 3.32.16ab) (4.93) es.á kavír abhís..tutah./ pavítre ádhi tośate/ pun¯anó this poet praised sieve.l upon drips purify.prs.med.ptc.n.sg.m [ghnánn ápa srídhah.]PtcP strike.prs.ptc.n.sg.m away foe.a.pl ‘This praised poet/ drips upon the sieve/ as he is purified, striking away foes.’ (RV 9.27.1) (4.94) [prá s¯unŕ.t¯a diśám¯ana r.téna]PtcP / dúraś ca víśv¯a forth gladness.a distribute.prs.ptc.n.sg.m order.i doors.a and all.a avr.n.od ápa sva¯´h. opened away own.a ‘Distributing gladness according to order,/ he opened wide all his doors.’ (RV 3.31.21cd) (4.95) us.a¯´ y¯ati jyótis.a¯ [ba¯´dham¯an¯a/ víśv¯a tám¯am . si dawn comes light.i ward.prs.ptc.n.sg.f all.a darkness.a dev¯´ı durita¯´pa]PtcP difficulties.a=away goddess ‘Dawn comes with the light, the goddess/ warding off all darkness and difficulties.’ (RV 7.78.2cd) (4.96) sá pávasva sáham¯anah. pr.tanyu¯´ n/ dct flow.imp.2sg conquer.prs.ptc.n.sg.m war_lovers.a [sédhan ráks.a¯ m ápa durgáh¯an.i]PtcP . sy drive_off.prs.ptc.n.s.m evil_spirits.a away dangers.a ‘You, flow — conquering the lovers of war,/ driving away the evil spirits and dangers.’ (RV 9.110.12ab) Non-compounded preverbs most commonly appear at the start of the participial phrase (Lowe 2012a: 99). The only other apparently common position for a preverb in a participial phrase is directly preceding the participle, but not compounded with it. This possibility is somewhat questionable, however, since it is almost exclusively found with √ only one participle, sánt- ‘being’, present participle of the copular verb  as ‘be’. This

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

verb, in both finite and non-finite forms, shows a clear but unexplained dispreference for compounding with preverbs: a number of preverbs very commonly appear with the root to modify its very basic semantics, but there is only one example in the Rigveda √ of a form of  as ‘be’ compounded with a preverb, the participle prasánt¯a at 6.62.1a. Although in examples such as (4.92) we are not dealing with an explicit compound, that we are nevertheless dealing with a close syntactic and phonological unit is clear from the internal sandhi between preverb and participle (which is responsible for the retroflex sibilant of s.ántah. in (4.92)).44 Even so, why this particular root should disfavour compounding is unclear. Rarely, preverbs do appear directly before and not compounded with participles other than sánt-; for example, prá śis.ánt- ‘calling √ forth’ (aorist active participle to ś¯as ‘instruct’) at 10.115.4cd ((5.42)). This is a genuine position for preverbs, then, but very uncommon except, for some reason, with sánt-. Since the participial phrase can be discontinuous, it is possible for a participle and its modifying preverb to appear in different parts of a discontinuous phrase. Although this freedom is available, it is rarely utilized, and it is always restricted so that the status of the preverb as a modifier of the participle (rather than of the finite verb) is never in doubt. That is, we might predict that the freedom for discontinuity in the participial phrase should license a clause-initial preverb, or a preverb within the CCL, that functions as modifier of a participial verb, but that is not adjacent to or forming a constituent with any other part of the participial phrase. This does not occur, however, and it seems likely that it is blocked simply because such an arrangement would leave ambiguous whether the preverb should be interpreted as modifier of the participle or of the finite verb. Apparent exceptions are only apparent: for example ví yó bháribhrat at 2.4.4c ((4.97)) appears to show the interruption of a preverb participle sequence ví bháribhrat by a relative pronoun. In fact, bháribhrat is best analysed as an irregular 3pl. finite form; this explains both the arrangement of the first three words (now following a very common pattern) and why the finite verb in the following p¯ada is unaccented, since it is not the head of a relative clause (as it must be if bháribhrat- is a participle, and in which case it should be accented) but of the correlative. (4.97) ví yó bháribhrad ós.adh¯ıs.u jihva¯´m/ átyo ná apart who carry.int.prs.ptc/3pl plants.l tongue.a horse like ráthyo dodhav¯ıti va¯´r¯an of_a_chariot shakes tail_hairs.a ‘He who darts his tongue among the plants,/ like a chariot horse he shakes his tail.’ (RV 2.4.4cd) A similar spurious exception appears at 7.57.3c ((4.98)). In this verse, the preverb ´a¯ is commonly interpreted as modifying the apparent participle piś¯aná-, but this would involve both a unique type of discontinuity between participle and preverb 44

On the reasons for internal sandhi between words, cf. Hale (; ) and Lowe (a: –).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.7 The participial VP



√ and a unique modification of a medial form of piś ‘adorn’ by the preverb a¯´. The preverb is therefore better taken with the finite verb; moreover, as discussed in Lowe (2012b: 92–3), piś¯aná- may actually be a Caland adjective rather than a participle (cf. §6.10). (4.98) a¯´ ródas¯ı viśvapíśah. piś¯ana¯´h./ sam¯anám añjy prv world.a.du all_adorned.n.pl decorated.n.pl same.a anointing.a àñjate śubhé kam anoint beauty.d for ‘All adorned and decorated they anoint/ the two worlds (with) the same anointing for beauty.’ (RV 7.57.3cd) Discontinuity between participle and preverb is permitted in cases where the preverb forms a constituent with some other part of the PtcP; in (4.99) the preverb and the object of the participle constitute one part of the PtcP, while the participle itself constitutes the other, separated from the former by the clausal (and the participle’s) subject.45 (4.99) át¯aris.ma támasas p¯arám asyá/ [práti stómam . ]PtcP crossed.1pl darkness.g beyond this.g forward praise_song.a devayánto [dádh¯an¯ah.]PtcP god_worship.prs.ptc.n.pl.m place.prs.ptc.n.pl.m ‘We have crossed beyond this darkness,/ god-worshippers setting forth a praise song.’ (RV 7.73.1ab) Although preverb modifiers of participles do have some freedom for discontinuity, then, just like other elements of the participial phrase, this freedom appears to be restricted for the purposes of avoiding ambiguity.46 The same reason may account for the relative rarity of discontinuous participial phrases of any sort, though they are clearly possible. In descriptive terms, participial phrases are usually continuous, which likely reflects partly the desire to avoid ambiguity, and partly the rarity of contexts in which there would be clear information-structural or other justification for separating one part of an embedded participial phrase from the rest of it.

45 When the participial constituent is interrupted by the noun that controls the participle’s subject position, as here, it is possible that we are not dealing with a discontinuous constituent but rather with backward control, where the subject of the participial clause controls an element of the main clause rather than the more usual converse. Backward control by participles in New Testament Greek has been demonstrated by Haug (); in the Rigveda, however, discontinuous participial phrases that are interrupted by non-subjects are unambiguously possible, where they are interrupted by non-subjects, so the existence of backward control cannot be proven. 46 Similar specific constraints on the otherwise considerable freedom for discontinuity in Latin are discussed by Snijders ().

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

. Subcategorization As discussed in §3.4, participles are inflectional verb forms with essentially verbal lexical entries. In particular, the pred value of a participle, including its subcategorization frame, is identified with the pred value of finite forms of the same stem. So the subcategorization frame(s) found with a particular finite verbal stem should also be found, unaltered, in corresponding participles. In general this is true: if a finite verb form selects for an accusative object argument alongside its subject, a corresponding participle will likewise select for an accusative object argument alongside its subject. Not infrequently, however, participles lack explicit non-subject arguments which are regular with corresponding finite stems. This is sufficiently common for traditional analyses to admit an ‘absolute’, i.e. intransitive, use of participles alongside whatever subcategorization frame they share with finite forms.47 An example of such a participle appears in the following verse. (4.100) sámiddho viśvátas pátih./ pávam¯ano ví r¯ajati/ kindled from_all_sides lord Pavam¯ana apart shines pr¯ın.án v´r.s.a¯ kánikradat please.prs.act.ptc.n.sg.m bull roar.prs.act.ptc.n.sg.m ‘Kindled on all sides the lord/ Pavam¯ana shines widely,/ the pleasing, roaring bull.’ (RV 9.5.1) √ The form pr¯ın.ánt-, present active participle to pr¯ı ‘please’, occurs only once in the Rigveda, in the above passage. By comparison with finite active forms we would expect the participle to have an object, with the transitive sense ‘pleasing obj’, as in (4.101).48 The varied interpretations of different translators attest the major strategies used to deal with such participles. Renou (EVP, vol. 8: 4) followed the medieval commentator S¯ayan.a in inferring a specific object, ‘les dieux’ (‘the gods’); Geldner (RV, vol. 3: 13) interpreted the participle reflexively, ‘sich beliebt machend’ (‘making oneself pleasing’); but a reflexive sense is appropriate only for the mediopassive present stem, as with the mediopassive participle pr¯ın.a¯ ná- in (4.102), not the active stem. The interpretation followed in the gloss shows the ‘intransitive’ interpretation, which is also that of Jamison and Brereton (2014). (4.101) vyàśvas tv¯a vasuvídam/ uks.an.yúr apr¯ın.a¯d ´r.s.ih. Vyaśva you.a.sg wealth-finder.a bull_desiring pleased seer ‘Vyaśva, the seer, desiring bulls, pleased you, finder of wealth.’ (RV 8.23.16ab) 47 The term ‘absolute’ is potentially confusing due to the entirely distinct locative absolute construction; I will therefore avoid using it in the sense discussed here. 48 On this root and the function of the attested verbal stems see Kümmel (a: –).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.8 Subcategorization



(4.102) pradódhuvac chmáśrus.u shake_forth.prs.ptc.n.sg.m beard_hairs.l pr¯ın.a¯nó/ y¯ahí háribhy¯am . sutásya make_pleased.prs.ptc.med.n.sg.m come.imp.2sg bay.i.du pressed.g p¯ıtím drink.a ‘Shaking forth (the drops) in your beard, make yourself pleased and come to the drinking of the pressed (Soma) with your two bay horses.’ (RV 2.11.17cd) The same problem is seen in (4.103). The form mamandvám . s- is the perfect active √ participle of the transitive root mand ‘exhilarate’. An intransitive use of the active perfect is unexpected, but it is nevertheless accepted for this participle, for example by Renou (1925: 136), and Geldner (RV, vol. 2: 69: ‘die erfreute junge Frau’). As argued by Kümmel (2000a: 366), however, an object for the participle is easily supplied from the context, as in the gloss given. (4.103) utá me ’rapad yuvatír mamandús.¯ı/ práti śy¯ava¯´ya and me.d indicated girl exhilarate.pf.act.ptc.n.sg.f prv Śy¯ava.d vartaním road.a ‘and the girl, having exhilarated (me), indicated it to me, Śy¯ava, on the road.’ (RV 5.61.9ab) Although we expect an inflectional verb form to share the argument structure of other forms of the same stem, at the same time we must recognize that non-finite verb forms are less prototypically verbal than finite verb forms. That is, participles are somewhat further from prototypically verbal and somewhat closer to prototypically nominal on the cline between verb and noun. In addition, transitivity, at least in terms of subcategorization for object arguments, is widely seen as a prototypically verbal feature (perhaps also prepositional, but distinctly not nominal or adjectival).49 So in purely descriptive terms, it would not be unreasonable to expect a non-finite verbal category to be relatively less transitive than a corresponding finite category. In this context ‘less transitive’ could mean, for example, that object (and in general non-subject) argument subcategorization is less often utilized, or restricted in certain contexts. When the evidence is considered in detail, it can be seen that there are no specific restrictions on subcategorization by participles beyond those shared with corresponding 49 Cf. the definitions in e.g. Chomsky (), Bresnan (: ), Jackendoff (: –), Bresnan and Kanerva (: ), Bresnan and Moshi (: –), and Bresnan (b: , ). Grestenberger () and Keydana () assume that transitivity, i.e. government of (mainly accusative) object arguments, is an exclusively verbal feature in RV Sanskrit. Transitive adjectives and, less commonly, nouns are found in various languages including RV Sanskrit, however, as discussed in §.., with references.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

finite stems, but that participles somewhat more regularly utilize strategies for nonsubject argument omission than finite forms. There is, however, a restriction on lexicalized participles, which prevents these synchronically non-verbal forms from governing non-subject arguments. .. Subcategorization in the finite system The question of participial subcategorization is complicated by the fact that verbal subcategorization itself is a problematic matter in Rigvedic Sanskrit. As in many languages, finite verbs in Rigvedic Sanskrit select arguments defined according to thematic role, grammatical function, and case, and there is no one-to-one association between these properties, except that the subject is consistently nominative. Objects are most commonly accusative, but genitive, locative, and other oblique case objects are also found. Indirect objects are usually dative or locative. Some verbs vary in √ the case they require of an object argument: for example, the present of  p¯a ‘drink’, 3sg. píbati, can govern either an accusative or genitive object, with synchronically no distinction of meaning (Jamison, 1983a: ch. 2).50 With some verbs the variation can be attributed to oscillation between syntactic and semantic criteria for case assignment. √ So the present tense of sad ‘sit’, 3sg. s¯´ı dati, can govern an object in the accusative, the structural object case, or the locative, reflecting the locational semantics inherent in ‘sitting’ (cf. Jamison, 1983a: 31–2).51 In general, participles have exactly the same selectional properties as corresponding finite stems: they select the same number of arguments, with the same thematic roles and grammatical functions, in the same case(s), as their finite correspondents. In Rigvedic Sanskrit, however, finite verbs do not always express all their arguments. There are three primary reasons for this. Unlike English, Sanskrit permits object gapping in certain syntactic contexts such as sentential coordination. In such cases the unexpressed object is still present in functional terms, but only as a null pronoun anaphorically controlled by an expressed argument in a separate clause. In (4.104), discussed by Keydana (2009: 126), the last three finite verbal forms, and the two transitive participles, all lack an explicit object, but in every case the null object is implicitly identified with the explicit object of the first finite verb.52

50 Dahl (b) argues that there is a difference in terms of definiteness between genitive and accusative objects of consumption verbs like píbati: the genitive indicates an indefinite quantity of the substance consumed and the accusative the total consumption of a specific quantity. However, the data is far from clear, and at least in some passages there is really no discernible distinction between the two constructions. 51 The semantics and uses of the different cases in Vedic Sanskrit are treated in detail by Hettrich (). 52 This phenomenon has been discussed by Keydana () and Keydana and Luraghi (). For the same phenomenon in Latin and Ancient Greek, see Luraghi (; ; ); for Old Icelandic, see Sigurðsson ().

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.8 Subcategorization



(4.104) ad´r.s..ta¯ n hanty a¯ yaty/ átho hanti unseen.a.pl strikes come.prs.ptc.n.sg.f cnj strikes par¯ayat¯´ı / átho avaghnat¯´ı hanty/ átho depart.prs.ptc.n.sg.f cnj strike_down.prs.ptc.n.sg.f strikes cnj pinas..ti pim . s.at¯´ı crushes crush.prs.ptc.n.sg.f ‘When she comes she strikes the unseen (insects),/ and when she goes she strikes (them),/ and striking (them) down she strikes (them),/ and by crushing (them) she crushes (them).’ (RV 1.191.2) It is difficult to be sure what constraints, if any, there are on such null objects, since an additional, specifically poetic, feature of the Rigvedic language is the freedom for ellipsis of any element of the clause that can be recovered from the context, including but not limited to verbal arguments. Keydana (2009) attempts to distinguish object ellipsis from null object constructions with reference to ‘copy intonation’, but in reality the distinction is not clear. Null objects that must be interpreted contextually are distinctly different from those that have clear antecedents in the discourse, and are best treated as examples of ellipsis rather than object gapping. But this phenomenon, as in (4.105),53 is treated by Keydana (2009) not as ellipsis but as the same phenomenon as that in (4.104), the only difference being that in this case the null pronoun has arbitrary reference. (4.105) sám p¯us.an vidús.a¯ naya/ yó together P¯us.an.v know.pf.ptc.i.sg lead.imp.2sg who áñjas¯anuśa¯´sati/ yá evédám íti brávat rightly=instruct.sbj who really=this quot speak.sbj ‘Lead (us), O P¯us.an, together with one who is wise, who will instruct (us/it) rightly, who will say ‘this is really it’.’ (RV 6.54.1) Given this freedom, it is often difficult to know whether a particular verbal stem is, say, obligatorily transitive, or has both transitive and intransitive subcategorization frames. This is a particular problem in the case of participles, since here we must also reckon with the possibility of lexicalization into (intransitive) nouns or adjectives. For example, Keydana (2009) takes the instrumental of the participle vidvám . s- in (4.105) as governing a null object, translating ‘. . . zusammen mit einem, der [es] weiß’ (‘together with one who knows (it)’). But as discussed in §6.6.3, vidvám . s- has no object in the vast majority of its occurrences, and is, at least in most instances, a lexicalized adjective meaning ‘knowing, wise’.

53

From Keydana (: , ex. ).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

The existence of verbs with both transitive and intransitive subcategorization frames (as with English verbs like eat) is unambiguous in some cases.54 For example, the active √ aorist of vr.dh ‘increase, grow’ is used both transitively, in the sense ‘make strong, increase obj’, and intransitively, in the sense ‘be strong’. Both uses are attested both in finite forms ((4.106) and (4.107)) and participles ((4.108) and (4.109)).55 (4.106) katha¯´ maha¯´m avr.dhat how great.a.sg.m increased ‘How did he strengthen the great one?’ (RV 4.23.1a) (4.107) várdhad ukthaír vácobhir a¯´ hí n¯unám increase.sbj utterances.i words.i to for now ‘He will increase, through solemn utterances and words; for now he is here.’ (RV 10.61.26c) (4.108) stútaś ca ya¯´s tv¯a várdhanti/ mahé ra¯´dhase praises and which you.a.sg increase great.d generosity.d nr.mn.a¯´ya/ índra k¯arín.am . vr.dhántah. manliness.d Indra.v praiser.a increase.aor.ptc.n.pl.m ‘And the praises which increase you,/ to great generosity and manliness,/ increasing (also) the praiser, O Indra . . . ’ (RV 8.2.29) bhra¯´jadr.s..tim (4.109) tám ma¯´rutam ./ . vr.dhántam that increase.aor.ptc.a.sg.m Marut_car.a of_sparkling_spear.a rudrásya s¯unúm viv¯ase . havása¯´ Rudra.g son.a invocation.i win.des.1sg ‘That strong Marut-car of sparkling spear,/ the son of Rudra I would win with invocation.’ (RV 6.66.11ab) Not only is it often unclear whether a particular verbal stem has more than one subcategorization frame or merely displays argument omission in one or more of its occurrences, but it can also be unclear whether a verbal dependent is an argument or an adjunct. This is a particular problem with non-accusative dependents.56 For 54 For analyses of this kind of variation, compare Luraghi (), van der Wurff (), and, in specifically LFG terms, Asudeh and Giorgolo (). 55 There is a distinction here between what are called ‘P-labile’ and ‘A-labile’ verbs: the aorist of √vrdh . is P-labile, in that the subject of the intransitive variant does not fulfil the same thematic role as the subject of the transitive variant; English eat is A-labile, since the subject of both transitive and intransitive variants is an agent. Both types of lability are found in Rigvedic verbs, but the license for omission of non-subject arguments causes problems in the analysis only of A-labile verbs, and indeed renders it uncertain whether A-labile verbs really exist in RV Sanskrit. 56 The accusative is somewhat less problematic because it is relatively restricted when used as a nonstructural case, to the expression of goal (of movement), extent, and path, while as the structural object case it is very commonly used with NPs that bear clearly different roles. Even so, the distinction is not absolute, since goal accusatives may be subcategorized for (cf. Ch. , fn. , on s¯adád-yoni-); for this reason Jamison (a) treated all goal accusatives as objects. See further Levin and Rappaport Hovav (: ) on the status of goal accusatives as what they call ‘pseudo-objects’.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.8 Subcategorization



√ example, the mediopassive present stem of bhand ‘delight, rejoice’ occurs four times in the Rigveda, three times in the participle bhándam¯ana- and once in the 3sg. indicative bhandate; this is the only verbal stem attested to this root in the Rigveda, and it is barely attested later, so there is little evidence for the argument structure of this verb. Of the four Rigvedic forms, two (including the single finite form bhandate at 3.3.4d) appear with an instrumental with the meaning ‘delighting in X’ ((4.111)), while the other two forms ((4.110), repeating (4.76), and also at 1.142.7a) lack an instrumental or any other kind of non-subject dependent. Is the instrumental then an object argument of the verb, ellipsed in two of the verb’s four occurrences, or is it an optional adjunct to an intransitive verb?57 (4.110) a¯´ bhándam¯ane us.ás¯a úp¯ake prv rejoice.prs.ptc.n.du.f dawn.du nearby ‘Dawn and Night, rejoicing, (come) near (to each other).’ (RV 3.4.6a) (4.111)

vaiśv¯anaráh. pratnáth¯a na¯´kam a¯´ruhad/ divás pr.s..thám Vaiśv¯anara as_of_old firmament.a ascended heaven.g back.a sumánmabhih. bhándam¯anah. rejoice.prs.ptc.n.sg.m good_thoughts.i ‘Vaiśv¯anara as of old ascended the firmament,/ the back of heaven, rejoicing in (our) good thoughts.’ (RV 3.2.12ab)

Another relevant phenomenon is semantic incorporation, by which an object meaning is increasingly associated with the basic verbal meaning until it need no longer explicitly appear, and the verb essentially becomes intransitive (Krisch 1984). As an example of this, Keydana (2009: 128) cites the passage in (4.112), translating the √ verb mis. ‘wink, blink’ as ‘schließen [die Augen]’. But this verb is attested only seven times in the Rigveda (four of which are the present participle mis.ánt-), never with an object, so it cannot be stated definitively whether this verb is purely intransitive, or still at least potentially transitive. (4.112)

eté ná tis..thanti ná ní mis.anty not stand not down blink.prs.3pl these ‘These do not stand, do not blink.’ (RV 10.10.8a)

Examples of such unclear verbs can be multiplied, and not only with poorly attested √ roots. Non-passive stems of the common root yuj ‘yoke’ usually appear either with an accusative object argument or with an instrumental dependent. The instrumental may well originally have been an adjunct used alongside the accusative argument, e.g. ‘yoke chariot (acc.) with horses (instr.)’. Nevertheless its frequent use in the absence of an accusative as the only dependent of the verb suggests that synchronically the 57

Got¯o (: –) assumes two distinct stems. The governing compound bhandád-is..ti- ‘delighting in the sacrifice’ at ..d does not contribute anything to our understanding of the mediopassive stem.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

verb has (at least) two subcategorization frames, one selecting an accusative object argument, the other an instrumental object/oblique. It is unclear whether there is any semantic difference between the two types: nouns like ‘horse’ regularly appear both in the accusative and in the instrumental with this verb. Nevertheless, the freedom for null objects and ellipsis in the language leaves it in principle uncertain how we √ should understand the subcategorization frames of forms of yuj that have only an instrumental dependent. It is not only in Rigvedic Sanskrit, where our interpretation is hampered by the lack of native speakers and by its poetic composition, that the distinction between arguments and adjuncts is unclear.58 This is in fact true, to a greater or lesser extent, cross-linguistically. Arka (2009) discusses a number of Austronesian languages of Indonesia, providing evidence for a cline of argumenthood, running from syntactically core to non-core (oblique), and proposing a ‘core index’ (a rating from 1.00 to 0.00) for the status of any argument. Arka also proposes a possible category of ‘semiobjects’ or ‘semi-core’ arguments. Needham and Toivonen (2011), Christie (2013), and Toivonen (2013) propose a category of ‘derived arguments’, in between full arguments and adjuncts. The same issue is recognized and treated by a number of authors within LFG, including Rákosi (2006; 2012; 2013), Zaenen and Crouch (2009), and Giorgolo and Asudeh (2012). For present purposes I assume that any dependent can be definitively categorized in any one context as either an argument or an adjunct, but that verbs can have multiple subcategorization frames and so a particular noun in a particular case may be an argument to a verb in one instance and an adjunct to the same verb in another. This is clearly a simplification, and given the corpus-based and poetic nature of Rigvedic Sanskrit in many cases there is little clear evidence on which to make a definitive categorization. It is, however, sufficient for present purposes. The primary evidence available for the status of dependents in the Rigveda is not syntactic but semantic: if the semantic content of the case ending is not in itself enough to account for the role of a NP in a clause it is probable that the verb also contributes to the semantic interpretation of that NP, i.e. that the thematic role of the NP is determined by the subcategorization frame of the verb. For example, verbs of ruling regularly appear with genitive case dependents ((4.113)); these dependents are objects, because they fulfil the role of patient/theme in relation to the ‘ruling’, and the genitive case itself cannot inherently express such a semantic role. This can only be an argument for argumenthood, however, since a verb can subcategorize for an argument in a case that does correspond semantically to the semantic role imposed by the verb.59 58 For some discussion of the argument/adjunct distinction in the Rigveda, see Schäufele (c), although the evidence he uses to distinguish arguments and adjuncts is based on assumptions about RV word order which I do not share. 59 For example, the ablative case NPs often found with verbs of fearing are probably arguments, even though the semantic content of the ablative case is itself sufficient to express the relation of the person feared to the act of fearing (i.e. ‘(shrink in) fear from . . .’).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.8 Subcategorization (4.113)



¯´ı ś¯an¯a va¯´ry¯an.a¯ m . / ks.áyant¯ıś have_power.stv.ptc.a.pl.f valuable.g.pl rule.prs.ptc.a.pl.f cars.an.¯ına¯´m/ apó y¯ac¯ami bhes.ajám races.g waters.a emplore.1sg healing.a ‘Those who have power over valuable things, those who rule over the races of men, the waters I emplore for healing.’ (RV 10.9.5)

For the purposes of this work and the present discussion of participial transitivity, the subcategorization frame(s) assumed for any verbal stem are usually based on traditional analyses, where this is not contradicted by syntactic or semantic evidence. In cases of uncertainty the default analysis is that a dependent is an argument, so as to avoid the unintentional exclusion of potentially relevant data. .. Participial subcategorization: syntactically constrained argument omission As already noted, in Rigvedic Sanskrit non-subject arguments of finite verbs may be omitted, or gapped, by virtue of identity with an argument of a preceding verb in certain syntactic contexts such as clausal coordination. The correlate of this in the case of participles is that their non-subject arguments may be omitted by virtue of identity with an argument, usually of the same grammatical function, of the superordinate finite verb. In fact it appears to be obligatory to omit arguments under identity with an argument of the same grammatical function in the matrix clause; that is, it may be impossible to express the same noun or noun phrase in the same case twice, once as an argument of a participle and once as an argument of the participle’s matrix verb.60 In (4.114) the expected accusative object of is.n.ánt-, participle to the transitive √ present stem of  is. ‘send’, is not expressed.61 It can, however, be unambiguously identified with the accusative object of the main verb t¯utod ‘strengthened’. The position of the object relative to the two verb forms in (4.114) makes it clear that the object is explicit in the main clause, and gapped in the participial clause. In (4.115) the ‘shared’ object tát is adjacent to the participle, but could equally be analysed as an explicit part of the matrix clause, leaving the participle again with a gapped object. There are no

60 Luraghi () shows that such omission is obligatory with converbal participles in Ancient Greek. She treats this requirement as reflecting the close grammatical linkage between the participle clause and its matrix, contrasting e.g. with coordinated finite clauses, where such omission is common but not obligatory, and yes/no question pairs, where such omission is possible but still less frequent. 61 For this reason, the word has been analysed by some authors as a form of a different root. Geldner √ (RV: vol. :  √ ad ..a) connects the form to  is. ‘seek’, while √ Burrow (: ) connects it to his  proposed root is. ‘prosper’ . The form undoubtedly belongs with  is., however, and its lack of object is √ easily explained; Burrow’s  is. is not widely accepted, in any case (cf. Mayrhofer, EWA: vol. : ).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

examples where the ‘shared’ object must be interpreted as part of the participle phrase and gapped in the matrix.62 (4.114) bráhm¯a t¯utod índro g¯atúm is.n.án prayers.a strengthened Indra way.a send.ptc.prs.act.n.sg.m ‘Indra made strong the prayers, sending (the prayers) on their way.’ (RV 2.20.5b) (4.115)

dh¯´ı r¯aś cit tát samínaks.anta a¯ śata wise.pl pcl it obtain.des.prs.act.ptc.n.pl.m obtained ‘Only the wise who desire to obtain it have obtained (it).’ (RV 9.73.9c)

There are many such passages in the Rigveda where it is clear that an argument, usually an object, of a participial clause is omitted under identity with an argument of the matrix verb, usually an argument of the same case and grammatical function as the omitted argument. Less clear passages are also common, however. In (4.116) the explicit accusative NP, tám . tv¯a, functions as a goal dependent in relation to the matrix (which, as discussed above, may reflect an argument or adjunct), but can also be interpreted as supplying the referent for the missing object of the participle. An alternative analysis of (4.116) is to take the participle citáyant- as intransitive; this is the interpretation followed by Geldner (RV, vol. 2: 93). The question must remain unclear, √ since the argument structure of most stems of cit ‘perceive, appear’ is highly variable (cf. Jamison 1983a: 57–8, 74). (4.116) tám nárah. prathamám mahó r¯ayé . tv¯a . devayánto/ that you.a men first god_worshipping.pl great.g giving.d citáyanto ánu gman perceive.prs.ptc.act.n.pl.m prv went ‘Perceiving (you) indeed, god-worshipping men first went to you for the giving of great (wealth).’ (RV 6.1.2cd) √ A similar instance is shown in (4.117). The mediopassive present stem of tr¯a ‘protect’ appears with an explicit accusative object almost without exception. The two instances of the participle tra¯´yam¯an.a- lack explicit objects, but in both passages ((4.117) and (4.118)) an argument in the matrix clause is available for interpretation as the participle’s object. Geldner (RV, vol. 2: 216) interprets the participles intransitively, and he is followed, for example, by Jamison and Brereton (2014). As with the verbs discussed above, it is impossible to prove whether this stem has a genuine intransitive subcategorization frame, or merely appears with an ellipsed object in some of its occurrences. In the case of the participles, at least, Occam’s razor encourages us to interpret both forms as displaying regular object gapping under identity with a matrix argument. 62

For similar data in relation to gapped arguments in infinitival clauses, see Keydana (: ).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.8 Subcategorization (4.117)



śám no deváh. savita¯´ tra¯´yam¯an.ah. . propitious us.d god Savitr. protect.prs.ptc.n.sg.m ‘Propitious for us be the god Savitr., who protects (us).’ (RV 7.35.10a)

(4.118) a¯´ no deváh. savita¯´ tra¯´yam¯an.o/ híran.yap¯an.ir to us god Savitr. protect.prs.ptc.n.sg.m golden-handed yajató jagamy¯at worship-worthy come.pf.opt ‘May the god Savitr., who protects (us), come to us, the golden-handed one, worthy of worship.’ (RV 6.50.8ab) This interpretation requires us to treat the omitted accusative object of the participle as identified with a dative case argument of the matrix. The form of the pronoun nah. is in fact ambiguous between dative and accusative, but in formal terms it must have only one case value. This demonstrates that there is no functional control relation between the two argument positions; rather, the relation is one of anaphoric control. In functional terms, the participle’s argument position is filled by the null pronoun (‘pro’), which is interpreted contextually in relation to the most syntactically and semantically appropriate argument in the matrix clause. Example (4.119) provides the f-structural analysis for (4.114), and (4.120) provides the same for (4.117).63 (4.119) RV 2.20.5b ((4.114)) pred ‘strengthen〈subj,obj〉’

subj

pred case

‘Indra’ nom

obj

pred case

‘sacred prayer’ acc

pred subj

‘send〈subj,obj〉’

obj

pred

‘pro’

xadj adj vform

63

pred case

‘way’ acc

participle

Luraghi () likewise analyses the equivalent phenomenon in Ancient Greek using null anaphora.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

(4.120) RV 7.35.10a ((4.117)) pred ‘null-be 〈xcomp〉subj’

pred

‘Savitr’ . pred

‘god’

pred subj subj

xcomp

adj

adj

pred subj pred case

‘protect〈subj,obj〉’

rel-topic

pred case

‘pro’ nom

obj

pred case

‘pro’ acc

vform

participle

‘propitious’

‘us’ dat

Approximately one quarter of participles that appear to unexpectedly ‘lack’ arguments can be accounted for by the phenomenon treated in this section. The syntactic constraints on argument omission parallel those found with finite verbs, and in functional terms the gapped argument is present, albeit null, so in this respect at least participles are not in any way ‘less verbal’ or ‘less transitive’ than finite verbs. .. Poetic ellipsis Besides the omission of non-subject arguments of participles under identity with an argument of the matrix verb, arguments can sometimes be omitted when they do not also play a role in the matrix clause. Such ellipsis is primarily a poetic phenomenon, and is found with both finite and non-finite verbs. It is less common than the type of omission discussed in the previous section, and differs from it in that it is subject not to syntactic but to pragmatic constraints. The ellipsed argument must be contextually salient, that is it must be easily and unambiguously inferrable from the discourse context. Most commonly ellipsed are 1 and 2 person referents which, as the speech-act participants, are the most accessible referents in discourse.64 Finite present forms of 64 On the special status of  and  person referents in grammar and discourse, see DeLancey () and further O. Dahl (; b).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.8 Subcategorization



√

vand ‘praise’ regularly govern an accusative object (Got¯o 1987: 286), but the present participle vándam¯ana- sometimes lacks such an object, as in (4.121). However, it is contextually obvious that the praising referred to by this participle must be directed at the addressee and recipient of the hymn, the god Agni. We can therefore supply a 2sg. object for the participle in this clause without difficulty. (4.121)

idhmén¯agna ichám¯ano ghr.téna/ juhómi havyám . kindling.i=Agni.v desire.prs.ptc.n.sg.m ghee.i offer.1sg oblation.a tárase bál¯aya/ ya¯´vad bráhman.a¯ ¯´ı śe overcoming.d power.d as_far_as have_power.1sg prayer.i vándam¯ana/ ima¯´m śataséy¯aya . dhíyam . praise.prs.pts.n.sg.m this.a poetic_thought.a hundred_winning.d dev¯´ı m divine.a ‘With kindling, O Agni, and ghee I desirously offer oblation for overcoming and for strength. As far as I am able, praising (you) with a prayer, (I bring) this divine poetic thought to win a hundred.’ (RV 3.18.3)

Other sorts of arguments of participles (and other verbs) can also be ellipsed when the referent is unambiguous, either from the context in which the verb is used or from the use of a verb in a common ‘stock’ phrase. For example, mother cows are not uncommonly depicted in the Rigveda as licking their calves; in (4.122), √ then, the omitted object of rih¯an.á-, present participle to rih ‘lick’, can be supplied √ without difficulty. Similarly, forms of the verb m¯ı ‘diminish’ often appear in the sense ‘infringe’ with an object like daívy¯ani vrata¯´ni ‘divine laws’; such an object can therefore √ easily be inferred for the object-less (negated) present participle of m¯ı, áminant-, in (4.123).65 (4.122) ga¯´veva śubhré m¯atár¯a rih¯an.é/ víp¯a.t chutudr¯´ı cow.du=like bright.du mother.du lick.prs.ptc.n.du.f Vip¯aś Śutudr¯ı páyas¯a javete water.i rush.3du ‘Like two bright cows, mothers licking (their calves), Vip¯aś and Śutudr¯ı rush with their water.’ (RV 3.33.1cd) (4.123) idám me agne kíyate p¯avaka¯´minate gurúm this.a me.d Agni.v how_great.d Pav¯aka-not_infringing.d heavy.a bh¯arám br.hád dadh¯atha dhr.s.ata¯´ gabh¯ırám . ná mánma/ burden.a like composition.a high.a gave.2sg daringly deep.a ‘What sort of person am I, Agni Pav¯aka, I who do not infringe (the divine laws), that you have given me this composition like a heavy burden, high and daringly deep.’ (RV 4.5.6) 65

Cf. Lowe (a: –).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

In formal terms, such ellipsed objects can be treated in precisely the same way as the omitted objects treated in the preceding section, that is, as null pronouns in the functional structure, their antecedent determined pragmatically. As stated, this phenomenon is primarily poetic in nature, and is found with both finite verbs and participles. There is no reason to assume that ellipsis of arguments is more common with participles than finite verbs; in any case, it does not have any direct grammatical consequences either for verbal subcategorization or for differences in subcategorization patterns between finite and non-finite verbs. .. Subcategorization as a verbal feature A significant proportion of apparently intransitive uses of participles to otherwise transitive verbal stems are in fact examples of synchronic lexical nouns and adjectives that only diachronically reflect participial stems. The sorts of word that I treat under the cover term ‘lexicalized participles’, which in purely synchronic terms are not participles at all, will be discussed in §6.6; the formal difference between synchronic participles and lexicalized forms was treated in §3.4. Almost all of the forms involved are morphologically indistinguishable from genuine participles, and several of the forms involved are extremely common, which has contributed historically to the perception of Rigvedic participles as distinctly less transitive than finite verbs. Examples include pácant- ‘baker’, formally indistinguishable (and historically lexicalized from) a participle to the transitive present stem of the √ verb pac ‘bake’, sunvánt- ‘presser’ beside sunvánt- ‘pressing X’, present participle of √ su ‘press’ (cf. §§3.4 and 6.6.2), and árhant- ‘worthy’, an adjective indistinguishable √ (and lexicalized) from the participle of the transitive present stem of arh ‘deserve, be worthy of ’. The fact that participles which subcategorize for non-subject arguments get lexicalized as nouns and adjectives that do not subcategorize for arguments reflects the fact that subcategorization, in particular for objects, is primarily a verbal (and prepositional) property, as noted at the start of this section.66 In the transition from inflectional verb form to noun or adjective, participles undergoing lexicalization lose the subcategorization frame that they shared with the finite verbal stem to which they were formed, and are conformed to the majority pattern of nouns and adjectives as words that do not subcategorize for object (or subject) arguments. While as a broad generalization it is true that lexical nouns and adjectives do not subcategorize for object arguments, there is nothing to prevent this in formal LFG terms (cf. Butt et al. 1999: 105), and indeed some adjectives, and more rarely nouns, do subcategorize for object arguments in a number of languages, including 66 Subcategorization for obliques is considerably less restricted among nouns and adjectives, and here I primarily refer to subcategorization for objects (and subjects, although the question of whether adjectives regularly subcategorize for subjects is a difficult one and beyond the scope of the present discussion).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.8 Subcategorization



Rigvedic (and later) Sanskrit.67 Cross-linguistically there are a variety of diachronic and synchronic explanations for subcategorization for objects by nouns and adjectives. In some cases there is no reason to assume that there is any verbal basis, synchronically or diachronically, for this, as with nouns that subcategorize, both syntactically and semantically, for a possessor (cf. von Prince 2012). In other cases the subcategorization can be considered ‘verbal’, either diachronically, in the case of lexicalized verb forms that preserve their argument structure, or synchronically, for example in the case of mixed categories, which display properties of both noun or adjective and verb.68 In the case of Rigvedic Sanskrit noun and adjective categories that can subcategorize for objects, secondary association with the verbal paradigm is apparent in some cases, √ such as primary derivatives in -ín-, e.g. a¯ d¯arín.- ‘breaking open’ (RV 8.45.13c) to a¯´- d¯r. ‘break open’, and adjectives in -i- to stems with apparently verbal reduplication, such √ as cákri- ‘making’ to kr. ‘make’.69 In no case, however, can the categories concerned be considered to display ‘verbal’ subcategorization in the same way as inflectional finite and non-finite verb forms, nor can any be treated as part of the non-finite verbal system, or even as mixed verbal/nominal categories.70 This is because subcategorization for object arguments by nouns and adjectives differs in important respects from subcategorization by non-finite verbal categories like participles. Subcategorization by participles is at least theoretically obligatory, based on the subcategorization frame of the verbal stem to which they are formed. In contrast, subcategorization by ‘transitive’ noun and adjective categories is optional. For example, there are 83 instances of superlatives in -is..tha- to transitive verbal roots in the Rigveda, but only ten of these appear with object arguments.71 There are 38 instances 67 Authors who discuss transitive adjectives (more rarely nouns) include Platzack (a; b) on Swedish, Maling () on English, van Riemsdijk () on German, van Kemenade () on Old English, Iida () on Japanese, Amith and Smith-Stark () on Nahuatl, Mittendorf and Sadler () on Welsh, Al Sharifi and Sadler () on Arabic, Raza and Ahmed () on Urdu, Lowe (c) on Old Avestan; and see more generally Vincent and Börjars () and Lowe (b). 68 On mixed categories see esp. Bresnan and Mugane (), and further Baker and Vinokurova () and Alexiadou and Rathert (). 69 Other noun and adjective categories that can subcategorize for objects in Rigvedic and later Sanskrit include adjectives in -u-, -aka-, -uka- (frequently transitive in the Br¯ahman.as), -a-, -atnu- (a participial derivative, see §..), and -atha-, the zero-affixed root noun in compound, agent nouns in ´-tr.-, comparatives in -(¯ı)yam . s-, superlatives in -is..tha- and less commonly -tama-, and nouns in -ana-, -ani-, and -ti-. Vedic forms are collected by Gaedicke (: ff.), Delbrück (: –), and Speyer (: §§–, p. ); Classical forms are noted by Whitney (: –); Epic Sanskrit forms are noted by Brockington () and Oberlies (: –); Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit forms are noted by Sen (; ). The cognates of some of these categories can also govern object arguments in P¯ali (cf. von Hinüber : –): the agent noun in -tar- (but this alternates with the genitive), the agent noun in -ka-, and some nouns in -ana-. The cognates of several of these Indo-Aryan categories can also be transitive in Avestan, as discussed by Lowe (c). 70 Grestenberger () explicitly treats the reduplicated -i-stem category as a mixed nominalization, but this analysis can be supported only by its morphology (since reduplication is primarily a verbal morphological feature in Sanskrit), and not by its functionality. 71 There are two types of superlative in -istha- (as also comparatives in -(¯ı)yams-) in the Rigveda (cf. .. . Tucker ). One type is purely adjectival, aligned with the Caland system (e.g. bárhis..tha- ‘highest’, beside

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

of comparatives in -(¯ı)yam . s- to transitive verbal stems, but only three (at most) that are transitive, i.e. only 8. For the category of reduplicated adjectives in -i- such as cákri-, only 31 out of the 110 forms to transitive roots (28) actually appear with object arguments.72 For those that do not appear with explicit objects, it is almost never the case that an object can be inferred, e.g. under identity with an argument of the matrix verb. In contrast roughly 60 of participles to transitive stems appear with explicit object arguments, and for the majority of those that do not objects can be inferred, for example by identity with an argument of the matrix clause or other means discussed above. That is, with the truly non-finite category of participles, transitivity is the rule (for participles formed to transitive stems), while with ‘transitive’ noun and adjective categories it is more the exception. Moreover, there are clear tendencies in the syntactic contexts in which ‘transitive’ noun and adjective categories display subcategorization for objects. Participial subcategorization is not restricted by syntactic context: whether used adnominally, converbally, as heads of absolute constructions, or as verbal complements, participles subcategorize for the same arguments, in the same cases, as corresponding finite verb forms. In contrast, in the case of ‘transitive’ noun and adjective categories, although there are no absolute restrictions there is a clear statistical preference for object arguments to appear with nouns and adjectives that function as clausal predicates. So, √ the transitive and predicated instances of k¯amín- ‘desirous’ ( kam ‘desire’), hánis..tha√ √ √ ‘best slayer’ ( han ‘slay’), jághni- ‘slayer’ ( han ‘slay’), and sásni- ‘winner’ ( san ‘win’) in (4.124), (4.125), and (4.126) are typical, while the non-predicated but transitive √ occurrence of a¯ rujatnú- ‘breaking’ (a¯´- ruj ‘break’) in (4.127) simply shows that this tendency is not absolute. hí v¯ıráh. sádam asya p¯ıtím (4.124) k¯am¯´ı desirous for hero always it.g drink.a ‘For the hero is always desirous (of) a drink of it.’ (RV 2.14.1c) (4.125) índro vr.trám sátv¯a . hánis.t.ho astu Indra Vr.tra.a best_slayer be.imp.3sg warrior ‘Let Indra the warrior be the best slayer (of) Vr.tra.’ (RV 6.37.5c) gos.a¯´ (4.126) jághnir vr.trám amitríyam . / sásnir va¯´jam . divédive/ slayer Vr.tra.a inimical.a winner prize.a day_after_day cow-winner u aśvasa¯´ asi also horse-winner are.2sg br.hánt- ‘high’, cf. §.). The other is the ‘verbal’ type, paradigmatically aligned with the agent noun in -tr.-, but morphologically formed to verbal roots. Only the latter type can display ‘transitivity’, and naturally only when formed to inherently transitive verbal roots. 72 These figures are based on a partial study of ‘transitive’ noun and adjective categories in the Rigveda, so do not cover all relevant categories.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.8 Subcategorization



‘You are the slayer (of) inimical Vrtra,/ winner (of) the prize day after day,/ winner also of cows, winner of horses.’ (RV 9.61.20) (4.127) v¯ı.lú cid a¯rujatnúbhir/ gúh¯a cid indra váhnibhih./ strong.a even breaking.i.pl hidden even Indra.v conveyor.i.pl ávinda usríy¯a ánu found.2sg ruddy.a.pl prv ‘Together with the conveyors who break even the strong, you, Indra, though they were hidden found the ruddy (cows).’ (RV 1.6.5) Figures from a partial study of the Rigvedic data, comprising the categories of comparatives in -(¯ı)yam . s-, superlatives in -is..tha-, reduplicated adjectives in -i-, secondary derivatives in -nú- to participial stems, formations in -snu-, and nouns in -áni-, show that between 43 and 63 of forms in these categories that are predicated appear with object arguments, while only 10–24 of non-predicated instances do. As stated, there are no such tendencies or restrictions on participial transitivity; indeed, as discussed in §4.6, it is extremely rare for participles to function as the main predicate in a clause. The ‘transitivity’ of these noun and adjective categories is, then, not the same purely verbal property of transitivity manifested in finite and non-finite verb forms. Rather, it can be considered a distinct ‘nominal’ kind of transitivity, at least in strictly synchronic terms, which does not then license an analysis of these categories as partially verbal. The important point, for our purposes, is that subcategorization by participles is the same, essentially verbal, subcategorization found in finite forms. It might not in principle be surprising if participles were to display relatively lower transitivity than corresponding finite stems, since they are less prototypically verbal, and more prototypically nominal, than finite verbs. There are syntactic and poetic contexts in which participles fail to express non-subject arguments, although the same phenomena also affect finite verbs, and it is not the case that these phenomena are found distinctly more frequently with participles than finite verbs. But even if participles do omit their arguments more regularly than finite verbs, this does not reflect any grammatical difference between participles and verbs in terms of their subcategorization properties.73 Participles are categorially verb forms, and this is fully reflected in their subcategorization properties: they share the same basic lexical meaning and argument structure as corresponding finite stems.74

73 It might reflect, for example, the relation between backgrounding and lower transitivity discussed by Hopper and Thompson (: ff.): since the predication expressed by a participle is relatively backgrounded in comparison with the finite verb, we might expect participles to display intransitivity more commonly than finite verbal forms. 74 On the claim that the PIE predecessors of the RV participles were (at least largely) intransitive, and that a tendency toward intransitivity is evidence of this inherited feature, see §...

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles

. Conclusion In this chapter I have presented the important syntactic properties of tense-aspect stem participles in the Rigveda, discussing their variety of phrasal and functional configurations. I distinguished adnominal functionality (§4.2), converbal functionality (§4.3), absolute (locative) functionality (§4.4), and complementary functionality (§4.5) as the primary uses of participles, and also considered the evidence for participles functioning as primary predicates and dislocated topic phrases (§4.6). The claim that participles are inflectional verb forms rather than derived stems (§3.4) is supported by this detailed consideration of participial syntax, in particular their subcategorization properties (§4.8), where we have seen that, excluding lexicalized (and therefore synchronically non-participial) forms, participles fully mirror finite verb forms. To a large extent the functional domain of participles, as presented in this chapter, is common to the category of adjectives as a whole, and so can be considered to reflect the adjectival properties of this verbal category. In f-structural terms participles can head closed and open adjunct functions (adj and xadj) and open complement functions (xcomp); adjectives can head all of the same, but to a more restricted degree. Adnominal modification (adj within a nominal f-structure) is an entirely adjectival function, perhaps the most basic adjectival function.75 Converbal functionality (xadj) is not a specifically participial feature, but we will see in the following chapter that the converbal use of adjectives is severely restricted in comparison with that of participles. The absolute use (adj within a clausal f-structure) is restricted to participles and verbal adjectives (primarily the -tá- adjective). Completive functionality (xcomp) is not clearly distinct, since adjectives can be used in the same way, although there may be underlying functional differences between adjectives and participles in this function. Use in periphrasis (xcomp) is restricted to participles, but this functionality is only marginally developed in the Rigveda. In terms of their syntactic range, then, Rigvedic tense-aspect stem participles and lexical adjectives largely share the same possibilities, but the range of participles is somewhat broader than that of adjectives. The distinct functions in which participles, adjectives, and similar categories are employed are not unrelated to one another. König and van der Auwera (1990: 346–8) propose a schematic representation of the relations between the major functionalities we have explored in this chapter. Adapting their labels to fit our terminology, this is given as Fig. 4.3.

75 In terms of f-structure formalization there is a difference between the adnominal use of adjectives and participles if we assume that participles select for subjects but adjectives do not; this is more of a formal than a functional difference, however, and it is equally possible to treat adjectives as selecting for subjects in any case.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

4.9 Conclusion



completive periphrastic

converbal

absolute

adnominal Fig. . Participial functionality relations

Under this analysis, converbal functionality (their ‘adverbial same subject’) is the central functional domain for participles. They define this use by reference to four features, and an inversion of any one of these features produces a definition for one of the other four major functions, adnominal (their ‘attributive/apposition’), periphrastic (their ‘predicative’), completive (their ‘object nexus’), and absolute. In (4.128) I give my own version of König and van der Auwera’s definition of converbal (‘adverbial same subject’) functionality, reworked and reworded according to the formal analysis developed in this chapter. By adapting their feature set slightly to fit our analysis developed here, we can make the following claims about converbal participles: (4.128) Converbal participles: 1. are involved in a non-primary predication; 2. are not subcategorized for by the primary predicate; 3. do not have as their subject an element that is not an argument or adjunct of the superordinate clause; 4. do not constitute part of an NP headed by their subject. Using this formula, we can derive the other participial functions by the loss of constraints in this definition. Periphrastic functionality is derived by removing ‘non-’ under point 1: participles in a periphrastic construction are involved in a primary predication, but the other three elements to the definition remain.76 Completive functionality is derived by removing the negative under point 2: such participles are subcategorized for by the matrix predicate, but otherwise share the same properties as converbally used participles. Removal of the negative under point 3 derives the absolute construction: the subject of an absolute phrase is not an argument or adjunct of the matrix clause, and this is the only respect in which absolute participles differ from converbal ones. Finally, adnominal functionality is derived by loss of the negative under point 4: such participles do constitute part of the NP headed by their subject argument. 76 Assuming that, under the multiclausal analysis of periphrasis, the finite auxiliary is not (the only part of) the primary predication, and that its subcategorization for a participial complement is not strictly syntactic, but part of the morphological structure of the multiword predicate.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



The syntax of participles completive periphrastic

converbal

absolute

adnominal Fig. . Directional relations of participial functionality

In synchronic terms, then, participial functionality is centred on the converbal function. This does not necessarily indicate any hierarchical relation between these functions, nor imply any particular direction of diachronic development. Insofar as adnominal functionality is usually considered the central functional role of adjectives, if we believe Rigvedic participles to have evolved from adjectival categories in PIE then we might suppose that the adnominal function is diachronically prior, and that the other functions are derived from that. The origin of the participial categories is not clear, however, and adjectives can also be used in converbal and completive functions. In terms of diachronic development, we have seen evidence that the periphrastic and absolute uses of participles were either not fully developed in the Rigveda or only just developed; but there is no clear evidence for any developmental relation between the other three uses. Fig. 4.4 illustrates this: the only diachronic relations that can be assumed are the development of periphrastic and absolute uses out of the converbal function, but no priority can be assumed between the adnominal, converbal and completive functions. In terms of the functional differentiation of participles from adjectives, it is apparent that participial functionality is centred on the converbal function, and is in the process of extending from this. Adjectival functionality, on the other hand, is centred more on the adnominal function, the more restricted converbal and completive uses of adjectives being extensions of this primary function. The difference between participles and adjectives in this respect shows that the former are not just paradigmatically verbal but also functionally more verbal than their adjectival morphology suggests.77 In this chapter we have considered in detail the syntax of tense-aspect stem participles in the Rigveda. In the Chapter 5 we turn to the question of their semantic properties. 77 I treat the functionality of participles, and the relation of this to the cline between verbal and nominal, in more detail in §..

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

 The semantics of participles In this chapter I examine the semantic features of Rigvedic participles, providing, as in Chapter 4, both a descriptive and a formal account. Three main factors influence the semantic contribution of a participle in its context: the lexical semantic properties of the participle itself, including its basic meaning and tense-aspect properties; the syntactic context in which the participle is employed, which contributes a constructional meaning determining how the participle combines semantically with its context; and the lexical semantic properties of other elements in the clause, in particular those of the matrix verb. Consider the following example: (5.1)

lodhám mányam¯an¯ah. . nayanti páśu red.a lead animal.a think.prs.ptc.n.pl.m ‘They lead (forth) a red (beast), thinking (it) a sacrificial animal.’ (RV 3.53.23b)

The participle mányam¯ana- contributes a lexical meaning based on the tense-aspect √ stem and root on which it is formed, namely the present tense-aspect of man ‘think’. It is used converbally (§5.2) and not, for example, adnominally (§5.1); as such, the participial phrase semantically modifies the clause, or at least the matrix verb, and not (directly) its subject. Which element the participle modifies, and how it does so, must be specified in the semantics, and I assume that such specification is contributed by the syntactic node under which the participle appears, as discussed below. As a clausal modifier, the meaning of the participle necessarily interacts with the meaning of the clausal head, i.e. the finite verb. There is a temporal-aspectual interaction, which can be broadly described as a temporal overlap of the ‘thinking’ described by the participle and the ‘leading’ described by the matrix verb. Here we can also infer a more specific semantic relation between the two verbs, cause (§5.3.2), based partly on their temporalaspectual interaction and partly on the intrinsic lexical meaning of the two verbs: it is because the subjects think the red beast to be a sacrificial animal that they lead it forth. In the first part of this chapter (§§5.1–5.4) I discuss the semantic properties of participles as phrasal elements within their clauses, describing and formalizing the constructional meanings associated with the different syntactic employments of participles, and explaining in broad terms the interaction between participial and matrix

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

verb meanings. In §5.5, I discuss the tense-aspect properties of participles and their contribution to our understanding of tense-aspect in the verbal system more widely.

. Adnominal modification As discussed in Chapter 4, adnominal participles modify, in both syntactic and semantic terms, the noun with which they agree (§4.2). Semantically, they contribute to the meaning of the noun phrase of which they are a part. Their meaning contribution may be restrictive or non-restrictive; the formal difference between these two will be discussed at the end of this section but for the present it can be ignored. So in (4.2), repeated here as (5.2), the meaning of the noun nárah. ‘men’ is augmented by √ the meaning of brahman.yánt-, present participle to the denominal root brahman.y ‘speak sacred formulae’, to produce the full meaning of the noun phrase ‘men who speak sacred formulae’. (5.2) yásminn índrah. . . . / óko dadhé which.l Indra . . . home.a established brahman.yántaś=ca nárah. speak_sacred_formulae.prs.ptc.act.pl.m=and men ‘In which (place) Indra . . . / established his home, and (likewise did) men who speak sacred formulae.’ (RV 2.19.1cd) This ‘addition’ or composition appears similar to ordinary modification of nouns by adjectives. It is more complicated than adjectival modification, however, insofar as participial meanings are fundamentally verbal meanings, and as such introduce event variables and temporal variables that have to be fixed relative to other such variables, such as those introduced by the matrix verb.1 The approach to event semantics assumed in this book was introduced in §3.2.2. To √ summarize, a verbal root like brahman.y ‘speak sacred formulae’ has a basic lexical meaning as in (5.3); for any form of this verb, the lexical meaning is combined with meanings that introduce arguments (in the case of this intransitive verb, only ever a subject), and with the aspectual meaning specific to the form in question. So the meaning of the stem brahman.yá-, to which the participle brahman.yánt- is formed, is as in (5.4). (5.3)

(5.4)

λe

speak_sacred_formulae(e)

: (↑σ ev) ↑σ

e speak_sacred_formulae(e) λx.λt. : (↑ subj)σ  (↑σ rt)  ↑σ τ (e) ⊇ t agent(e, x) 1

Cf. Haug et al. (: –).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.1 Adnominal modification



In the case of finite verb forms, the temporal variable t, referring to the reference time R, is bound by tense, which introduces a further temporal variable for the perspective time P. That variable is then bound by the finiteness meaning constructor ((3.38)). Participles, however, are not finite, and are also usually assumed to lack tense (this will be discussed in more detail in §5.5). The variable t must then be bound in some other way. In the case of adnominally used participles, a meaning such as that in (5.4), which requires a value for (↑σ rt), i.e. a reference time, as well as a meaning for its subject, must be converted into a meaning that is able to modify a noun phrase meaning. Both these requirements are satisfied by the meaning constructor in (5.5). This meaning constructor is associated with the node that dominates an adnominal participle; that is, it is introduced not by any lexical item, but in the phrase-structure rule for adnominal participles. The phrase-structure rule in (5.6) shows (the template defined as) the meaning constructor in (5.5) introduced by the Ptc node that heads an adnominal PtcP (itself introduced by the rule in (4.10)).2 (5.5)

adnom-ptc: t

λP.λQ.λx.[

(5.6) PtcP

∂

tr ρ(t  , tr )

⊕ P(t  , x) ⊕ Q(x)] :

((↑subj)σ  (↑σ rt)  ↑σ )  (((adj ∈↑)σ var)  ((adj∈↑)σ restr))  (((adj ∈↑)σ var)  ((adj∈↑)σ restr))

⎞ ⎛ Ptc ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜adj ∈↑ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜ → . . . ⎜¬((adj ∈↑) aspect)⎟ ⎟ ... ⎟ ⎜ ↑=↓ ⎠ ⎝ @adnom-ptc

The meaning constructor in (5.5) converts the verbal stem meaning into a meaning that can modify a noun-phrase meaning, and identifies the meaning of the subject of the verbal stem with that of the noun phrase it is enabled to modify. It also quantifies 2 The meaning constructor cannot be introduced by the phrasal node PtcP, since in the case of a discontinuous participial phrase two PtcPs would appear in the c-structure and so the meaning constructor would be introduced twice (which would result in an incoherent semantic derivation). Introducing it under the Ptc node, however, means it is a little complicated to restrict it to PtcPs that are adnominal modifiers. The annotation adj ∈↑ restricts this rule to PtcPs that function as closed adjuncts at f-structure, but this is true not only of adnominal participles but also of absolute participles (§.). The desired restriction is achieved by the annotation in the third line of (.), ¬((adj ∈↑) aspect): on the assumption that clausal f-structures (i.e. f-structures projected from clausal nodes) necessarily have tense and aspect features while nominal f-structures (i.e. f-structures projected from NPs) necessarily do not, this f-description prevents this rule from applying to participles that head clausal adjuncts.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

the reference-time variable, but does not define it absolutely: the presupposition introduced by ∂ states, in descriptive terms, that we should infer a relation between the reference-time (t) and another temporal variable (tr ); the variable tr is interpreted pragmatically.3 This is necessary because there is more than one time relative to which the participial event can be interpreted. It is possible to interpret the event introduced by an adnominal participle relative to the event time of the main verb, or relative to the speech time. So, present, stative, and some perfect participles express a permanent quality, a habitual or characteristic action, or else a temporary characteristic or action which is relevant for at least the duration of the action of the main verb. This can be interpreted as the aspectual relation of ‘imperfectivity’; i.e. R⊆E, with R pragmatically equated either with the speech time or with the event time of the main verb. Both these possibilities have two alternative interpretations, depending on whether the action referred to is conceived as an ongoing process at the reference time, or as an iterated or habitual eventuality of which the conceptual whole extends over the reference time but of which any one individual occurrence of that eventuality is not ongoing at the reference time. The participle in (5.2) describes a certain set of men as ‘speaking sacred formulae’. This is clearly a general characterization: these are men who, we can infer, spoke sacred formulae on various occasions, perhaps very regularly, and hence can be so characterized. The phrase does not mean that these men spoke sacred formulae only at the time when they carried out the action of the (ellipsed) main verb, nor does it necessarily imply even that they were speaking sacred formulae when they did so. In (5.7) and (5.8), by contrast, the adnominal participles are more naturally interpreted as having a reference time equal to the reference time of the main verb: so the subjects of (5.7) had a mind which was ‘cow-desiring’ when they sat down, and not necessarily at the speech time or permanently, while the wise men in (5.8), repeated from (4.115), clearly desired to obtain their object only until they did obtain it. (5.7) ní gavyata¯´ mánas¯a sedur arkaíh./ down desire_cows.prs.ptc.i.sg.nt mind.i sat praises.i ´ ´ kr.n.v¯ana¯ so amr.tatva¯ ya g¯atúm make.prs.ptc.med.n.pl.m immortality.d path.a ‘With cow-desiring mind they sat down with praises,/ making a path for immortality.’ (RV 3.31.9ab)

3 On presuppositions in (Partial) CDRT, cf. Haug (a; b). The same goal is argued for in descriptive terms by W. Klein (), who suggests replacing his earlier concept of the ‘time of utterance’ (≈ the Reichenbachian S or P) with a ‘more general notion’ of a ‘clause-external temporal structure, to which situations [= eventualities] described by a sentence can be linked’, i.e. permitting the referent of the clause-external temporal structure to be contextually determined.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.1 Adnominal modification



(5.8) dh¯´ı r¯aś cit tát samínaks.anta a¯ śata wise.pl pcl it obtain.des.prs.act.ptc.n.pl.m obtained ‘Only the wise who desire to obtain it have obtained (it).’ (RV 9.73.9c) Likewise in (5.9) those who have been slain cannot be committing great sin at present: the reference time of the participle must be taken from the event time of the main verb. Similarly, nothing is claimed about the present state or even existence of the floods referred to in (5.10). In (5.11) however, the present imperative neutralizes the difference between the two: Indra desires to drink at the present moment, which is the moment referred to by the imperative verb; but at the same time the desire to drink (Soma) can naturally be interpreted as a permanent characteristic of Indra. The perfect participle in the same passage more clearly has a general, characterizing reference: Indra is implied to be wise generally, not just at the moment of speech. (5.9)

yáh. śáśvato máhy éno dádh¯an¯an/ ámanyam¯an¯añ who many.a great.a sin.a establish.med.prs.ptc.a.pl unthinking.a.pl chárv¯a jagha¯´na arrow.i has_slain ‘Who has slain with his arrow the unthinking/ many who were committing great sin.’ (RV 2.12.10ab)

(5.10) árn.a¯ m suda¯´sa/ índro g¯adha¯´ny . si cit paprath¯ana¯´ floods.a even be_broad.pf.ptc.a.pl.nt Sud¯as.d Indra fordable.a.pl akr.n.ot sup¯ara¯´ made easy_to_cross.a.pl ‘Indra made even the extended floods/ fordable and easy to cross for Sud¯as.’ (RV 7.18.5ab) (5.11)

práty asmai píp¯ıs.ate/ víśv¯ani vidús.e to him.d drink.des.prs.ptc.d.sg all.a.pl know.pf.ptc.d.sg bhara carry.imp.2sg ‘To him who desires to drink,/ to him who knows all things carry (the Soma).’ (RV 6.42.1ab)

For the ‘flying thing’ referred to in (5.12) both interpretations are clear: the verse implies that a specific action of flying was in progress at the time of (and was stopped by) the event of the main verb, but at the same time the ‘thing’ has the action of flying as a habitual characteristic by which it is categorially identified. (5.12) ár¯ıramat patáyat kác cid ábhvam stopped fly.prs.ptc.a.sg.nt whatever.a.sg.nt thing.a ‘He has stopped every flying thing.’ (RV 6.71.5d)

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

In all the examples above, the reference time of the participle overlaps and potentially extends beyond the time in relation to which it is interpreted (the matrix event time or the perspective/speech time of the utterance). Adnominal perfect participles with anterior reference have the equivalent possible interpretations: the event time of the participle precedes either the speech time or the event time of the main verb. This can be interpreted as the expression of an anterior aspectual relation, E≺R. In (5.13) and (5.14) the matrix verb is in the present tense-aspect, which neutralizes the difference between the two possible temporal relations for the participial reference time (since the event time of the matrix verb overlaps with the speech time). The important point, however, is that in both passages the eventuality referred to by the participle precedes either or both the speech time and/or the reference time of the verb. In contrast, the perfect participle in (5.15) refers to an event that is more naturally interpreted in relation to the event time of the main verb rather than the speech time. (5.13)

v¯avr.dh¯ana¯´ya tu¯´ rvaye/ pávante va¯´jas¯ataye/ increase.pf.med.ptc.d.sg.m overcomer.d flow prize_winning.d sóm¯ah. sahásrap¯ajasah. soma.pl thousand-coloured.pl ‘For the overcomer who has been strengthened, for him to win the prize the thousand-coloured Soma drops flow.’ (RV 9.42.3)

(5.14) sváśvo ábh¯ırur mányam¯anah./ sus.v¯an.ébhir of_good_horses without_fear think.prs.ptc.med.n.sg press.pf.ptc.i.pl mádati sám ha v¯ıraíh. . revels together pcl heroes.i ‘He of good horses who considers himself without fear/ revels with the heroes who have pressed (Soma).’ (RV 4.29.2cd) (5.15)

svàr jajñ¯anó nábhas¯abhy àkram¯ıt sun be_born.pf.ptc.n.sg cloud.i=prv stepped ‘Having been born as the sun, he stepped forth with a cloud.’ (RV 9.86.14c)

The temporal and aspectual values of the aorist and future participles are more problematic and will be discussed in detail in §§5.5.3 and 5.5.5, but the principles of semantic composition for adnominal uses of aorist and future participles are the same. The variability seen here in the temporal interpretation of adnominal participles is a feature of similar constructions in other languages, as discussed by von Stechow and Grønn (2013a; 2013b). To return to the semantic derivation of the noun phrase in (5.2), combining the meaning constructor for the participle in (5.4) with the meaning constructor for adnominal modification in (5.5) produces the meaning constructor in (5.16). This will combine with the meaning of the noun n´r.- ‘man’ ((5.17)) to produce the noun phrase meaning in (5.18).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.1 Adnominal modification (5.16)

λQ.λx.[

e t  speak_s._f .(e ) τ (e ) ⊇ t  agent(e , x) ∂

(5.17)

(5.18)

λx.

man(x)

tr ρ(t  , tr )



⊕ Q(x)] : (((adj∈↑)σ var)  ((adj∈↑)σ restr))  ((adj ∈↑)σ var)  ((adj∈↑)σ restr)

: (↑σ var)  (↑σ restr)

e t  man(x) speak_s._f .(e ) τ (e ) ⊇ t  λx. agent(e , x) : (↑σ var)  (↑σ restr) ∂

tr ρ(t  , tr )

There are no definite or indefinite determiners in Sanskrit, so in the absence of an explicit demonstrative pronoun or quantifier, the meaning constructor in (5.19) is applied (which can be thought of as a ‘null determiner’ meaning) in order to convert the noun phrase meaning constructor into the form required for combination with a verbal meaning (i.e. of the form seen in (3.24) above), as in (5.20). (5.19)

λP.λQ.[

x

⊕ P(x ) ⊕ Q(x )] : ∀α((↑σ var)  (↑σ restr))  (↑σ  α)  α

(5.20)

e t  x  man(x ) speak_s._f .(e ) τ (e ) ⊇ t  λP.[ agent(e , x ) ⊕ P(x )] : ∀α(↑σ  α)  α ∂

tr ρ(t  , tr )

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

As discussed in the previous chapter (§4.2), there is a semantic distinction between ‘restrictive’ and ‘non-restrictive’ modification. An adnominal participle may either contribute to the truth value of its matrix clause by restricting the reference of the noun phrase, or its predication may be independently asserted to be true of an element in the matrix clause without affecting the truth value of the clause. In (5.21) I give a simplified version of (5.2). The restrictive adnominal participle in this clause contributes to the truth-conditional content of the clause, such that, in simplistic terms, the clause is true if men who speak sacred formulae established their home (whichever particular set of such men, in whichever place, at whichever time). (5.21) óko dadhé brahman.yántaś nárah. home.a established speak_sacred_formulae.prs.ptc.act.pl.m men ‘Men who speak sacred formulae established their home.’ (≈RV 2.19.1d) In contrast, the epithets in (4.3), repeated as (5.22), do not contribute to the truth¯ conditional content of the clause. That is, it is asserted that the Adityas see the crooked and straight, and it is independently asserted that they are wide, deep, etc. Importantly, the truth value of the main assertion does not depend on the truth or falsity of the epithets. (5.22) tá a¯ ditya¯´sa urávo gabh¯ıra¯´/ ádabdh¯aso ¯ those Adityas wide.pl deep.pl undeceivable.pl dípsanto bh¯ury-aks.a¯´h./ antáh. paśyanti deceive.des.prs.ptc.act.n.pl.m many-eyed.pl within see vr.jinótá s¯adhú crooked=and straight ¯ ‘Those Adityas, the wide, the deep,/ the undeceivable, the keen to deceive, the many-eyed, see both crooked and straight (ways) within (a man)’ (RV 2.27.3a–c) In the semantic formalism we have pursued so far, all adnominal participles have been taken to contribute to the truth value of the matrix clause. In effect, that is, we have modelled only restrictive participles. Methods for distinguishing truthconditional content from non-truth-conditional content within glue semantics are discussed by Arnold and Sadler (2010) and Giorgolo and Asudeh (2011a). Arnold and Sadler, building on Potts (2005), distinguish an ‘at-issue’ dimension of utterance meaning, which corresponds to the normal truth-conditional content of a clause, and a ‘ci’ (for ‘conversational implicature’) dimension to which non-truth-conditional and other supplemental expressions, including non-restrictive modifiers, make their meaning contribution. In formal terms, they distinguish two types of glue expression, σ a and σ c , corresponding to the two dimensions. Giorgolo and Asudeh use monads,

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.2 Converbal modification



a construction from category theory, to pass non-truth-conditional semantic content through the derivation alongside the truth-conditional content, without significant alteration to the glue language. Since the details of both are relatively complex, and it would take us too far from our present subject to treat either proposal adequately, I do not present an implementation of either here, though either could be applied without difficulty to the treatment of non-restrictive adnominal participial clauses.

. Converbal modification We now turn to the semantics of converbally employed participles. In certain respects the meaning contribution of converbal participles, and hence the formal machinery required to model them, is similar to that of adnominal participles: a converbal participle’s meaning is modificatory, its reference time must be fixed relative to something in the matrix clause, and its subject must be identified with its controller in the matrix clause. The method of identifying the participle’s subject with its controller is, in fact, identical, and will not be separately discussed in this section. But in other respects they differ, naturally, in the details. A converbal participle semantically modifies the clausal meaning rather than specifically a noun phrase meaning. As such it necessarily contributes to the truthconditional content of its utterance. That is, there is no question of distinguishing restrictive from non-restrictive uses of converbal participles: all correspond in this respect to the restrictive adnominal use. In formal terms, the clausal modificatory function of a converbal participle is modelled as the contribution of an additional verbal (i.e. event-based) meaning alongside the meaning of the matrix verb. The participial meaning is semantically dependent on the matrix verbal meaning only insofar as the reference time of the former is identified with the event time of the main predication. This is the case for all converbal participles (with the exception of ‘contingent’ participles, discussed in §5.3.9); the inherent ambiguity of reference found with adnominal participles does not extend to converbal participles. The meaning constructor in (5.23) determines the semantic integration of converbal participles with their clauses; it is therefore the equivalent of the adnominal meaning constructor in (5.5). Like the latter, it is introduced by the Ptc node in the c-structure; the PS-rule in (5.24), parallel to the PS-rule for adnominal participles given in (5.6) above, shows this. (5.23) cvb-ptc: λP.λQ.λx.λe.[

t ⊕ P(t  , x) ⊕ Q(e, x)] : ((↑subj)σ  (↑σ rt)  ↑σ )  t  = τ (e) ((↑subj)σ  ((xadj∈↑)σ ev)  (xadj∈↑)σ )  (↑subj)σ  ((xadj∈↑)σ ev)  (xadj∈↑)σ

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles ⎞ Ptc ⎟ ⎜ ⎜xadj ∈↑ ⎟ ⎟ ... ⎜ ... ⎜ ⎟ ⎠ ⎝↑=↓ @cvb-ptc ⎛

(5.24) PtcP

→

The meaning side of the meaning constructor in (5.23) is similar to that in the adnom-ptc meaning constructor ((5.5)), but it differs in combining the participial meaning with a predicate on events and entities, Q(e, x), rather than merely a predicate on entities; it also differs in specifying the reference time of the participial event as equal to τ (e), the event time of the matrix verb event. On the glue side, the dependency of the participial meaning on a reference time meaning is consumed, and a modification on event types is produced. The meaning for the participle’s subject is also identified with an argument of the matrix clause (referred to by the single glue term (↑ subj)σ , since functional control means they share the same f-structure, and therefore the same s-structure). Under this analysis, the primary relation between the meaning of a participial phrase and the meaning of its matrix verb is a temporal-aspectual one: the reference time of the participial meaning is equated with the event time of the matrix verb. The relation between the event time of the participle and that of the matrix verb, and between the event time of the participle and the speech or perspective time of the matrix verb, differs according to the aspect of the participle and the tense and aspect of the matrix verb. So, in very basic terms, converbal present participles, which we have assumed to express imperfective aspect, display this imperfectivity in the relation of the participial eventuality to the matrix verb’s eventuality. In (5.25) and (5.26) the eventualities of walking and playing temporally overlap with and extend beyond the temporal extent of the reproaching and resounding respectively. (5.25) yó m¯a pa¯´kena mánas¯a cárantam/ abhicás..te who me.a innocent.i mind.i wander.prs.ptc.act.a.sg.m reproaches ánr.tebhir vácobhih. untrue.i words.i ‘He who reproaches me with untrue words as I wander around with innocent mind . . .’ (RV 7.104.8ab) (5.26) sám ¯ı sákh¯ayo asvaran/ váne kr¯´ı l.antam prv pcl friends made_resound wood.l play.prs.ptc.a.sg.m átyavim through_sieve ‘The friends made him resound/ as he played in the wood (vessel) through the sieve.’ (RV 9.45.5ab)

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.2 Converbal modification



In contrast, perfect participles to present anterior stems can be interpreted as expressing anterior aspect (E≺R). This results in a relation of temporal precedence between the participial event and that of the matrix verb. So in (5.27) and (5.28) the grooming and the drinking are indicated to have been completed prior to the coming and slaying respectively. In both these examples, the matrix verb is in a past tense; but the same relation holds between perfect participle and matrix verb when the matrix verb is in the present tense, as in (4.17), repeated here as (5.29). (5.27) marmr.j¯ana¯´sa a¯ yávo/ v´r.th¯a samudrám índavah./ groom.pf.int.ptc.med.n.pl.m lively.pl at_will sea.a drops.n ´ ágmann r.tásya yónim a¯ go.aor order.g abode.a to ‘Having been repeatedly groomed, the lively/ drops have come willingly/ to the sea, the abode of order.’ (RV 9.64.17) ˙˘ (5.28) áhann áhim papiva¯´m índro asya slew snake.a drink.pf.ptc.n.sg.m Indra it.g ‘Indra slew the snake after having drunk of it (the Soma).’ (RV 5.29.3d) (5.29) vís.u¯ co áśv¯an yuyuj¯aná ¯ıyata ékah. separated.a.pl horses.a yoke.pf.ptc.med.n.sg.m speeds alone ‘Having yoked the separated horses, he speeds (off) alone.’ (RV 6.59.5cd) I illustrate the use of the cvb-ptc meaning constructor using a simplified version of (5.29). I work through the combination of meanings in the text, and give the glue proof in Fig. 5.1. The meaning of the participial phrase, i.e. the meaning of the participle’s lexical root combined with its aspect, its argument structure and with its object argument, is given in (5.30). As with the participial meaning in (5.4), this requires meanings for the participle’s reference time and its subject. (5.30)

e x  yoke(e ) horse(x ) : (↑ subj)σ  (↑σ rt) ↑σ λy.λt. agent(e , y) theme(e , x ) τ (e ) ≺ t

The converbal syntax of the participle introduces the cvb-ptc meaning constructor ((5.23)) which binds the reference time of the participle to the event time of a second eventuality, which will be the main verb of the clause. This produces the following meaning constructor:

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

(5.31)

e x  t  yoke(e ) horse(x ) λQ.λy.λe.[ agent(e , y) ⊕ Q(e, y)] : theme(e , x ) τ (e ) ≺ t  t  = τ (e)

((↑ subj)σ  ((xadj ∈↑)σ ev)  (xadj ∈↑)σ )  (↑ subj)σ  ((xadj ∈↑)σ ev)  (xadj ∈↑)σ

The meaning constructor for the matrix verb, prior to the application of aspect and tense but following the application of argument structure, will be as in (5.32). Applying the meaning constructor in (5.31) to this, we obtain (5.33).4 (5.32) λx.λe.

(5.33)

speed(e) : (↑ subj)σ  (↑σ ev)  ↑σ agent(e, x)

e x  t  yoke(e ) horse(x ) agent(e , y) λy.λe. theme(e , x ) : (↑ subj)σ  (↑σ ev)  ↑σ τ (e ) ≺ t  t  = τ (e) speed(e) agent(e, x)

This meaning constructor is then combined with the meaning constructors for imperfective aspect (3.34a) and for the null subject (5.34). The result is the meaning constructor in (5.35).5 (5.34)

λP.

x ⊕ P(x ) : ∀α(↑σ  α)  α ant(x )

The glue term (↑ subj)σ that appears in (.) and (.) refers to the same s-structure in both examples, but only because the subject of the participle and the matrix verb are the same, and the latter functionally controls the former at f-structure. If the participle were functionally controlled by an object argument of the matrix verb (if the matrix verb were transitive), then we would have (↑ subj)σ in (.), but (↑ obj)σ in (.). 5 The meaning represented as ant(x ) expresses constraints on anaphoric resolution of the null pronom inal subject, requiring it to be coreferent with and accessible to an antecedent (Haug, b). 4

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.2 Converbal modification (5.35)



e e x  x  t  yoke(e ) horse(x ) agent(e , x ) theme(e , x ) λt. : (↑σ rt) ↑σ τ (e ) ≺ t  t  = τ (e ) speed(e ) agent(e , x ) τ (e ) ⊇ t

The application of present tense ((3.36a)) and finiteness ((3.38)) yields the meaning in (5.36). (5.36)

e e x  x  t  t  t  yoke(e ) horse(x ) agent(e , x ) theme(e , x ) τ (e ) ≺ t  t  = τ (e ) :↑σ speed(e ) agent(e , x ) τ (e ) ⊇ t  t ⊇ t tr ∂ ρ(t  , tr )

The sentence is semantically coherent on the assumption that a perspective time for the eventuality of the main verb can be obtained from the context. The glue proof for this derivation is given in Fig. 5.1, instantiating the glue terms according to the f-structure labels in (5.37), which is a simplified version of (4.27).6

6

Note that pσ is equivalent to both (s subj)σ and (y subj)σ .

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

(5.37) RV 6.59.5cd ((5.29)), simplified pred ‘speed 〈subj〉’

subj s: xadj

p: pred pred y : subj obj

‘pro’ ‘yoke 〈subj,obj〉’ [ ] pred

‘horses’

. Contextual functionality of converbal participles Although in formal terms the primary semantic relation between the meanings of converbal participles and their matrix verbs is a temporal-aspectual one, it is often possible to infer additional, atemporal, and contextually specific relations between the two meanings. This was seen in (5.1) at the start of this chapter: besides the purely temporal relation between the participial and matrix events, it is possible to infer a causal relation between them: the eventuality expressed by the matrix clause is undertaken because of the eventuality expressed by the participle. In this section we will examine the contextual relations attested between participial and matrix eventualities. In formal terms, there is little to add here to the formalization of converbal modification given in the preceding section. It is not possible, at least in the present framework, to model these contextual relations directly in the semantics. That is, it is not possible to formulate a causal relation as, for example, cause(e , e ).7 This impossibility is in fact no disadvantage to the present model, because the contextual relations between participle and matrix verb are more pragmatic than semantic in nature. They are not semantically determined, like the temporal relation between the participial reference time and the matrix event time, but are inferred from the context and the verb forms concerned. There are a few possible ways of representing these pragmatic relations in the semantic component. Haug et al. (2012: 165–71) discuss such representations in a DRT framework using the ‘=?’ notation, but also note the possibility of using presuppositions in a partial CDRT framework (Haug 2013b). This would therefore be parallel to the contextually determined temporal relation between adnominal participles and the matrix event time or the matrix speech time, discussed in §5.1. Such an approach leaves the contextual relation to be pragmatically inferred, but specifies a requirement for such a relation in the semantics. One disadvantage with this is that we do not necessarily want to force the inference of any additional contextual 7 The reason for this is the binding of the participial event variable by the participle’s aspect, such that when the meaning of the participial phrase is combined with that of the matrix verb, the participial event variable is no longer available for such a meaning. Meaning constructors similar to cause (e , e ) are proposed by Asudeh et al. (; ), but for a very different construction and in a semantics that abstracts away from tense and aspect.

i

i i

i

i

i

i

i ((sσ RT)

sσ)

α)

(sσ EV) (pσ sσ (sσ EV)

α (sσ PT)

sσ

(sσ EV) (sσ PT)

sσ

sσ) sσ

pσ

(pσ (yσ RT) sσ) (pσ (sσ EV) sσ (sσ EV) pσ

(sσ EV)

(sσ RT)

sσ

sσ Fig. . Glue proof for example (5.29)

sσ

yσ) pσ pσ

(sσ EV)

((sσ EV) ((sσ PT)

sσ)

sσ (sσ RT)

sσ)

sσ

sσ

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi

α (pσ

yσ

5.3 Contextual functionality of converbal participles

(yσ RT)

pσ

 i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

relation: in some contexts the temporal relation is the only discernible semantic relation between participle and matrix verb. This is certainly the case with (5.29), and almost certainly also with (5.25) and (5.26). An alternative is to represent contextual relations as features in the semantic structures paired with participial meanings. Dalrymple and Nikolaeva (2011), building on work by Liao (2010), propose that semantic and pragmatic features relevant to discourse interpretation can be represented as features in semantic structure; they use this in their model for information structure, which was introduced briefly in §3.3.1. Crucial to their model is the semantic attribute df, which can have values such as topic and focus, on the basis of which meaning constructors can be categorized at information structure. These features can be specified grammatically, but can also be supplied pragmatically, by the context. The contextual relations between converbal participles and their matrix verbs are similar: related to semantics, but not part of the truth-conditional meaning of an utterance, and inferrable pragmatically. We can therefore represent them in the same way, as features in semantic structure. We can assume that a semantic structure is projected from the PtcP node that dominates a converbal (and indeed any) participle. The contextual relation that the participial phrase bears to the matrix verbal meaning will then appear as the value of a feature c-relation. So, for example, the s-structure projected from the PtcP node dominating the participle in (5.1), which bears a causal relation to the matrix event, will be as shown in (5.38). The meaning paired with this structure will be the full meaning of the participial phrase, combined with cvb-ptc ((5.23)), i.e. the meaning that combines with the basic meaning of the matrix verb.  (5.38) c-relation cause This means of representing contextual functionality implies a specific set of distinct functions that can occur with converbal participles, rather than a non-discrete spectrum of event relationships. This corresponds with the typologically oriented claims of König (1995: 59–64): converbal verb forms that display a variety of contextual relations with their matrix verb should be analysed as specifically polysemous rather than simply vague. At the very least, the possible relations between converbal verb form and matrix verb tend to cluster around certain distinct semantic areas, such as cause, purpose, and so on. This clustering is relatively consistent, and is closely paralleled by the range of functionality of converbal participles in related languages like Ancient Greek and Latin, and by converbal constructions more widely in related and unrelated languages.8 The alternatives discussed above, i.e. using the DRT ‘=?’ 8 For the functions of participles in Ancient Greek, see Smyth (: –), Goodwin (: ff.), Blass et al. (, for New Testament Greek), and Haug (c; ); for Latin see Pinkster (: ff.), and Haug (). The converbal employment of participles discussed in this section broadly corresponds in functionality to what Bary and Haug () and Haug () call ‘event-elaborating’ participles or ‘elaborations’, although there are some differences in the details of the specific contextual functions found.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.3 Contextual functionality of converbal participles



notation or presuppositions, imply nothing about the types, range, or discrete nature of contextual functionality possible, and do not provide any means of representing different functions. The non-temporal relations between participial and matrix events are not marked grammatically, e.g. by word order or the use of particles (as sometimes in Classical Sanskrit), although there are some word-order tendencies, discussed below, that at least correlate with certain functions; rather, the relations are inferred purely from the context. The most important elements in determining the contextual function of a converbal participle are the lexical semantics of the two verbs involved, both the base semantics of the verbal roots and the temporal and aspectual semantics associated with the verbal stems. A variety of other factors also come into play, such as word order, the use of conjunctions, and the wider pragmatic context (cf. König, 1995). It should be noted that, although I refer primarily to converbal participles in this section, the dicussion is relevant not only to converbal participles but also to participles in the locative absolute construction. It is in principle possible for the latter to display the same sorts of contextual functionality that converbal participles display, but due to their rarity there is little clear evidence for such functions. .. Purpose One of the clearest contextual relations possible between participial and matrix eventualities is that of purpose: the participial eventuality expresses the purpose for which the eventuality of the matrix verb was undertaken, usually (if not always) therefore the purpose of the agent of the matrix verb. The expression of purpose by present participles in Vedic has been investigated by Knobl (2005),9 who concludes that such present participles are most common alongside matrix verbs with meanings like ‘coming, going, sending and summoning’. My own analysis of the Rigvedic data supports this: all of the most unambiguous examples of purposive participles occur alongside main verbs expressing movement, as in the following examples.10 (5.39) áhel.at¯a mánas¯a y¯atam arva¯´g/ aśnánt¯a unhostile.i mind.i go.imp.2du forward consume.prs.ptc.n.du.m havyám ma¯´nus.¯ıs.u viks.ú oblation.a human.l tribes.l ‘Come forward with unhostile mind/ to consume the oblation among the human tribes.’ (RV 7.67.7cd) 9

Knobl () uses the term ‘intention’ rather than ‘purpose’. Besides the passages quoted here, cf. also ..d (daśasyánt-), ..d (bhíks.am¯an.a-), ..b (saparyánt-), ..c (dádhat-), ..d (sa¯´dhant-), ..c (dádhat-), and ..d (s¯´ı dhant-). The Rigvedic passages that Knobl treats in detail are .. (sa¯´dhant-), ..cd (apasédhant-), ..ab (jáyant-), ..cd (śvasánt-), ..ab (ichánt-), ..ab (ichánt-), ..cd (aśnánt-), ..cd (ichánt-), .. (ghnánt-), ..ab (śíks.ant-), and ..cd (udr.s.ánt-). 10

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

(5.40) pári trivis..ty àdhvarám iva/ a¯´ devés.u . / ya¯´ty agn¯´ı rath¯´ı r around thrice sacrifice.a goes Agni charioteer like among gods.l práyo dádhat libation.a establish.prs.ptc.n.sg.m ‘Three times around the sacrifice/ goes Agni like a charioteer/ to establish the libation among the gods.’ (RV 4.15.2) (5.41) maghón¯am a¯´yuh. pratirán máhi śráva/ índr¯aya soma patrons.g life.a extend.prs.ptc.n.sg.m great.a fame.a Indra.d Soma.v pavase v´r.s.a¯ mádah. flow.2sg manly intoxication ‘So as to extend the life and great fame of the patrons,/ you flow, O Soma, to Indra as the manly intoxication.’ (RV 9.80.2cd) As observed by Knobl (2005), participial clauses expressing purpose most commonly follow the matrix verb, and often appear as the final constituent in their clause. This is seen in (5.39) and (5.40), and (5.42), (5.43), and (5.44), in all of which the participial clause fills the final p¯ada of the verse. This is only a tendency, however, as (5.41) shows. There is a certain logic to this tendency, insofar as the purpose of an action generally follows it, so that the relative order of matrix verb and purposive participle reflects the temporal order. The ordering of the participle after the matrix may then encourage, or at least not disfavour, its analysis as purposive. The correlation between constituent order and contextual functionality will be discussed further below in §5.3.11. The expression of purpose is also found with some aorist participles. Besides śis.ántand sádant- in the following examples, see also the discussion of jus.a¯ n.á- below, with (5.127).11 What this use of aorist participles means for our understanding of their temporal-aspectual properties will be discussed in detail in §5.5.3. (5.42) a¯´ ran.va¯´so yúyudhayo ná satvanám . / tritám . naśanta prá to joyful soldiers like warrior.a Trita.a reached forth śis.ánta is..táye instruct.aor.ptc.n.pl.m search.d ‘As joyful soldiers to a warrior,/ they have approached Trita to call him forth for the search.’ (RV 10.115.4cd) √ The form śis.ánt- in (.), thematic aorist participle to ś¯as ‘instruct’, is the only attested form of this stem. The sam . hit¯a form niśís.an at ..b is read as the n.sg.m. of prefixed ni-śís.ant- by Lubotsky (a), but the padap¯at.ha reads niśís.at, i.e. a finite sg., while Got¯o (: ) and Kümmel (: , fn. ), following Oldenberg (Noten: vol. , ad loc.) and Renou (EVP: vol. , ad loc.), prefer an amendment to + niśíśat, a finite form of √ś¯ a ‘sharpen’. Moreover,√the accent of niśís.an does not match that of śis.ánt-. There is only one other form of the thematic aorist of ś¯as in the Rigveda, śis.a¯ mahi, pl. subjunctive at ..a; the thematic aorist is better attested in Old Avestan (at Y.., Y.., Y.., and possibly Y..). The meaning of prá śis.ánt- does not precisely match that of the verbal root nor of related derivatives like praśís.‘instruction’, as noted by Renou (: ). 11

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.3 Contextual functionality of converbal participles



(5.43) dhis.a¯´ yádi dhis.an.yántah. saran.ya¯´n/ fervour.i when seek_holy_place.prs.ptc.n.pl.m hasten.sbj sádanto ádrim auśijásya góhe sit.aor.ptc.n.pl.m mountain.a Auśija.g hiding_place.l ‘When they will hasten, with fervour seeking a holy place,/ to the mountain, to sit in the hiding-place of Auśija.’ (RV 4.21.6ab) It is possible to interpret many, if not all, future participles as expressing the purpose of the action of the matrix verb; cf. (5.44) and (5.45). With this category, however, we are not so much dealing with a contextual relation inferred on the basis of a primarily temporal-aspectual semantic relation as with an aspect of the inherent meaning of the future stem. That is, what we call the future stem in the Rigveda has both temporal and non-temporal aspects to its meaning, reflecting its origin in some kind of volitional or intentional category (cf. §5.5.5). Under a purely temporal-aspectual analysis of the future, purposive functionality would perhaps be natural anyway, since the purpose of an action usually follows it; but it is clear enough that the inherent semantics of the future stem is more complex than this, as discussed further below.12 (5.44) śaryan.a¯´vati sómam/ índrah. pibatu vr.traha¯´/ bálam . reed-pond.l Soma.a Indra drink.imp.3sg Vr.tra-slayer strength.a dádh¯ana a¯ tmáni/ karis.yán v¯ıryàm establish.prs.ptc.n.sg.m self.l make.fut.ptc.n.sg.m heroic_deed.a mahát great.a ‘The Soma in the reed-pond/ let Indra slayer of Vr.tra drink,/ establishing strength in himself/ to do a great heroic deed.’ (RV 9.113.1a-d) (5.45) yaména tatám paridhím vayis.yánn/ apsarásah. pári . Yama.i stretched.a enclosure.a weave.fut.ptc.n.sg.m Apsaras.g from jajñe vásis..thah. was_born Vasis.t.ha ‘Vasis.t.ha was born from the Apsaras,/ in order to weave the enclosure stretched out by Yama.’ (RV 7.33.12cd) It is not the case that converbal participial clauses are the only or even the primary means of expressing the purpose of the action expressed by the matrix verb, nor is this the case with any of the contextual functions discussed in this section. Purposive finite clauses and infinitival clauses are considerably more common and not so restricted in their distribution (appearing e.g. with matrix verbs other than those expressing movement), as discussed by Keydana (2013: esp. 153–4). Converbal participle clauses 12 Future participles in Ancient Greek can similarly express purpose, which may likewise reflect the origin of that category in a (different) volitional/intentional category.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

are merely one means of expressing contextual relations, such as purpose, between a matrix and an embedded eventuality. .. Cause The contextual relation ‘cause’, exemplified with (5.1), is in certain respects very similar to ‘purpose’, and could arguably be treated under a single category with it. Indeed, the Indian grammarian P¯an.ini used a single term, hetu, to describe part of the functionality of the present participle that corresponds to the relations of ‘purpose’ and ‘cause’ distinguished here.13 The grammatical term hetu is best translated in English as ‘motive’ (more literally it means ‘impulse’), which can refer both to ‘purpose’ and to ‘cause’ in the sense defined here. I use the term ‘cause’ here in a restricted sense, to refer specifically to the mental cause or rationale behind the undertaking of the eventuality of the matrix verb. The wider sense of English cause, i.e. the physical cause or facilitation of an action, I treat as a distinct type of relation under the category ‘means’, discussed in the following section. Since the mental cause, or reasoning, behind an action is sometimes identical with its purpose (if the cause/reasoning relates to the relative future rather than the present or past), ‘cause’ and ‘purpose’ can overlap. Nevertheless, they are distinct: the ‘thinking’ in (5.1), repeated here as (5.46), can only be the cause, not the purpose, of the ‘leading forth’, though it could be treated under the more general heading ‘motive’ along with the examples of purpose seen in the previous section. Participles expressing the ‘cause’ of the action of their matrix verb are most commonly formed to certain types of verb: verbs of cognition or emotion such as thinking, √ knowing, fearing, verbs of desiring, including desideratives, and the copular verb  as ‘be’. Examples (5.46), (5.47), and (5.48) show a causal relation expressed by participles to verbs of thinking, knowing, and fearing respectively. (5.46) lodhám mányam¯an¯ah. . nayanti páśu red.a lead animal.a think.prs.ptc.n.pl.m ‘They lead (forth) a red beast, thinking [i.e. because they think] (it) a sacrificial animal.’ (RV 3.53.23b) (5.47) j¯anánn r.tám prathamám svàrn.aram/ práśastaye . yát which Svarn.ara.a praise.d know.prs.ptc.n.sg.m truth.a first.a kám avr.n.¯ıta sukrátuh. for chose of_great_intellect ‘Knowing what is the first truth he chose/ Svarn.ara14 for his praise, the one of great intellect.’ (RV 9.70.6cd) 13

Cf. §A. in the appendix. On the interpretation of the difficult word svàrn.ara- as the proper name of a Vedic priest, see Pinault (forthcoming). 14

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.3 Contextual functionality of converbal participles



(5.48) al¯atr.n.ó valá indra vrajó góh./ pura¯´ hántor unpiercable Vala Indra.v encloser cow.g before striking.g bháyam¯ano vy a¯` ra fear.prs.ptc.n.sg.m apart moved ‘Unpiercable Vala, O Indra, the encloser of the cow,/ before being struck opened up, because he was afraid.’ (RV 3.30.10ab) In these examples the participles express the cause, the mental reasoning behind the action of the main verb. Other clear examples with similar verbs appear at e.g. 2.23.12b, 3.31.4c, 4.1.16c, and 4.18.5a. The participles above are all present, but the √ √ aorist participles bhiy¯aná- and man¯aná-, to the roots bh¯ı ‘fear’ and man ‘think’ respectively, are also attested expressing cause, at e.g. 2.11.9c, 4.22.6c (see (5.49)), 6.9.7a, and 6.67.10b (see (5.50)). In this use they are semantically indistinguishable from the corresponding present participles bháyam¯ana- and mányam¯ana- in (5.48) and (5.46) respectively. prá síndhavo (5.49) ádh¯a ha tvád vr.s.aman.o bhiy¯ana¯´h./ then pcl you.ab.sg bull-mind.v fear.aor.ptc.n.pl.f forth rivers.n jávas¯a cakramanta speed.i stride.sbj ‘Then fearing you indeed, O bull-mind,/ the rivers will rush on with speed.’ (RV 4.22.6cd) (5.50) śám man¯ana¯´h. . santi ké cin nivído praise some instructions.a think.aor.ptc.n.pl.m ‘Some praise (it) thinking it (to be) words of instruction.’ (RV 6.67.10b) Examples (5.51) and (5.52) involve (present) participles to verbs of desiring and desiderative stems. Parallel uses of participles appear at e.g. 3.2.6c, 3.18.3a, 4.1.13b, 5.45.3d, 5.45.4d, 7.18.4a, and 9.66.14b. (5.51) vadhu¯´ r iyám pátim ichánty eti girl this husband.a desire.prs.ptc.n.sg.f goes ‘This young girl goes off desiring a husband.’ (RV 5.37.3a) (5.52) a¯vív¯asan ródas¯ı dhís.n.yemé/ ách¯a win.des.prs.ptc.n.sg.m world.a.du benevolent.a.du=these.a.du towards vípro na¯´saty¯a vivakti priest N¯asatyas.a addresses ‘Desiring to win these two worlds the priest/ makes his address to the benevolent N¯asatyas.’ (RV 7.72.3cd) √ A participial phrase involving the participle of the copular verb  as ‘be’, sánt-, and an adjectival complement to the participle, can also express a causal relation between

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

the adjectival state predicated and the eventuality expressed by the matrix verb. This construction can be used to express cause when the experiencer of that eventuality is not the subject of the matrix verb ((5.53)); alternatively, it can be used to express an objective mental cause: when the experiencer of the mental cause is impersonal or is not an argument of the matrix clause ((5.54)). (5.53) yajñéna yajñám ava yajñíyah. sán sacrifice.i sacrifice.a aid.imp.2sg worthy_of_sacrifice be.prs.ptc.n.sg.m ‘Aid sacrifice with sacrifice, for you are worthy of sacrifice.’ (RV 3.32.12c) (5.54) yó v¯am oma¯´nam dádhate priyáh. sán . who you.g.du protection.a receive.sbj dear be.prs.ptc.n.sg.m ‘Who, since he is dear (to you), will receive your protection.’ (RV 7.68.5c) In contrast to the purpose of an action, the mental cause of an action may relate to a present or past eventuality (i.e. a state of mind), but not to a future one. Thus perfect participles can express a causal relation with the matrix verb, while future participles, unsurprisingly, can never be so interpreted. The perfect participles vidvám . s- and  √vid ‘know’ bibh¯ıvám sin (5.55) and (5.56) are formed to present perfect stems (of √ . and bh¯ı ‘fear’ respectively), and therefore have present-like or imperfective temporal reference. The perfect participle sasavám . s- in (5.57) is formed to the past perfect stem √ of san ‘win’, and therefore refers to an eventuality preceding that of the matrix verb (although the mental recognition of that eventuality can most naturally be understood to overlap with the matrix event). ˙˘ (5.55) átha deva¯´n¯am ubháyasya jánmano/ vidva¯´m aśnoty and gods.g both.g race.g know.pf.ptc.n.sg.m obtains amúta itáś ca yát from_there from_here and what.a ‘And knowing the gods, both races,/ he obtains what is from there and from here.’ (RV 9.81.2cd) (5.56) ápos.a¯´ ánasah. sarat/ sámpis..ta¯ d áha bibhyús.¯ı away=Us.as wagon.ab ran crushed.ab pcl fear.pf.ptc.n.sg.f ‘Us.as ran away from the/ crushed wagon, fearing (it).’ (RV 4.30.10ab) ˙˘ madema (5.57) r¯aya¯´ vayám . sasava¯´mso win.pf.ptc.n.pl.m rejoice.opt.1pl wealth.i we ‘We would rejoice in wealth, having won.’ (RV 4.42.10a) .. Means As noted above, the contextual relation ‘means’ is used here for the wider sense of English cause. In this function, the eventuality expressed by the participle is

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.3 Contextual functionality of converbal participles



interpreted as that by means of which the eventuality of the main verb is brought about. This may range from a single direct physical cause to a specific subcomponent of the process of bringing about the eventuality of the predicate. In contrast to causal participles, participles expressing ‘means’ often refer to physical actions that make up one aspect of the whole expressed by the main verb. The expression of ‘means’ by a participle is therefore similar to the use of the instrumental case in the sense ‘through, by means of ’. Indeed, König’s (1995) ‘instrumental’ function is essentially equivalent to our ‘means’. This similarity is neatly exemplified by the structural parallelism between the two p¯adas of the following half verse (5.58): both p¯adas begin with a predicated adjective and continue with a vocative, but the final position in the clause (and p¯ada) is filled by an instrumental noun in p¯ada a, and by the participial clause in p¯ada b. ˙˘ asi (5.58) maha¯´m mahis.a v´r.s.n.yebhir/ dhanasp´r.d ugra great be.2sg buffalo.v bullish.i.pl plunder_gainer fierce.v sáham¯ano anya¯´n conquer.prs.ptc.n.sg.m others.a ‘You are great, O buffalo, by (means of) your bullish (deeds);/ (you are) one who gains plunder, O fierce one, (by means of) conquering others.’ (RV 3.46.2ab) In (5.59), the participle mathyám¯ana- ‘being rubbed’, the only Rigvedic form of √ the class 4 present to manth ‘whisk, rub’, expresses the action through which the fire, Agni, is brought into being.15 Similarly, pácant- in (5.60), present participle to √ pac ‘cook’, expresses an action undertaken in order to facilitate or bring about the eventuality of the matrix verb. sáho mahát (5.59) sá j¯ayase mathyám¯anah. dct be_born.2sg rub.prs.ps.ptc.n.sg.m power great ‘You there are brought to birth as the great power by being rubbed.’ (RV 5.11.6c) (5.60) a¯´ tva¯´m rjíśv¯a sakhya¯´ya cakre/ pácan prv you R.jiśvan friendship.d made cook.prs.ptc.n.sg.m pakt¯´ı r ápibah. sómam asya cooked_food.a drank.2sg Soma.a his ‘R.jiśvan has made you friendly/ by cooking the cooked food. You drank his Soma.’ (RV 5.29.11cd) The expression of ‘means’ by participles is not common; I am aware of no certain examples of non-present participles in this function, but this is likely due to its rarity rather than to any linguistic restriction. The form háyant- in (5.61), if it is best treated as an aorist participle rather than a nonce-formation (cf. §6.4.2), is the best example of a √ √ On the root manth ‘whisk, rub’ and its distinction from math ‘rob’, see Narten () and Mayrhofer (EWA, vol. : –). 15

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

non-present participle expressing means. It may also be possible, however, to interpret it in a purely temporal way, with the sense ‘having impelled’. (5.61) yád áy¯atam dívod¯as¯aya vartír/ bharádv¯aj¯ay¯aśvin¯a . when travelled.2du Divod¯asa.d circuit.a Bharadv¯aja.d=Aśvins.v háyant¯a impel.(?)aor.ptc.n.du.m ‘When you travelled your circuit for Divod¯asa,/ for Bharadv¯aja, O Aśvins, by impelling (your horses).’ (RV 1.116.18ab) Besides being semantically similar to the expression of cause, means is also close but clearly distinct from the expression of manner, discussed below. König (1995: 66) argues that his ‘instrumental’ function (our ‘means’) requires that ‘the verb in the main clause must be neutral in its meaning with respect to the method of performing the action in question’. That is, it has to be possible for the participial clause to express a means which is not already implied by the main verb. Otherwise, a ‘manner’ interpretation is possible: contrast e.g. running very fast he won (means interpretation, since winning does not necessarily imply any movement such as running) with running very fast he passed the 500m mark (manner interpretation, since passing a distance marker implies movement such as running). In certain respects there is also a close relation between means and equivalence, to which we now turn. .. Equivalence Within his ‘instrumental’ (our ‘means’) category, König (1995: 66–7) specifies a subtype to which he gives the label ‘interpretative’, ‘which can be paraphrased by “p amounts to doing q” ’. He gives the following English example: (5.62) Killing his mother he has also killed the dream. A participle used in this way refers not merely to an eventuality that is the means by which the eventuality of the matrix verb comes about, but to one which is so closely connected to that of the matrix verb that it is logically equivalent to it. The participle and matrix verbs essentially refer to a single eventuality, but describe it in two distinct ways, from two distinct angles. Example (5.63) is remarkably similar to the English sentence given by König ((5.62)), insofar as participle vr.n.a¯ ná- and matrix verb vr.n.ate are part of the same verbal stem, √ here the present stem of  v¯˘r. ‘choose’.16 In (5.64), on the other hand, the two verbal √ √ forms are to different roots, the participle s¯ıvyánt- to s¯ıv ‘sew’, finite avyayat to vye ‘cover’; nevertheless the identity between the eventualities expressed by the participle and matrix verb suggest a relationship of equivalence. 16

Two similar instances of this appear in (.).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.3 Contextual functionality of converbal participles



(5.63) agním vr.n.ate kavíkratum . vr.n.a¯na¯´ Agni.a choose.prs.ptc.n.pl.m choose poet-intellect.a ‘(In) choosing Agni they choose the one of poetic intellect.’ (RV 5.11.4d) (5.64) s¯´ı vyan tám¯am sám avyayat . si dúdhit¯a sew.prs.ptc.n.sg.m darkness.a confused.a enveloped ‘(In) sewing it up he enveloped the confused darkness.’ (RV 2.17.4d) In this example, it is not that Indra enveloped the darkness by sewing it up (which would be means), but rather that the sewing up and enveloping are the same eventuality viewed or described in two slightly different ways. Similarly, in (5.65) the √ ‘kicking off ’ referred to by the participle vis.phuránt- ( sph¯r./sphur ‘kick’) is really the same eventuality, described slightly differently, as the ‘hitting away’ of the matrix verb √ ápa . . . vidhyat¯am ( vyadh ‘hit’).17 (5.65) ápa śátr¯un vidhyat¯am a¯´rtn¯ı . sam . vid¯ané/ away enemies.a hit.imp.2du be_in_agreement.pf.ptc.n.du.f bow-tips imé vis.phuránt¯ı amítr¯an these kick_off.prs.ptc.n.du.f foes.a ‘In agreement let them hit away the enemies,/ these two bow-tips, kicking off foes.’ (RV 6.75.4cd) .. Result A participle expresses ‘result’ when the eventuality it refers to expresses a physical result or consequence, not necessarily intended, of the eventuality of the matrix verb. In this respect result may be thought of as being to purpose what means is to cause: ‘result’ refers to an actual consequence rather than a mentally conceived and intended (but not necessarily actualized) consequence, in the same way that ‘means’ refers to a physical causation rather than a mental rationale. In (5.66), the result of the black clans’ departure referred to by the matrix verb a¯ yan is expressed by the participle jáhat√ (present participle to h¯a ‘leave, abandon’): they must abandon their enjoyments. (5.66) tvád bhiya¯´ víśa a¯ yann ásikn¯ır/ asamana¯´ you.ab.sg fear.i clans went black not_together jáhat¯ır bhójan¯ani abandon.prs.ptc.n.pl.f enjoyments.a ‘Fearing you the black clans departed,/ not staying together, abandoning their enjoyments.’ (RV 7.5.3ab)

17 On the morphology and meaning of the problematic samvid¯ aná- ‘being in agreement’ see Kümmel . (: ), and §.. below.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

Only rarely, however, is it possible to clearly distinguish result from purpose. Converbal participles are most commonly nominative, meaning that the subject of the participle is also the subject of the matrix verb; so, when the subject of the matrix verb is an agent and the eventuality expressed by the participle is a desired consequence of the matrix action, the difference between result and purpose is effectively neutralized. In (5.67), the subject, Soma, may speed in order to become the lord of rivers or with the result that he becomes the lord of rivers; quite probably both relations are implied. (5.67) es.á rukmíbhir ¯ıyate/ v¯aj¯´ı śubhrébhir am . śúbhih./ pátih. síndh¯un¯am this golden.i speeds racehorse bright.i filaments.i lord rivers.g bhávan become.prs.ptc.n.sg.m ‘This racehorse speeds / with golden, bright filaments,/ becoming the lord of rivers.’ (RV 9.15.5) When a result is intended, the only difference between result and purpose is the perspective from which the eventuality is viewed. At the time of the eventuality of the main verb, any intended result is necessarily still only a purpose; it is only from an external perspective, for example from the time of the utterance itself, that such a purpose can be conceived of as an achieved result. Therefore whenever it is possible to interpret a participle as expressing either or both purpose and result, purpose should be taken as the basic sense, with result as a possible secondary pragmatic inference. I assume result only where the result is clearly unintended, that is, where purpose is impossible. .. Concession Participles can be interpreted as expressing ‘concession’ when the eventuality to which they refer is one despite which the eventuality of the matrix verb occurs or holds. They thus correspond to an English adjunct clause introduced by e.g. ‘although’ or ‘despite’.18 This contextual relation is extremely rare, except with sánt-, present participle of the √ copular verb  as ‘be’. The frequent concessive use of sánt- has been recently discussed by Knobl (2006), who notes a similarly frequent use of its Homeric Greek cognate eo¯´n to express ‘concession’; this special use of sánt- is thus likely to be inherited. The property referred to by the adjective or noun complement to sánt- is semantically opposed to the eventuality of the matrix verb, as in the following passages:19

18 A concessive relation may be understandable, at least in part, as the negative of a means relation (i.e. ‘not because’ > ‘despite’), as argued by König (). 19 There are many similar passages, e.g. at ..c, ..a, ..b, ..b, ..a, ..b, and ..d.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.3 Contextual functionality of converbal participles



(5.68) kr.s.n.a¯´ sat¯´ı rúśat¯a dh¯asínais.a¯´/ ja¯´maryen.a páyas¯a black be.prs.ptc.n.sg.f bright.i nourishment.i=this jamarya.i milk.i p¯ıp¯aya swells ‘Although she is black this one swells with bright nourishment, with jamarya milk.’ (RV 4.3.9cd) (5.69) jívr¯ı yát sánt¯a pitár¯a san¯ajúr¯a/ púnar feeble.a since be.prs.ptc.a.du.m father.a.du weakened.a again yúv¯an¯a caráth¯aya táks.atha young.a life.d construct.2pl ‘Because you make your parents, though being feeble and weakened,/ young again for life.’ (RV 4.36.3cd) bhu¯´ mir am (5.70) urv¯´ı sat¯´ı . h¯uran.a¯´bh¯ut wide be.prs.ptc.n.sg.f earth constricted=became ‘Although it is wide, the earth has become constricted.’ (RV 6.47.20b) According to Kortmann’s (1995) ‘gradient of informativeness’ for converbal functions (discussed in §5.3.10), concession is the ‘most informative’ converbal function; as we will see it is therefore reasonable to suppose that non-participial adjectives were incapable in themselves of expressing this semantic relationship. The frequent use of sánt-, then, in this function is simply as a means of enabling non-participial adjectives to express concession. Using such a participle alongside an adjective changes the syntactic context in which the adjective appears, from direct modifier of a noun (whether adnominal or converbal) to complement within the participial clause. It is then the participial clause that modifies the noun, licensing the expression of concession, since it is a converbal function available to participles. Examples (5.71), (5.72), (5.73), and (5.74) are among the rare instances of participles other than sánt- expressing concession.20 (5.71) dípsanta íd ripávo na¯´ha debhuh. harm.des.prs.ptc.n.pl.m indeed rogues not=pcl harmed ‘Although desiring harm the rogues have indeed not caused harm.’ (RV 4.4.13d) (5.72) utá svás¯ar¯a yuvat¯´ı bhávant¯ı/ a¯´d u bruv¯ate also sisters young become.prs.ptc.n.du.f indeed pcl be_called.3du mithuna¯´ni na¯´m¯a male_and_female.a names.a ‘And although being young sisters/ they are indeed called by masculine and feminine names.’ (RV 3.54.7cd) 20

Examples (.) and (.) are from adjacent √ verses of the same hymn, and in the first of these the participle is bhávant-, to the almost copular root bh¯u ‘become’.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

(5.73) mahó deva¯´n bíbhrat¯ı ná vyathete great.a gods.a bear.prs.ptc.n.du.f not tremble.3du ‘Although supporting the great gods they do not tremble.’ (RV 3.54.8b) (5.74) apa¯´m mádhye tasthiva¯´m t´r.s.n.a¯ vidaj jarita¯´ram . sam ./ waters.g middle.l stand.pf.ptc.a.sg.m thirst=found singer.a ‘Although he was standing in the midst of waters/ thirst found the singer.’ (RV 7.89.4ab) .. Manner and attendant circumstance Perhaps the most commonly inferrable relation, though also one of the most problematic, is one of conceptual unity: participle and matrix verb formally express two distinct eventualities, but they are intended to be understood as a single complex whole. This is a kind of ‘event conflation’, a typologically common linguistic process that has a variety of modes of expression cross-linguistically (Talmy 1991). In principle, at least, it is possible to distinguish two types of perceptual unity, which, following König (1995: 65–6), I label ‘manner’ and ‘attendant circumstance’. The former is restricted to cases where the participle is interpreted not as referring to a distinct eventuality, but as specifying in more detail the type of eventuality expressed by the matrix verb. The latter, on the other hand, covers cases where the participle’s eventuality is distinct but conceived as a unity with that of the matrix. König (1995) describes the distiction as follows:21 A sharp distinction needs to be drawn between ‘manner’ and ‘attendant circumstance’. The former term should only be used for sentences describing two aspects or dimensions of only one event [e.g. a type of motion, a way of speaking/crying]. The term ‘attendant circumstance’, by contrast, should be used for cases where two independent events or actions are involved, either of which could be stopped without affecting the other, but which manifest a unity of time and place and thus also a ‘perceptual unity’. (König 1995: 65–6)

Participles expressing manner in the strictest sense are necessarily formed to verbal roots that express a specific type of a more general kind of activity, e.g. running as a specific type of unergative movement. Moreover, the expression of manner implies not only a simultaneity but even temporal-aspectual coextent of the participial and matrix eventualities, since they are in reality one. It is therefore restricted to participles with the appropriate temporal-aspectual features, i.e. what we have thus far considered imperfective aspect (but cf. §5.5.1); present, stative, stative perfect, and some aorist participles can all be interpreted in this way. Anterior perfects, and aorist participles with anterior or perfective reference, on the other hand, naturally cannot express 21 König’s categorization of converbal functionality is discussed by Haug et al. (), who draw a somewhat different set of functional distinctions from those assumed here.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.3 Contextual functionality of converbal participles



manner. In (5.75), the present participle v¯ajáyant- ‘racing’ unambiguously specifies the manner of the eventuality of movement expressed by the matrix verb úpa y¯ahi ‘come’.22 (5.75) índra r.bhúbhir v¯ajíbhir v¯ajáyann ihá/ stómam . Indra.v R.bhus.i prize_having.i race.prs.ptc.n.sg.m here praise.a jaritúr úpa y¯ahi yajñíyam singer.g to go.imp.2sg sacrificial.a ‘O Indra, with the R.bhus, with the prizewinners, come racing/ here to the sacrificial praise of the singer.’ (RV 3.60.7ab) In contrast, ‘attendant circumstance’ involves two distinct eventualities that nevertheless overlap temporally and are semantically similar enough to be conceived as one. The finite verb in (5.76) is part of the same stem as the finite verb in (5.75), i.e. √ the present stem of  y¯a ‘travel, go’, while the participle is mím¯ana-, formed to the √ present stem of  m¯a ‘measure’. Unlike racing, ‘measuring’ is not a particular type of movement, but is an eventuality that prototypically involves movement across a spatial extent. The ‘going’ and the ‘measuring’ in (5.76) can therefore be conceived as a single complex event: the participle therefore expresses the ‘attendant circumstance’ that occurs alongside the event of the matrix verb and that is conceptually united with it. (5.76) puru¯´ vár¯am mím¯an¯a/ ’pó . sy ámit¯a many.a spaces.a unmeasured.a measure.prs.ptc.n.pl.du waters.a dhánv¯any áti y¯atho ájr¯an deserts.a across go.2du fields.a ‘You (two) go measuring many unmeasured spaces/ across waters, deserts, fields.’ (RV 6.62.2cd) With some classes of verb, however, it is difficult to make an unambiguous distinction between manner and attendant circumstance. Verbs of emotion are one such category: participles to such verbs may clearly express a distinct eventuality to that of their matrix verb, but at the same time contribute an expression of the manner in which the matrix event occurred. For example, one may be in a state of happiness when one smiles (two distinct eventualities), but when one is said to smile happily, a distinct manner of smiling (a single eventuality) is implied. In the same way, does haryánt‘glad’ in (5.77) refer to a distinct eventuality, that is to the fact that the subject of the √ Forms of v¯ajáyant- in the Rigveda may represent at least two √ distinct stems, one causative to vaj ¯´ ‘become aware’, i.e. ‘incite’ √ , and another to the denominative stem v¯ajay ‘seek the prize’ based on vaja ‘prize, race’. The root vaj was proposed by Watkins (), equating the causative stem v¯ajáya- with Latin vege¯o ‘I incite’ and Gothic uswakjan ‘awaken’ . Watkins () and Jamison (a: , ) treat transitive √ forms as reflecting the causative of vaj, and intransitive forms, including the participle seen here, as reflecting the denominative root. It is also possible, however, that forms of v¯ajáyati and v¯ajáyant- that √ mean specifically ‘race/racing’, as here, rather than ‘seek the prize’, might derive from the causative of vaj by semantic incorporation and consequent loss of an original object such as ‘horses’. 22

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

matrix verb is also glad, or does it refer to the manner of the eventualities expressed by the matrix verbs, or indeed to both?23 (5.77) haryánn us.ásam arcayah./ su¯´ ryam . be_glad.prs.ptc.n.sg.m dawn.a beam.cs.inj.2sg sun.a haryánn arocayah. be_glad.prs.ptc.n.sg.m shine.cs.imf.2sg ‘Gladly you made the dawn beam,/ gladly you made the sun shine.’ (RV 3.44.2ab) Insofar as such participles do imply a distinct eventuality, I propose to treat them primarily as expressing a relation of attendant circumstance. That there is also an element of a manner relation is undeniable, however, and it may be that we should admit the possibility that single converbal participles can express two distinct contextual relations at the same time.24 Although there are clear conceptual differences between manner and attendant circumstance, then, they are nevertheless closely related. This close relation is reflected in their shared distribution, which differs from the other contextual relations discussed in this section. While the other relations discussed above are almost entirely restricted to participles, manner and attendant circumstance are also found with nonparticipial adjectives. That is, non-participial adjectives can be used converbally, like participles, but the only contextual relations possible between the states predicated by non-participial adjectives and the eventualities of their matrix verbs are manner and attendant circumstance.25 This restriction provides at least negative evidence as to the non-participial status of some of the forms to be discussed in Chapter 6: forms that morphologically could be participles but that are better analysed as lexical adjectives are only ever found expressing manner or attendant circumstance when used converbally. Example (5.78) shows an uncontroversial adjective expressing attendant circumstance; (5.79) shows uśánt-, usually treated as a present participle but in fact a Caland adjective (§6.10), likewise expressing attendant circumstance. In converbal use, uśánt- only ever expresses attendant circumstance. (5.78) imó agne v¯ıtátam¯ani havya¯´/ ’jasro vaks.i these.a Agni.v most_acceptable.a oblations.a untiring convey.imp.2sg devát¯atim ácha the_gods.a to ‘O Agni, these most acceptable oblations/ untiringly convey to the gods.’ (RV 7.1.18ab)

23 24 25

On the meaning of the stem haryá- and its Greek cognate khaír¯o, see Wachter (; ). In formal terms, we could treat the value of the semantic attribute c-relation ((.)) as a set. On adjectives with such functions, see Delbrück (: ), Cantera (), and Krisch (: –).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.3 Contextual functionality of converbal participles



(5.79) uśán hotar ní sad¯a yónis.u tris.ú willing priest.v down sit.imp.2sg seats.l three.l ‘O priest, sit down willingly on the three seats.’ (RV 2.36.4b) .. Chaining Participles used in ‘chaining’ constructions, and also participles expressing ‘contingency’, which are discussed in the next section, fall under the heading of converbal modification insofar as they are open adjuncts at f-structure, in syntactic terms indistinguishable from other converbal participles such as we have been discussing in the preceding sections.26 In semantic terms, however, these converbal functions are distinct: the semantic relation between such participles and their matrix verbs is not expressed by the cvb-ptc meaning constructor but by different (though similar) meaning constructors. Chaining is the expression of two or more semantically coordinate predications using only one finite verb form and one or more syntactically dependent nonfinite verb forms.27 It is therefore a form of semantic coordination which involves syntactically subordinating all but one of the coordinated verbs, creating as it were a ‘chain’ of subordinate verb forms.28 This semantic coordination but syntactic subordination involves a mismatch between syntax and semantics that is found also in other constructions cross-linguistically, as discussed by Culicover and Jackendoff (1997), Yuasa and Sadock (2002), and Belyaev (2014).29 The use of participles in ‘chaining’ constructions in the Rigveda is somewhat limited, but is not uncommon with imperatival matrix verbs. In (5.80) there is only one finite verb, the imperatival injunctive dh¯ah., but the three preceding present participles, √ √ codáyant- ‘inciting’ ( cud ‘incite’), ¯ıráyant- ‘impel’ ( ¯ır ‘move, rise’), and vyuchánt√ ‘shining’ ( vas ‘become light’) are interpreted in context as part of the command, 26 For Haspelmath (), chaining constructions are not strictly converbal; he distinguishes subordination, prototypically realized by converbs, from cosubordination, prototypically realized by ‘medial verbs’, i.e. verbs that participate (only) in chaining constructions. The distinction will be discussed further in §., but for present purposes it is sufficient to consider this a ‘converbal’ function. 27 For an LFG-based discussion of chaining in a modern Indo-Aryan language, see Beermann and Hellan (). Note that this is entirely distinct from ‘chain-verb’ (or ‘serial-verb’) constructions found in e.g. some modern African languages. The best known example of ‘chaining’ in an ancient Indo-European language is the frequent use of the aorist participle in Ancient Greek to express what is a semantically coordinate action, e.g. ta˜uta eipo`¯ n ape¯´iei ‘he said this and (then) went away’. The same phenomenon is found in Gothic and Old Church Slavonic (on which see Růžička, : –), where it is clearly based on the Greek but nevertheless shows that the use of a participle in this way was not impossible in these ancient Indo-European languages. 28 There are other labels in the literature beside ‘chaining’: the equivalent function among those listed by Kortmann (: ) is ‘Addition: “besides p, q”, “in addition to p, q” ’; Haug (; ) and Bary and Haug () name such participles in Ancient Greek ‘independent rhemes’. 29 Belyaev () shows that there can even be mismatches between c-structural and f-structural coordination/subordination; there is no reason to treat chaining in RV Sanskrit, at least, as involving anything other than subordination at both c- and f-structure.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

semantically parallel to the finite verb. This use of participles appears to show them adopting the modality of the matrix verb, which implies that they are underspecified, at least in some contexts, for mood. So it is not the case that the goddess Us.as, the dawn, is commanded to establish thoughts for victory while she happens to be inciting gods, impelling good gifts, and shining widely, but rather that she is commanded to do all these things. (5.80) devám codáyanty/ asmadryàk . -devam . ra¯´dhase god_after_god generosity.d incite.prs.ptc.n.sg.f in_our_direction ¯ıráyant¯ı/ s¯un´r.t¯a vyuchánt¯ı nah. good_gifts.a move.cs.prs.ptc.n.sg.f shine_apart.prs.ptc.n.sg.f our dh¯ah. sanáye dhíyo victory.d thoughts.a establish.inj.2sg ‘Incite god after god for generosity,/ impel good-gifts our way,/ shine widely, (and) establish our thoughts for victory.’ (RV 7.79.5a–c) The use of participles in chaining constructions is close to, and probably derived from, the use of converbal participles expressing a purely temporal-aspectual relation with the matrix verb. As specified in the cvb-ptc meaning constructor, converbal present participles describe an eventuality that overlaps temporally with that of the matrix verb. It is in principle difficult to fully distinguish chaining participles from this, since the eventualities that they describe can often be interpreted in the same way; this is obviously the case with three present participles in (5.80), for instance. The difference is that in chaining constructions the eventualities expressed by participle and matrix verb are located in the same broad time-frame, but strict temporal overlap is not necessarily implied. So again in (5.80), it is not necessarily implied that there should be a single period of time during which the four actions commanded are all being undertaken at once, as a strict converbal temporal interpretation would imply. Rather, it is merely implied that all four actions should be undertaken within roughly the same time period. Example (5.81) is even more clear: this verse refers to a few of Indra’s exploits, none of which is implied to have occurred at the same time, but which can be expressed together in a chaining construction because the shared time period is merely ‘the past’ (determined by the finite verb, the aorist t¯utod). (5.81) só á˙ngiras¯am ucáth¯a jujus.va¯´n/ bráhm¯a t¯utod dct A˙ngirases.g praises.a enjoy.pf.ptc.n.sg.m prayers.a strengthened mus.n.ánn us.ásah. índro g¯atúm is.n.án/ Indra way.a send.ptc.prs.act.n.sg.m steal.prs.ptc.n.sg.m dawns.a su¯´ ryen.a stava¯´n/ áśnasya cic chiśnathat p¯urvya¯´n.i sun.i praised Aśna.g even pierced ancient.a.pl ‘Indra, having enjoyed the praises of the A˙ngirases,/ made strong the sacred prayers, and sent them on their way;/ he stole the dawns with the sun, the praised one,/ he pierced the ancient works even of Aśna.’ (RV 2.20.5)

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.3 Contextual functionality of converbal participles



Although the use of present participles in chaining constructions is distinguishable from a purely temporal converbal use, despite their close similarity, this cannot be said for perfect (present anterior) participles, or for aorist participles with clearly anterior reference. A purely temporal converbal use of an anterior perfect or aorist participle describes an eventuality as temporally preceding the eventuality referred to by the matrix verb. But this is practically indistinguishable from a temporally sequential chaining construction in which the participle refers to one eventuality and the matrix verb to another that follows it, the two eventualities being treated as semantically coordinate. So the gloss given in (5.82) assumes the chaining interpretation, but it is not clear that there is any real difference from a gloss such as ‘having struck . . . you assumed’, based on a purely temporal-aspectual interpretation. The same issue is seen in (5.83). (5.82) áhim cid ugra práyutam śáy¯anam . . ./ snake.a even fierce.v stretched_out.a lie.stv.ptc.a.sg.m ˙˘ indra távis.¯ım adhatth¯ah. jaghanva¯´m strike.pf.ptc.n.sg.m Indra.v might.a established.2sg ‘You struck even the snake, o fierce one, who was lying stretched out, Indra, and established your might.’ (RV 5.32.2cd) (5.83) ás¯adi vr.tó váhnir a¯jaganva¯´n sat chosen conveyor come.pf.ptc.n.sg.m ‘The chosen conveyor has come and sat down.’ (RV 7.7.5a) Since it is not possible to identify a chaining function for perfect participles with anterior reference that has any distinct semantic properties from a purely temporalaspectual converbal function, I treat all potential instances as examples of the latter, reserving the chaining function purely for present participles. As noted, the same problem affects aorist participles with anterior reference. In (5.84) the context makes it clear that the eventuality referred to by the participle must precede that of the matrix verb. (5.84) ádha gmánt¯a náhus.o hávam śrót¯a . s¯uréh./ now come.aor.ptc.n.du.m Nahus..g call.a patron.g hear.imp.2pl mandr¯ah. r¯aj¯ano am´r.tasya kings.v immortality.g delightful.v ‘Now having come to the call of the patron Nahus./ hear, you delightful kings of immortality . . .’ (RV 1.122.11ab) Here the ‘coming’ necessarily precedes the ‘hearing’ which is being commanded.30 This temporal sequence can be analysed as a result of a strictly temporal-aspectual con30 In this passage there is a syntactic irregularity: the participle is in the dual, while the imperative is plural. Geldner (RV: vol. : , ad loc.) considers it anacoluthon, the poet thinking first of Mitra¯ Varun.a then of the remaining Adityas. However, in its two other occurrences gmánt- likewise appears in the

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

verbal relation between participle and matrix verb, and nothing necessarily requires a distinct chaining interpretation. This is only the case with perfect and aorist participles that unambiguously refer to a temporally prior eventuality, however. Stative perfect and many aorist participles appear equivalent to present participles in terms of their tense-aspect properties, and as such can likewise display ‘chaining’. In (5.85), the aorist participle sr.j¯aná- shows no discernible anterior or perfective sense, and in context parallels the present participle suv¯aná- in the following p¯ada. As with (5.80), the participles can be interpreted within the scope of the imperatival modality of the finite verbs; we are therefore dealing with four parallel commands, two expressed by finite verbs, the other two expressed by the converbal participles. (5.85) úd u tis..tha savitah. śrudhy àsyá/ híran.yap¯an.e up pcl stand.imp.2sg Savitr..v hear.imp.2sg this.g golden-handed.v prábhr.t¯av r.tásya/ vy ùrv¯´ı m pr.thv¯´ı m amátim . sr.j¯aná/ start.l true.g apart wide.a broad.a form.a release.aor.ptc.n.sg.m a¯´ n´r.bhyo martabhójanam . suv¯anáh. prv men.d mortal_food.a impel.prs.ptc.n.sg.m ‘Stand up, Savitr., be attentive,/ O golden-handed, at the start of this true (rite),/ send forth your wide, broad form/ and impel mortal food for men.’ (RV 7.38.2) The chaining relation between a converbal participle and its matrix verb is expressed by the chain meaning constructor in (5.86). It is almost identical to the cvb-ptc meaning constructor ((5.23)), the only difference being that the participle’s reference time t and the event time of the matrix verb τ (e) are not stated to be equal, but to be similar (∼). This captures the looser temporal relation found in the chaining construction; it could be thought of as a ‘semantic bleaching’ of the equality relation found with most converbal participles. The meaning constructor in (5.86) can be introduced as an option alongside the cvb-ptc meaning constructor in the phrasestructure rule that licenses converbal participles. (5.86) chain: λP.λQ.λe.[

t ⊕ P(t  ) ⊕ Q(e)] : t  ∼ τ (e)

((↑σ rt)  ↑σ )  (((xadj∈↑)σ ev)  (xadj∈↑)σ )  ((xadj∈↑)σ ev)  (xadj∈↑)σ

identical form n./a.du.m. gmánt¯a (where it is syntactically justified): what we may be seeing in this passage, then, is a fossilization of the isolated gmánt¯a as an all-purpose form, echoing, functionally and phonetically, the increasingly productive absolutive (gmánt¯a : gatva¯´). In fact it might be that gmánt¯a here is a pseudoabsolutive, an obsolescent formation restricted to the poetic language being used for a construction that was most likely increasingly common in colloquial speech. Nevertheless the stem can only be analysed as that of an aorist participle. Cf. also §...

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.3 Contextual functionality of converbal participles



As mentioned in fn. 27 above chaining corresponds to the function of participles as ‘independent rhemes’ in Ancient Greek, according to the analysis of Bary and Haug (2011) and Haug (2012). The two constructions are different in several respects, however. The Greek construction is found primarily with the perfective aorist participle, expressing sequence of events, in contrast to the restriction of chaining to present participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit. In addition the Greek construction is considerably further syntacticized: as argued by Haug (2012), participles functioning as independent rhemes appear in a specific phrase-structure position, adjoined to I , whereas chaining participles have no such privileged position in Rigvedic phrase-structure. The meaning constructor that Bary and Haug (2011) propose for ‘independent rheme’ participles in Ancient Greek differs considerably from that proposed here, reflecting the considerable differences in the constructions. .. Contingency As with the chaining function of converbal participles, the expression of ‘contingency’ involves syntactically converbal participles but involves a different meaning constructor from the cvb-ptc meaning constructor found with most uses of converbal participles. Contingent participles express time ‘when’ in relation to the matrix eventuality; they can be thought of as a kind of reduced adverbial temporal clause locating the temporal reference of the matrix verb in relation to another eventuality. That is, when the eventuality expressed by the participle is or was occurring, the eventuality expressed by the matrix verb is or was occurring. So, in (5.87) it was when Indra sought relief for Uśan K¯avya (participle varivasyánt- ‘seeking to make room’) that Indra became the first increaser (finite bh¯uh. ‘you became’). In (5.88) the contingent participle determines the time-frame not only of the main verb but also of another participle (in chaining function) which is itself temporally dependent on the matrix verb. (5.87) tvám indra p¯urvyó bh¯ur/ varivasyánn . vr.dhá you increaser Indra.v first became seek_room.prs.ptc.n.sg.m uśáne k¯avya¯´ya Uśan.d K¯avya.d ‘You, Indra, became the first increaser,/ when you sought to make room for Uśan K¯avya.’ (RV 6.20.11ab) (5.88) eva¯´ nah. soma paris.icyám¯ano/ váyo thus us.d Soma.v pour_around.prs.med.ptc.n.sg.m strength.a dádhac citrátamam pavasva establish.prs.ptc.n.sg.m most_glorious.a flow.imp.2sg ‘Thus when you are poured around, Soma, for us,/ establish most glorious strength and flow (forth).’ (RV 9.68.10ab)

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

I take the term ‘contingency’ from Kortmann (1998: §2.2.1, p. 465), who defines it in the following way: ‘[contingency] involves quantification over a situation p: at all times when p is true, q is true, too . . .’ It is also broadly equivalent to what he labels ‘Simultaneity Co-Extensiveness’, defined ‘as long as p, q’. A similar participial function in Ancient Greek is labelled ‘framing’ by Haug (2010; 2012) and Bary and Haug (2011).31 Uniquely for Rigvedic participles, the contingent functionality of a few forms appears to be indicated by the subordinating conjunction yád ‘when’ functioning as a modificatory particle. The three participles in (5.89) can all be interpreted as expressing contingency, but the third, utpátant-, is preceded by, and apparently modified by, yád ‘when’. The finite verb in this third p¯ada, vádasi, is accented as if it were subordinated, but it makes little sense to take yád with the finite verb and to interpret the whole p¯ada as a subordinate temporal clause, since the previous p¯ada refers to the bird sitting silently, not flying up. (5.89) a¯vádam tvám a¯´ vada/ t¯us.n.¯ım .s . śakune bhadrám speak.prs.ptc.n.sg.m you bird.v propitiously speak.imp.2sg silently sumatím cikiddhi nah./ yád a¯´s¯ınah. . sit.prs.ptc.n.sg.m good_thought.a pay_attention.imp.2sg us.g when utpátan vádasi karkarír yath¯a fly_up.prs.ptc.n.sg.m speak.2sg lute like ‘When you speak, O bird, speak propitiously,/ when sitting silently pay attention to our good thought;/ when flying up you sing like a lute.’ (RV 2.43.3a–c) This use of yád is particularly clear in (5.90), where the lack of accent on the finite verb makes it clear that it is not within the scope of a subordinating conjunction, meaning that yád can only be taken with the participle. In (5.91) the finite verb átsi is necessarily accented as it is clause-initial, but it makes little sense to interpret the finite verb as part of a subordinate temporal clause, and moreover the position of yád is rather late in the clause for such an interpretation. yád dádh¯anah./ (5.90) váyo-vayo jarase strengtha-strength.a awake.2sg when establish.prs.med.ptc.n.sg.m pári tmán¯a vís.ur¯upo jig¯asi around self.i varied_form move.2sg ‘You awake when you adopt strength after strength,/ you move around yourself in manifold forms.’ (RV 5.15.4cd)

31 As with the Ancient Greek parallel for the ‘chaining’ function discussed in the previous section, Ancient Greek ‘framing’ participles are somewhat distinct from the RV participles expressing contingency. In particular, the Greek construction is more fully syntacticized, ‘framing’ participles appearing in a distinct phrase-structure position (Spec,IP).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.3 Contextual functionality of converbal participles



˙˘ átsi (5.91) pácanti te vr.s.abha¯´m tés.a¯ m/ pr.ks.én.a yán maghavan cook you.d bulls.a eat.2sg it.g.pl food.i when generous.v h¯uyám¯anah. call.prs.ps.ptc.n.sg.m ‘They cook you bulls; you eat them/ when you are called on with food, O generous one.’ (RV 10.28.3cd) In Classical Sanskrit, and also for example in Ancient Greek, particles can optionally be used with participles to specify certain contextual functions, but in Rigvedic Sanskrit no other particles are used in this way, and no other functions of participles are explicitly distinguished in such a way. A possible explanation for this otherwise unparalleled use of yád with participles may be that the contingent functionality was felt to be obsolescent, archaic, or less natural in some way, and therefore required reinforcement with a semantically explicit particle. Contingent participles differ from all other uses of converbal participles insofar as their reference time is not fixed relative to the event time of the matrix verb; rather, the temporal relation is reversed: the reference time of the matrix verb is fixed relative to that of the participle. The constructional meaning that formalizes this is given in the meaning constructor in (5.92). This meaning constructor, like the chaining meaning constructor ((5.86)), must be introduced as an option in the phrase-structure rule alongside the cvb-ptc meaning constructor. The meaning constructor in (5.92) fixes the perspective time of the main verb in relation to the reference time of the participle, and also introduces a presupposition that requires an appropriate reference time for the participle to be found from the context. In grounding a temporal variable in relation to the context, it is similar to the finiteness meaning constructor ((3.38)), and indeed only one of contingent and finiteness is required in a single clause. If contingent is used, then the perspective time of the matrix verb is already anchored by the reference time of the participle, so finiteness cannot apply.32 (5.92) contingent: t t t ⊆ t λP.λQ.[ tr ∂ ρ(t  , tr )

⊕ P(t  ) ⊕ Q(t  )] : ((↑σ rt)  ↑σ )  (((xadj∈↑)σ rt)  (xadj∈↑)σ )  (xadj∈↑)σ

32 The meaning constructor given in (.) is based on the meaning constructor proposed by Bary and Haug () for ‘framing’ participles expressing narrative progression in Ancient Greek, but altered according to the somewhat different properties of the RV construction.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

.. Relations between relations We have seen that converbal (and absolute locative) participles are capable of displaying a variety of contextual relations alongside their purely temporal-aspectual relation to the matrix predicate. Many, if not all, of these contextual relations can also be inferred between relative and other subordinate clauses and the clause within which they are embedded (cf. Hock 1993; Bock 2009; and more widely Hettrich 1988); these relations are not, then, a peculiarity of participles as such but are more generally a feature of the use of embedded clauses in a wider sense. The examples provided in this section were selected purely as the best representatives of the respective functions under discussion. Notably, the majority of these involve present participles in the nominative case. The preponderance of present participles is partly due to the high frequency of present participles in comparison to the other tense-aspect stems, but not entirely. It is only with present participles that the full range of contextual functions is attested. Moreover, only those aorist or perfect participles that appear ‘present-like’ in terms of their tense-aspect properties are found in a wide range of contextual functions; that is, only the stative perfect participles and aorist participles that lack clear ‘aoristic’ sense show a range of functionality approaching that of present participles. It appears, then, that the functions discussed in this section are particularly associated with ‘present-like’ tense-aspect properties of participles, whether we understand that as imperfective aspect or as something else (§5.5.1). Similarly, the fact that converbal participles are most commonly found in the nominative is not purely a result of the statistical predominance of nominative case over other cases. Most of the relations between verb and participle discussed in this section—cause, result, purpose, etc.—prototypically involve two dynamic eventualities directly related to one another, and are therefore most naturally inferrable in contexts where both of the eventualities involved are predicated of the same subject, i.e. when participle and verb share the same nominative subject. Indeed, purely temporal-aspectual relations are predominant between non-nominative participles and their matrix verbs, which is likely due to the fact that it is often (but not always) impossible to infer a contextual relation between two eventualities that do not share the same subject. Although I have drawn clear distinctions between the different contextual functionalities attested, it will be apparent that there are overlaps between some functions, and the correct analysis of many individual forms is not absolutely clear. One could argue √ that the participle sa¯´dhant- ( s¯adh ‘accomplish’) in (5.93), for instance, expresses the purpose of the matrix eventuality (‘in order to accomplish . . .’), or its result (‘such that he accomplished . . .’), or its temporal frame (contingency, ‘when he was accomplishing . . .’), or that it expresses an eventuality in a chaining relation with the matrix event (‘and accomplished . . .’).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.3 Contextual functionality of converbal participles



Table . Gradient of informativeness Most Informative ↑

↓ Least informative

Concession Means, Result Equivalence Cause, Purpose Contingency, Temporal relations Chaining Manner Attendant Circumstance

(5.93) ní duron.é am´r.to márty¯an¯am . / ra¯´j¯a sas¯ada vidáth¯ani down house.l immortal mortals.g king sat rituals.a sa¯´dhan accomplish.prs.ptc.n.sg.m ‘Immortal in the house of mortals/ the king sat down accomplishing the rituals.’ (RV 3.1.18ab) Many converbal participles like this one cannot with certainty be classified as expressing one particular contextual relation rather than another. The validity of the distinctions made in the preceding sections is clear from the (rarer) unambiguous examples discussed above; but the ambiguity of much of the data demonstrates that these relations are not absolutely discrete, and in certain respects merge into one another. This reflects the fact that we are not dealing with an unstructured collection of distinct relations, but with a set of interconnected notions, each more strongly or more weakly linked to the others by one or more conceptual similarities. A number of proposals exist for analysing the interconnections between the sorts of contextual function we have been discussing. The simplest approach, which I adopt here, is to assume a one-dimensional hierarchy or cline of functions; one such proposal is Kortmann’s (1995: 223) ‘gradient of informativeness’.33 I give my own version of the gradient of informativeness for contextual functionality in Table 5.1, adapting Kortmann’s terminology to my own and slightly altering his proposed ordering of functions. Different sorts of words in the Rigveda display different functional ranges on this hierarchy. So, while present participles are found across the whole range of functions (though only very rarely in the most informative functions), non-participial adjectives are restricted to the least informative functions of attendant circumstance and manner. Past perfect participles, and aorist participles with anterior/perfective/past reference are largely restricted to the expression of temporal relations, including contingency, 33

A similar proposal is made by Foley and Van Valin (: ).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

and perhaps chaining. Stative and stative perfect participles are likewise largely restricted to expressing temporal relations, but can also express attendant circumstance and manner. To some extent, the differences between the different tense-aspect participle categories is due to the nature of the eventualities to which they refer: nondynamic states in the case of the stative and stative perfect, and a completed eventuality in the case of the past perfect and aorists. The restricted range of non-participial adjectives is partly a factor of their inherent reference to states, but also reflects a grammatical distinction between adjectives and participles (since stative and stative perfect participles are not quite so restricted). Although beyond the scope of this work, it would be valuable to look more specifically at the functional ranges of the participlelike adjectives, such as the -tá- adjective and the so-called ‘future passive participles’ in -ya-, -tavyà-, -tva-. The prediction would be that the functional range of each category should correspond to a particular area on the gradient of informativeness; the range of each should most likely include more informative functions than non-participial adjectives display, but that would not include as wide a range of functions as the participles proper. It is, of course, possible to analyse the relations between these different contextual functions in more complex ways. König (1995: 67) argues for a multidimensional network of relations rather than a one-dimensional cline; a similar proposal is made by Himmelmann and Schultze-Berndt (2005: 29). Different relations are undoubtedly connected in different ways; the important point is that the relations are not unstructured but connected. Any one representation may be able to capture certain aspects of the relations between concepts under discussion, but not all. There may exist a one-dimensional hierarchical relation between elements that are also related to one another in less linear ways. The one-dimensional analysis proposed here is less complex than a two-dimensional ‘network’ approach, but is thereby also more intuitive and useable. Moreover, it corresponds in broad terms to observations made about the acquisition of interclausal relations by children. Bloom et al. (1980), quoted by Viti (2008a) on the development of hypotaxis in Vedic, show that children learn semantically more complex relations later, regardless of the syntactic complexity involved. They distinguish ‘additive’ relations, which are acquired first, from ‘temporal’ relations, which are acquired second, and ‘causal’ relations, acquired later than ‘temporal’ relations, and finally ‘adversative’ relations, the last to be acquired. We can associate ‘additive’ relations with our accompanying circumstance, manner, and possibly equivalence and chaining. Temporal relations represent the purely temporal use of converbal participle phrases (and other subordinate clause types), i.e. with no distinct atemporal contextual functionality, and may be analysed as including also contingency. ‘Causal’ relations correspond to purpose, cause, means, result, and possibly equivalence. ‘Adversative’ relations include concession, and also relations not attested among Rigvedic participles, such as condition and contrast. The order of acquisition observed by Bloom et al. (1980) therefore corresponds well to the hierarchical order between relations proposed here.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

5.3 Contextual functionality of converbal participles



.. Contextual functionality and word order The semantic (and often syntactic) classification of a participle is entirely context dependent; that is, there is no necessary syntactic or morphological indication that a particular participle expresses cause, for example. Moreover, Rigvedic syntax is discourse configurational (§2.4), and there is considerable syntactic freedom in the ordering of arguments and adjuncts within the clause.34 Despite these things, there is evidence for a correlation between the syntactic/semantic function of a participle in its clause and the position of that participle relative to the noun with which it agrees and/or relative to its matrix verb. Knobl (2005: 104–5) observes that participles at the end of a clause often express purpose, and he compares this tendency to the similar tendency for purposive dative infinitives to occur in clause-final position. The statistics discussed in this section support the connection between function and position more widely. The data-set discussed here does not include every participle in the Rigveda, but is based on a large sample of more than one half of the present participles in the text (constituting over one third of all the participles in the Rigveda). Specifically, the forms analysed are all the present participles in books I–VII and IX of the Rigveda, roughly 2,200 forms. Only present participles were considered due to their higher frequency and wider semantic range. The attribution of a particular contextual function to each converbal participle was made as objectively as possible and based on a close reading of each passage, but inevitably in many passages it would be possible to read in a different contextual function. Nevertheless I make the assumption that, ceteris paribus, the inherent uncertainties of assigning contextual functionality should not be weighted in any particular direction and hence should be statistically irrelevant. Table 5.2 shows the position of present participles relative to their matrix verb and relative to the noun with which they agree. As Table 5.2 shows, 51.4 of present participles in books II–VII and IX of the Rigveda precede their matrix verb, while 43.6 follow it. The remaining 5 occur in clauses with no expressed verb, i.e. nominal sentences or those with ellipsis of the verb.

Table . Relative position of present participles in clause Position in relation to verb Preceding 1166 51.4

34

Following 990 43.6

N/A 113 5

Position in relation to noun Preceding 344 15.2

Following 993 43.8

N/A 928 40.9

This freedom is only syntactic: order is constrained by information structural factors.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



The semantics of participles

The position of participles relative to the main verb is therefore relatively even; the slight tendency for the participle to precede is not particularly suggestive. The position of participles relative to the noun with which they agree, however, is distinctly uneven. Only 15.2 precede the noun, while 43.8 follow. The remaining 40.9 occur in clauses in which there is no expressed noun with which the participle agrees, including those in which the noun is implied, those in which the participle functions as the head of a noun phrase, and a few passages in which there is more than one possible head noun, one preceding and one following the participle, leaving relative position ambiguous. This distribution reveals a relative infrequency for participles preceding the noun with which they agree. The reason for this may be related to the fact that most participles are nominative: most nominative nouns are topical, and topical elements tend to occur near or at the start of Rigvedic clauses (§2.4.1). It may also be related to patterns in the relative position of participles in different syntactic and contextual functions. Given the relative infrequency of participles preceding the noun with which they agree, it is worth considering which functions are most or least commonly found with participles in these positions. Table 5.3 shows the percentages of present participles in books II–VII and IX found in the different semantic and syntactic functions we have distinguished, and, in comparison to that, the proportions of those same semantic and syntactic functions found among only those participles which precede their noun. The contextual functions found with converbal and absolute participles are ordered according to the gradient of informativeness proposed above; functions found with less than 1 of participles are omitted. Adnominal uses are treated as a single category in the final line of Table 5.3; uses other than adnominal, converbal, and absolute are too rare to be included. As shown in Table 5.3, there are no absolute syntactic or semantic restrictions on the appearance of a particular participle before the noun with which it agrees. How-

Table . Functions of participles Function Means Equivalence Cause Purpose Contingency Temporality Chaining Manner/AC Adnominal uses

All prs. participles

Prs. participles preceding noun

5.2 1 5.3 5.7 14.2 14.4 8.5 6.4

4.4 ‘eat’) than a perfective formation (‘bite (once)’ / ‘having bitten’).25 In any case, Schaffner’s proposal of amphikinetic ablaut for this form is based on the assumption that it cannot be a participle; if it can be treated as a present participle, there is no reason to assume amphikinetic rather than hysterokinetic, so whatever its explanation an amphikinetic participle is hardly likely.26 Besides these forms, the most significant evidence for amphikinetic ablaut in PIE participles is the vocalism of the participial suffix when accented in the strong grade of hysterokinetic present stems. This is consistently -ó-, and must be reconstructed √ so for PIE: i.e. the present participle of PIE h es ‘to be’ must be reconstructed as ∗ h s-ónt-/h s-nt-.27 On the (not altogether watertight) assumption that accented   ´ o-grades are necessarily secondary, the inference can be drawn that the accented strong grade of the hysterokinetic participle reflects an earlier form with originally accented, e-grade, root.28 That is, an original amphikinetic participial form such as ∗ h és-ont-/h s-nt- at some point shifted its accent and lost the vocalism in the first   ´ syllable, producing the reconstructable hysterokinetic form ∗ h s-ónt-/h s-nt´-.29 25 Alternatively, under Willi’s () proposals regarding the PIE verbal system, a telic root ∗ √h ed ‘bite’  would have unproblematically formed a root present, to which the ancestor of dánt- would have been the participle. 26 Hysterokinetic ablaut is assumed by Lühr (: –), who provides a detailed discussion of the many Germanic forms of this word. She treats the form as a noun in PIE, comparing it with another PIE body-part word, ∗ h ént- ‘front, face’. 27 Kuryłowicz (: §, –); Anttila (); Morpurgo-Davies (); Peters (); Petit (). On this participle see also Watkins () and Seebold (). 28 See Widmer (: –) and Meier-Brügger (: ) with references. 29 Likewise Kloekhorst (: –) argues that the hysterokinetic inflection of participles in PIE ‘must have been a quite recent refurnishing within PIE from an older system’ of amphikinetic ablaut. He bases his argument on the paradigm of the word for ‘wind’, which he reconstructs with amphikinetic ablaut, √ assuming that this was a lexicalized participle from the PIE verb ∗ h ueh ‘blow’. This is problematic,

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Conclusion

Such a development may reflect analogical pressure from the finite system, conforming the ablaut patterns of the participles with those of the hysterokinetic verbal stems with which the participles were associated. This may reflect an increased integration of ∗ -nt- adjectives into the verbal system as participles, a development also suggested by the evidence of morphosyntactic alignment discussed in §7.2.2. But for PIE itself we cannot reconstruct amphikinetic ablaut for the ∗ -nt- participle. Insofar as amphikinetic ablaut can be reconstructed for ∗ -nt- formations in PIE at all, it can be reconstructed only for Caland adjectives, on the basis of járant-/juránt-, uśánt-, possibly br.hánt-, and their cognates.30 The obvious solution is that in Pre-PIE there was a single adjectival ∗ -nt- formation with amphikinetic ablaut that participated in the Caland system, and that this formation became partially associated with the verbal system, such that it ultimately split into two distinct morphological categories, one a non-verbal adjectival formation with amphikinetic ablaut, the other a participial category with ablaut patterns determined by the associated verbal stem.31 On this analysis, then, participles originated as an adjectival formation which became secondarily associated with the verbal system in pre-PIE, this association becoming formal when verbal stem ablaut pattern began to be transferred to some of these adjectives.32 The change of ablaut would also have enabled the formation of ∗ -nt- adjectives/participles to derived verbal stems. At what point we might be able to speak of verbal rather than non-verbal adjectives, or adjectival verbs (i.e. participles) rather than verbal adjectives, can only be guessed at. However, the relationship proposed here between ∗ -nt- participles and Caland adjectives is based purely on internal reconstruction, and as such must be treated only as a suggestion. It remains the case that in PIE proper, as the comparative method permits us to reconstruct it, there is a clear morphological distinction between Caland

however, as discussed in fn.  to Ch. . Moreover, in other respects the Anatolian evidence clearly supports hysterokinetic ablaut in the -nt- participle, including in the only remnant of the ∗ -nt- participle in the Luwian languages, CLuw. d Tarhuuant-. 30 It is not unreasonable to assume that amphikinetic ablaut was the regular or only ablaut pattern for Caland adjectives in ∗ -nt-. Most attested -nt- Caland adjectives do not show this ablaut, but in other morphological categories too the attested Indo-European languages almost entirely eliminated amphikinetic ablaut, usually by generalizing the unaccented, zero-grade root (as with br.hánt-, uśánt-, etc.), occasionally by generalizing the full-grade root (as with járant-, Gr. heko¯´n, etc.). 31 Kloekhorst () argues that hysterokinetic and amphikinetic ablaut patterns in fact derive from the same earlier (‘hysterodynamic’) pattern, by a series of analogical changes. If such a proposal is valid, the proposal made here could be easily integrated with it. 32 Rau (: –) discusses the distribution of amphikinetic formations in PIE, and argues that its original function in the nominal system was not adjectival, but was in forming possessive substantives, which could in certain categories, however, become adjectivized. Rau (: , fn. ) notes that amphikinetic ∗ -nt- and ∗ -uent- stems may have been adjectivized already in PIE, and that assumption would certainly correlate with the arguments made here. This would also permit the proposal of Gamkrelidze and Ivanov (: ch. ), that PIE participles originated as derived nouns, to be integrated into the series of developments sketched here, albeit in a somewhat different manner from their original claims.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

7.2 Participles in Proto-Indo-European



adjectives, which had, or at least could have, amphikinetic inflection, and participles, which were derived from verbal stems and shared the ablaut patterns of those stems, including hysterokinetic ablaut with accented ó-grade suffix. Moreover, this proposed diachronic relationship does not preclude later interaction between these two morphologically similar categories (it merely provides a rationale for their similarity). Even though the two categories can be distinguished relatively clearly in Rigvedic Sanskrit, their obvious formal similarity could easily have led to mutual influence. This may explain, for example, the form vibhra¯´jant-, which appears to be a Caland adjective compounded with a preverb as if it were a participle. Mutual influence between participles and Caland adjectives in -nt- even in PIE is assumed by Rau (2009: 176 and fn. 139).33 Internal reconstruction aside, at the latest common period securely reconstructable the participial formations ∗ -nt-, ∗ -mh no- and ∗ -uos- could freely attach to verbal stems, and can at least be considered sufficiently integrated into the verbal system as to be verbal adjectives, if not participles proper. The original functional ranges of these different participial formations, and the distinctions between them, cannot be stated with certainty if only because it depends fundamentally on one’s reconstruction of the PIE verbal system. If a basically aspectual system is assumed, then the conclusion naturally follows that tense-aspect stem participles should have been fundamentally aspectual, just as in Ancient Greek. The existence of three participial suffixes and their slightly odd distribution is not easy to reconcile with such an aspectual system, but does not suggest an obvious alternative. Why should the perfect participle (active) have its own suffix in contrast to the present and aorist? The suffix ∗ -mh no- seems to be the specific participial suffix of the mediopassive, but at what stage did diathesis develop in the verbal system and where did it come from? The contrast between ∗ -ntand ∗ -uos- cannot be easily reconciled with a three-way aspect system, but could be reconciled with a present/past tense distinction, or more likely a dichotomy between non-stative and stative root types, as proposed, in somewhat different ways, by Willi (2007) and Randall and Jones (forthcoming). 33 Rau () is somewhat ambiguous about the relation between Caland adjectives in -nt- and participles in -nt-. On the one hand he states that the -nt- Caland adjectives ‘often pair with roots that have well-attested primary verbal forms and in a few instances are unambiguously identical with present or aorist participles’, quoting tápant- and dhr.s.ánt- beside finite verbal forms, with the implication that the quoted forms are adjectives, not participles. On the other hand, in fn.  he quotes Greek kré¯on, -ontos, Skt. járant-/jurat´- and cognates, and possibly br.hánt- and cognates as (presumably) Caland adjectives which directly reflect and indeed ‘originally patterned as’ participles to verbal stems. The explanation for this may be found in the following statement (: ): ‘Although each of these suffixes has wellattested denominative functions, it is unlikely that every Caland system adjective made with one of these suffixes continues a denominative formation, and it should [be] assumed that as with stems in -u- and -rodeverbative processes are responsible for the creation of many of these forms.’ What this implies, assuming that it is applicable to -nt- adjectives, must be that participles became associated with the Caland system due to their formal identity with -nt- Caland adjectives, and consequently either that participles came to be used as Caland adjectives or that Caland adjectives could be formed in the same way as participles (i.e. from verbal tense-aspect stems).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Conclusion

In any case the attested three-way distinction is perhaps later, ∗ -mh no- being introduced as part of a systematization of an active vs. mediopassive diathetic distinction, later transferred to the stative when stative and middle began to converge. In this work I have assumed, as far as it has been relevant, a relatively traditional aspectual system underlying the pre-Rigvedic verbal system; alternative reconstructions of PIE would of course require alternative processes of change to account for the synchronic Rigvedic situation. As long as the PIE verbal system remains controversial, so the function of the participial suffixes within that system will remain controversial. Finally, on PIE participles, we have seen some particular features of secondary derivation from participles in PIE which are not preserved entirely without change in Rigvedic Sanskrit. In particular, the derivation of negated adjectives from participial stems is partially obscured by the more recent development of actual participial negation by means of the negative prefix (§6.8.3); other patterns of secondary derivation attributable to PIE are not continued as productive processes in Sanskrit, the only productive derivation being from lexicalized participles (§6.8.2). Altogether, then, it is possible to make some relatively certain statements about participles in PIE, and some less certain proposals regarding their earlier origin, but many questions remain about the exact functions and status of participles in PIE, the answers to which are beyond our present state of knowledge.

. Participles in a typological perspective I have argued that tense-aspect stem participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit should be treated as non-finite yet inflectional verbal forms, with adjectival agreement properties and adjectival and converbal functionality. It remains to be considered how this category can be understood in the light of recent work on the typology of non-finite verbal systems. Recent studies of the typology of non-finite verbal systems distinguish three or four categories of non-finite verb forms. The differences between these categories are related to the grammatical category of the forms concerned, based on the concept that finite verbal forms are categorially verbs, while verbal forms that are categorially nouns, adjectives, or adverbs are non-finite.34 In a typological context, the term ‘participle’ can refer to any adjectival verb form, i.e. any non-finite verbal form that is in some way an adjective. The other category of primary importance for understanding the typological position of Rigvedic participles is that of ‘converbs’, which broadly speaking refers to adverbial verb forms, i.e. a non-finite verbal form that is in some 34

The inflectional formation of a word belonging to one category (such as an adjective) from a word or stem belonging to a different category (here a verb) is discussed by Haspelmath (), who labels it ‘word-class-changing inflection’. I have argued that RV participles are categorially verbs, not adjectives, but the definition of categoriality I assume (fundamentally based on c-structure categorization) is very different from that assumed by Haspelmath and generally accepted in typological literature, according to which RV participles would be adjectives in categorial terms due to their adjectival morphology.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

7.3 Participles in a typological perspective



way an adverb.35 Verb forms that are nouns, i.e. verbal action nouns or ‘masdars’,36 are less relevant in the current context, since Rigvedic participles have no specific nounlike features beyond those common to all Sanskrit adjectives.37 A prototypical participle, in typological terms, corresponds to the category of adjectives (whatever that means in a particular language) in terms of both its morphology and its function; likewise, a prototypical converb in typological terms corresponds to the category of adverbs in terms of both its morphology and its function. Hungarian present participles are relatively prototypical participles: they are adjectival verb forms that can function only as attributive nominal modifiers (de Groot 1995: 287–8). The Sanskrit absolutives in -tv¯´ı , -tva¯´, -tva¯´ya, and -(t)ya¯˘ are prototypical converbs: they are indeclinable, and so correspond morphologically to the category of adverbs; they function as clausal adjuncts (referring to a completed or temporally preceding eventuality), just like adverbs. It is often the case, however, that participles and converbs are not entirely prototypical. For example, in Classical Arabic the converb shows certain adjectival agreement features. Neither morphological nor functional criteria fully serve to distinguish participles and converbs in Modern Russian, where there is a partially suppletive relationship between the two: Russian converb paradigms lack passives, which are supplied by participles (Weiss 1995). In morphological terms, Rigvedic participles unambiguously correspond to the typological category of participles: morphologically they are adjectives formed to verbal stems. In functional terms, however, Rigvedic participles display both purely adjectival uses and what I have labelled ‘converbal’ uses (§§4.3, 5.2). These uses correspond to the functional range of a prototypical converb (hence the label), as defined by Haspelmath (1995: 3): a converb is ‘a non-finite verb form whose main function is to mark converbal subordination . . . converbs are verbal adverbs, just like participles are verbal adjectives’.38 35 The term ‘converb’ was coined by Ramstedt (). The term is broadly equivalent to other terms such as ‘gerund’ and ‘absolutive’, which is the most common term in the South Asian grammatical tradition. Three major cross-linguistic studies of converbs and their functions are Haspelmath and König (), Ebert et al. (), and Völmin et al. (); these contain studies of converbs in a wide variety of individual languages, and also more general cross-linguistic studies. Important discussions of the use and definition of the term converb include Haspelmath (: esp. –), V. Nedjalkov (), I. Nedjalkov (), Tikkanen (), Ebert (a), and Rapold (). 36 A term for verbal nouns from Arabic grammar, widely utilized in typological work. 37 The status of verbal agent nouns in a typological perspective is somewhat unclear. Baker and Vinokurova () show that there are cross-linguistically robust restrictions on verbal features, especially verbal syntax, with agent nouns, in contrast to action/event nouns. This can be taken to imply that agent-noun formations are not, at least generally, part of non-finite verb systems, whereas action nouns unambiguously are. The Sanskrit agent noun in -tr.-, however, does have a close relationship with the verbal system and does license accusative (verbal) object government, in contradiction of Baker and Vinokurova’s typological claims. I treat this noun type as a non-finite verbal formation below, corresponding to the position more regularly occupied by action nouns, but nothing else that I argue is dependent on this analysis. 38 Haspelmath’s definition depends on a definition of non-finiteness (cf. Ch. , fn. ), which V. Nedjalkov (: ) avoids by specifying a converb as ‘a verb form which depends syntactically on another verb form but . . . does not realize its semantic valencies’ [i.e. is not subcategorized for].

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Conclusion

I. Nedjalkov (1998) distiguishes two types of converbal function: ‘taxis’ functions, which express temporal relations such as simultaneity, anteriority, and posteriority; and ‘non-taxis’ functions, which express non-temporal relations, such as manner, means, purpose, cause, concession.39 In languages with several converbs, each one might have a very specific semantic function; for example, in Kalmyk, a Mongolic language spoken in Kalmykia (Northwest Caucasus), one converb exclusively expresses purpose ((7.4)), while in Dargwa, a Northeast Causcasian language spoken in Daghestan, there is a converb that exclusively indicates concession ((7.5)). (7.4) saalčn-r ykr-myd saa-har harča-v milking_woman-pl cow-pl milk-conv go_out-pst ‘The milking women went out to milk the cows’ (Nedjalkov 1998: ex. 22, p. 444) (7.5)

uri’ nu miskin i-lli-gva nah’a davlasiv i-lla last_year I poor become-pst-conv now rich become-pst ‘Though I became poor last year, now I have become rich (again).’ (Nedjalkov 1998: ex. 23, p. 444)

In contrast, in functional terms the Rigvedic present participle corresponds to I. Nedjalkov’s (1998: 432ff.) category of ‘contextual mixed converbs’. Such converbs can display a variety of functions, taxis or non-taxis, depending on the context. This is the most general and semantically vague type of converb, labelled the ‘general converb’ by Ebert (2008a). Stative participles, and stative perfect participles, although somewhat more restricted in their semantic range due to the non-dynamic nature of the eventuality they express, can be treated in the same way as present participles, since they display a range of taxis and non-taxis functions. Likewise, some aorist participles, primarily those which are semantically equivalent to present participles, also display this variety of functionality. Past perfect participles, on the other hand, appear to be more restricted in their semantic range, and the same is true of aorist participles that express a completed or temporally prior eventuality. Although there is some evidence of wider functionality, these participles appear closer to the functionality of a specialized taxis converb expressing anteriority. The future participle is difficult to analyse due to its rarity and the ambiguous semantics of the future stem; it could perhaps be treated as a specifically ‘intentional’ converb. All the tense-aspect stem participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit, then, display some converbal functionality despite being morphologically adjectival. Non-finite verb forms that are morphologically adjectival but functionally converbal are found in a number of Indo-European languages. Haspelmath (1995: 17) recognizes them as a feature of ‘older Indo-European languages, in particular . . . Latin and Classical Greek’, but he claims that they are cross-linguistically rare. Even so the close relationship between 39

For a very similar but more recent proposal regarding converbal functionality, see Ebert (a).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

7.3 Participles in a typological perspective



converbs and participles is not restricted to Indo-European languages; it is also found, for example, in many Pama-Nyungan (Australian) languages (Nordlinger 2001). In fact, there are strong associations and overlap between the two categories in most languages in which both are attested (I. Nedjalkov 1998: §6, p. 451).40 Haspelmath (1995: §4.1, pp. 17–20) labels such participles ‘copredicative participles’; V. Nedjalkov (1995) uses the term ‘quasi-converb’. The question then arises as to how non-finite verb forms like the participles of the Rigveda (like the participles of Latin and Ancient Greek), which do not correspond absolutely either to a prototypical participle or a prototypical converb, should be categorized in typological terms. For Haspelmath (1995), Ebert (2008a), and Haug et al. (2012), morphological criteria are primary: non-finite verb forms are categorized on the basis of their morphological features, and in prototypical cases functionality corresponds to categorization. Morphology is often a problematic criterion, however: in Modern High German, for example, it is unclear whether predicative participles should be analysed as participles or converbs, since predicatively used adjectives lack agreement. In contrast, I. Nedjalkov (1998: §2.3, p. 425) defines the categories entirely by functionality, classing any adjectival verb form that displays converbal functionality as a converb, specifically a ‘nonstrict’ converb which retains its ‘participial’ use. However, this leaves very little room for participles as a category; in fact it makes the category of participle a mere subcategory of converbs, a subcategory with a restricted functional range. In marginal cases (e.g. English -ing) both Haspelmath (1995: 20) and V. Nedjalkov (1995: 103) have recourse to the relative frequency of ‘participial’ vs. ‘converbal’ use; but frequency is a shaky foundation on which to build any kind of definition, and this is rightly criticized by Kortmann (1995: 190–92).41 There is no consensus, then, on how to categorize non-prototypical formations such as the tenseaspect stem participles of Rigvedic Sanskrit.42 In fact, participles with converbal functionality are by no means the only sort of non-prototypical non-finite verbal formation. That masdars too can be used in functions very close, if not identical, to those of converbs is clear from the fact that it is cross-linguistically common for adverbially used action nouns to develop into converbs (Koptjevskaja-Tamm 1993: 44; Haspelmath 1995: 49; Tikkanen 2001: 1121), as is the case with the Sanskrit absolutives.43 Converbs themselves can be used in a variety of ways that are perhaps more commonly assumed, in works on old Indo-European 40 This may or may not be explicable in diachronic terms as the adoption of converbal functions by (originally purely adjectival) participles. 41 Kortmann () provides a valuable discussion of English participles/gerunds/converbs, which functionally share many similarities with RV participles, although morphologically they necessarily lack the central adjectival feature of agreement. 42 On the definition and different uses of the term ‘converb’, see further esp. Zaugg-Coretti (: –) and Rapold (: ). 43 An action noun in -tu- was the origin not only of the Sanskrit absolutives in -tv¯´ ı , -tva¯´, and -tva¯´ya, but also of the infinitives in -tum and -tavaí.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Conclusion

languages, to be more associated with participles or infinitives. For example, Banti (2010) and Wetter (2010) discuss languages in which some converbs are utilized in periphrastic verbal constructions. Infinitives are a particularly problematic category for typological categorization. Partly this is because, in a ‘one-dimensional’ approach to categorization, the categories of nominal, adjectival, and adverbial verb form are already filled, and there is no other obvious lexical category with which they could be associated (cf. Ylikoski 2003: 196–8). More importantly, infinitives vary considerably in morphological properties and functionality cross-linguistically, and morphology and function do not always match. In Biblical Hebrew, the infinitive can be used in chaining constructions, just like participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit, and converbs or medial verbs in many non-Indo-European languages (Banti 2010). In Ancient Greek, as in Sanskrit, infinitives are indeclinable, so must be aligned with adverbs, but they have a wide functional range, including uses that can be considered nominal; so, in Ancient Greek an infinitive or infinitival phrase can be nominalized with the addition of the definite article (the ‘articular infinitive’ or ‘gerund’), such that the infinitive heads a phrase that essentially functions as a noun phrase. In (7.6), the infinitival noun phrase functions as a dative adjunct, as indicated by the article; the accusative noun phrase ‘the forces’ is the subject of the infinitive and appears inside the infinitival phrase. (7.6) h¯e basilé¯os arkh¯e` tõi diespásthai ta¯` s dunámeis asthen¯e´s the king.g power the.d scatter.pf.inf the.a forces.a weak ‘The king’s power was weakened by the scattering (of) his forces.’ (Xenophon, Anabasis 1.5.9) Furthermore, the category of non-finite verb forms cannot be restricted to forms that display properties of nouns, adjectives, or adverbs both in terms of morphology and functionality. Some languages attest verbal categories that are morphologically nominal, adjectival, or adverbial but that function as prototypical finite verbs. Other languages attest verbal categories that in morphological terms are indistinguishable from prototypical finite verbs, but that function in nominal, adjectival, or adverbial ways. For example, the Aramaic ‘active participle’ functions as a finite verb, but morphologically lacks the person specification typical of finite verbs in Aramaic (Bauer and Leander 1927: §81d); morphologically it can therefore be treated as adjectival.44 This is parallel to the Classical Sanskrit use of the morphologically nonfinite -tá- adjective as a finite verb. The Hebrew ‘nominal copular’ (Falk 2004) is a morphologically nominal formation that functions as a finite verb. In several Indo-European languages, such as Romance and Slavic languages, infinitives that 44 Aramaic participles cannot distinguish the absolute, construct, and emphatic states found with other adjectives and nouns, but this is probably a pragmatic restriction.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

7.3 Participles in a typological perspective



in morphological terms are adverbs can be used as the equivalent of finite verbs in imperatival constructions; the same is found in Rigvedic Sanskrit, as in (7.7), from Keydana (2013: 171, 222). In Kiranti languages, verb forms that are morphologically prototypical finite verbs can be used converbally (i.e. as (clausal) adverbs, in chaining constructions), albeit with the addition of linker particles (Ebert 2003; 2008b: 76–9; and cf. Ebert 2008a: 23), as in (7.8). In Mohawk, besides other languages, stative verbs cannot be distinguished morphologically from other ‘finite’ verb forms, but are used as adjectives ((7.9); cf. Baker 2003: 249–50, 257–63). Other Iroquoian languages attest forms that morphologically correspond to finite verbs but that are used as nouns (Mithun 2000), like the single word in (7.10), from Cayuga. (7.7)

mádhye hót¯a duron.é barhís.o ra¯´.l/ agnís todásya ródas¯ı middle.l priest dwelling.l barhis..g ruler Agni goad.g world.a.du yájadhyai sacrifice.inf ‘In the middle, in the dwelling, let the priest, the ruler of the barhis. grass/ (and) of the goad, let Agni sacrifice to the two worlds.’ (RV 6.12.1ab)

(7.8)

a-sir-1=kә a-hu‰d-1 a-dzi‰t-1=kә 2-wet-2/3sg=lnk 2-wash-2/3sg=lnk 2-bring-2/3sg ‘You made it wet, cleaned it, and brought it.’ (Ebert 2008b: ex. 25b, p. 78)

(7.9) ra-kowan-v-hne’ ne Sak m.sg-be_big-stv-pst pcl Sak ‘Sak used to be big.’ (from Baker 1996, quoted in Baker and Vinokurova 2012: ex. 18a) (7.10) ∅-ate-khw-a-ha-hsr-owan[¸ nt.I-refl-food-∅-set-nomlzr-be_big-stv ‘A big table.’ (Mithun 2000: 414, ex. 26b) This cross-linguistic variety of form–function mismatch in verbal formations is represented schematically in Fig. 7.1; in this graph, morphological and functional categorization are plotted separately, and the four open categories of noun, adjective, adverb, and verb are treated as distinct regions on the gradient from noun to verb (the cline of verbality). Such a representation permits many more distinctions than are possible under a one-dimensional division of the non-finite verbal system into converb, participle, and masdar. These labels correspond to positions on the linear function x = y; that is, a masdar is a morphologically and functionally nominal verb form, a participle is a morphologically and functionally adjectival verb form, and a converb is a morphologically and functionally converbal/adverbial verb form, while finite verbs are both morphologically and functionally verbal. They are therefore

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Conclusion Verbal

Mohawk

Kiranti verbs

Finite verbs

verbal nouns

stative verbs

with linker

in Eng., Skt. etc.

Skt. absolutive

Imperatival

Greek gerund

Morphology

Adverbial

Cayuga

infinitives

Adjectival

Nominal

Hungarian

Skt., Greek

Skt. -ta´- adjective

participles

participles

Aramaic participles

Arabic

Class. Tibetan

Lezgian

Hebrew

masdars

relatives∗

action nouns

‘nominal’ copular

Nominal

Adjectival

Adverbial

Verbal

Function

Fig. . Verbal system typology matrix ∗

On the relative construction in Classical Tibetan, see DeLancey (2002: 57–8). For this suggestion I am grateful to Oleg Belyaev (p.c.). Belyaev further suggests that the morphologically adverbial-functionally adjectival slot may be filled by depictives in some languages, though this will depend on the degree to which forms involved are integrated into the verbal rather than adjectival systems of their languages, and on the degree to which the depictive construction itself should be treated as functionally adjectival rather than adverbial.

‘prototypical’ non-finite verbal categories only insofar as there is a cross-linguistic tendency for form and function to match.45 This way of representing non-finite verbal categories also shows more clearly the complexity of the distinction between the more basic categories of finite and nonfinite verb forms. If ‘finite’ is equated with ‘verbal’, then there is a clear distinction only when form and function match; morphologically nominal, adjectival, and adverbial categories that correspond in function to finite verbs, and morphologically finite verbs that function as nouns, adjectives, and adverbs are more difficult to categorize. Prototypical finiteness might be defined as the very top right sector of the graph, but in reality it is not possible to distinguish finite and non-finite absolutely, at least in cross-linguistic terms.46 45 Evans (: ) notes: ‘it is an interesting typological fact about language that in practice morphological and syntactic criteria usually converge to define the same class, but nonetheless there are various cases where words may be morphologically in one class and syntactically in another . . .’. 46 There are of course various ways in which an absolute distinction could be formulated. For example, a purely morphological distinction, as I assumed for RV Sanskrit in Ch. , fn. , would see the cut-off between finite and non-finite associated with the division between the top row of Fig. . and everything below the

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

7.3 Participles in a typological perspective



In several respects, however, the representation in Fig. 7.1 is greatly oversimplified, despite its improvement on the traditional one-dimensional categorization implied by the terms ‘converb’, ‘participle’, and ‘masdar’. To begin with, the four-way division of the cline of verbality, while it has some justification in the four-way distinction between the lexical categories N, Adj, Adv, and V, is somewhat questionable in typological terms. Adjectives and adverbs are often treated as part of the same lexical category A (e.g. Lyons 1966; Emonds 1976; Radford 1988; Baker 2003), though Payne et al. (2010) argue strongly in favour of two distinct categories.47 More generally, as noted in §1.2, it is often argued that only the categories of noun and verb can be considered cross-linguistically universal, since some languages seem to lack a clear category of adjective/adverb (e.g. Wetzer 1992; 1996); Baker (2003) argues in favour of adjectives as a cross-linguistically valid category, but he treats adverbs as a subtype of adjective. I assume that, whether or not they are attested in all or even most languages of the world, N, Adj, Adv, and V, along with P and the functional categories C, I, and D, are universally available grammatical categories. In any case, whether there are two, three, or four universally available open categories, they are not sufficient to distinguish the full range of variation in either form or function. As discussed by Hopper and Thompson (1984), the categories of noun and verb (and adjective and adverb, if they be admitted) are prototypical concepts into which actual words fit more or less well; so, for example, modals and dependent verb forms are less prototypically ‘verbal’ than indicative main clause verb forms, but they are clearly more prototypically verbal than converbs or participles. As noted in §5.3.8, Haspelmath (1995) distinguishes verb forms utilized primarily in chaining constructions (‘medial verbs’) from converbal verb forms on the basis of a difference between cosubordination and subordination respectively. Such a distinction would mean that the Kiranti finite verbs with linker, treated as functionally adverbial (i.e. converbal) in Fig. 7.1, were in fact functionally somewhere between adverbial and fully verbal. Similarly, Kalinina (2001), quoted by Nikolaeva (2007: 3), discusses verbal forms that function as the primary (or only) predicate of a clause (i.e. in functional terms are prototypically verbal) but show reduced tense marking and reduced verbal agreement, that is they lie somewhere between fully verbal and fully converbal in morphological terms. Depending on how fine a degree of differentiation is desired, it would be possible to distinguish a potentially large number of positions on the cline of verbality, both top row. Alternatively, a functional definition, such as that of I. Nedjalkov (: ) (a non-finite verb form ‘cannot be the only predicate of the matrix clause without auxiliary verb forms’), or the (essentially semantic) time-relational approach to finiteness proposed by Klein (), would see the distinction marked by the division between the rightmost column of Fig. . and everything to its left. The very fact that all these possibilities exist shows that there is no absolute distinction between finite and non-finite. 47 Payne et al. (: ) attribute the origin of the claim that Adj and Adv constitute a single category to Kuryłowicz (: ).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Conclusion

functionally and morphologically. Nevertheless the fact that noun, adjective, adverb, and verb constitute the four major open lexical categories provides some justification for treating the four-way division of the cline as primary; further subdivisions may cover less prototypical members of one of these categories, or formations that are intermediate between two major categories. Furthermore, a single category does not necessarily occupy a single point on the cline. In functional terms, for example, we can distinguish different ranges for different parts of the Rigvedic participle category. Nominative present participles, generally used converbally in a wide range of contextual functions, could be treated as the most functionally ‘verbal’ part of the category; in contrast, oblique cases, more commonly used attributively, are functionally more nominal. Likewise the use of participles in periphrasis can be considered further towards the ‘verbal’ end of their functional range, while completive uses of participles are towards the ‘nominal’ end of the spectrum. The second respect in which the representation in Fig. 7.1 is oversimplified is in the cross-linguistic relativity of categorial distinctions. This is most obvious in respect of morphology, since there is uncontroversially cross-linguistic variation as to what constitutes a feature of verbal as opposed to nominal (or adjectival/adverbial) morphology. For example, in Semitic languages finite verbs as well as nouns distinguish gender, such that gender cannot be considered a specifically verbal or nominal feature, whereas in ancient Indo-European languages gender distinction is essentially confined to the nominal system.48 This is only a minor example: there are many languages where traditionally ‘verbal’ features like tense, aspect, and mood are marked not only on verbs but also on nouns.49 Moreover, not all languages make morphological distinctions between categories evenly or to the same extent.50 For example, Korean adjectives differ morphologically from verbs only marginally; in contrast, in Rigvedic Sanskrit the morphological distinction between adjective and verb is relatively clear, but the distinction between noun and adjective is considerably more opaque. It has been argued that in Quechua there is no distinction at all between nouns and adjectives. Strongly isolating languages such as Vietnamese and Classical Chinese have little or no morphology, so they cannot make any significant morphological distinctions between word classes. Functional distinctions are less cross-linguistically variable, but variation is still found. In Tagalog and Salish, verbs and nouns are distinguished morphologically but arguably there is no syntactic distinction between word classes. These facts are not inconsistent with the representation in Fig. 7.1, but they reflect its underlying relativity. For example, if we assume a constant gradient between noun and verb in morphological terms, then 48 49 50

But not, of course, in several modern I-E languages, e.g. Russian and other Slavic languages. Cf. e.g. Evans (), Nordlinger and Sadler (a; b; ), and Arka (). On the following, see e.g. Lehmann and Moravcsik () and Evans ().

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

7.3 Participles in a typological perspective



in Sanskrit or Quechua the area corresponding to prototypical adjectives is closer to the nominal end of the cline, whereas in Korean and similar languages it is closer to the verbal end. The criteria for typological classification on the cline between noun and verb are language-specific and relative, then, but in broad terms the application of those criteria is the same, such that it does not contradict a representation like that in Fig. 7.1. Finally, Fig. 7.1 distinguishes morphological and functional positions on the verb–noun cline, but again this is an oversimplification of a more complex situation. I have used the term ‘functional’ to cover all sorts of syntactic and semantic features, but in fact it is not necessarily the case that a particular category is consistent in its position on the cline of verbality in all syntactic and semantic respects. For example, Belyaev and Vydrin (2011) argue that in Iron Ossetic the converb is syntactically more nominal but semantically more verbal than the participle. In fact, it is necessary to distinguish (at least) three dimensions of variation, since syntactic features can be subdivided into categorial and hierarchical/constituency-based features on the one hand and more abstract functional features on the other; in the LFG terms adopted in this work, this correlates to the distinction between c-structure and f-structure.51 So, in c-structural terms Rigvedic participles are verbal (they are of category V), though perhaps less prototypically verbal than finite verbs insofar as the participial VP is less commonly discontinuous than finite VPs, and insofar as unexpressed or null complements are more common in participial phrases than finite VPs. In f-structural terms, Rigvedic participles span a range from cosubordination (chaining) through adverbial (as clausal adjuncts) to prototypically adjectival (as nominal adjuncts). In semantic terms, participles contribute an event meaning just like finite verbs, but usually (except in contingent use) are semantically subordinate to another verb form for the fixing of their reference or perspective time. This more fine-grained analysis of the status of Rigvedic participles is represented in (7.11): the values M, C, F, and S on the x-axis refer to the four dimensions, morphology, c-structure, f-structure, and semantics, while the y-axis distinguishes the four major positions on the noun–verb cline but also admits intermediate positions, e.g. a position for (co)subordinate/nonprototypical verb features between Adverb and Verb.52 51 Cf. Belyaev (), who, building on work by Culicover and Jackendoff () and Yuasa and Sadock (), finds mismatches in strategies of clause combining in Ossetic in all three dimensions of c-structure, f-structure, and semantics. 52 It makes sense that the ordering of the four major divisions on the noun–verb cline should be the same for each dimension of variation. In purely morphological terms, however, at least for I-E languages, it might be considered that adverbs do not fit particularly well between adjective and verb (where they clearly do fit in syntactic and semantic terms); they could seem more appropriately positioned adjacent to nouns (which would fit with the common origin of converbs in lexicalized case forms of nouns). In this respect, then, adverbs seem to reflect the ‘Verbalization Hierarchy’ of Stassen (), in which the four major categories under discussion are ordered Verb > Adjective > Noun > Adverb in terms of their likelihood of verbal encoding. The position of adverbs between adjective and verb reflects rather the ‘Time Stability Scale’ (Givón : ff.), which is argued by Stassen () to underlie his Verbalization Hierarchy, being

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Conclusion

(7.11)

Verb Adv Adj Noun M

C

F

S

Example (7.11) represents the complex status of the Rigvedic participle category in a relatively intuitive way. By comparison, the status of a prototypical finite verb, such as an unaccented (i.e. main-clause) indicative verb form, is considerably simpler, as shown in (7.12). (7.12)

Verb Adv Adj Noun M

C

F

S

The status of the Sanskrit absolutive, a relatively prototypical converb, is given in (7.13). It differs from the participle in morphological terms, since it is morphologically adverbial rather than adjectival, and also in f-structural features, since it is restricted to use as a clausal adjunct (including ‘cosubordinatory’ chaining constructions). (7.13)

Verb Adv Adj Noun M

C

F

S

Considering (7.11) and (7.13), it is notable that the f-structural properties of these non-finite verbal categories align more closely with their morphological properties, while in c-structural and semantic terms they are essentially verbal (though not prototypically). The c-structural properties of these categories are closely related to overridden in the case of adverbs. Whatever the reason for the morphological peculiarities of adverbs, it seems appropriate to maintain a consistent ordering of categories on the noun–verb cline. Cf. also Stassen (: ff.) for further discussion of these issues.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

7.4 Conclusion



their categorial status: the fact that they are of category V, not Adj or Adv. This in turn reflects the fact that they are inflectional, not derived, verb forms: as discussed above, Rigvedic participles are adjectival verbs, not verbal adjectives, and likewise absolutives are adverbial verbs, not verbal adverbs. Their semantic status likewise correlates with their inflectional status: they necessarily share the reference to an event meaning and aspect with other inflectional verb forms. In contrast, a ‘verbal’ adjective like bh¯ımá-, which, as mentioned in §1.3, was labelled a ‘quasi-participe’ by Benveniste (1959), may have some paradigmatic ‘verbal’ status insofar as -má- can form primary √ adjectival derivatives to roots like bh¯ı ‘fear’, but in morphological, c-structural, f-structural, and semantic terms is purely adjectival, as shown in (7.14). (7.14)

Verb Adv Adj Noun M

C

F

S

The relative status of a verbal formation as inflectional or derivational, then, is reflected primarily in its position on the noun–verb cline in c-structural and semantic terms, while its position in terms of morphology and f-structure reflect more closely its relative position within the finite/non-finite system. Rigvedic participles, then, are in certain respects a problematic category for one-dimensional approaches to non-finite verbal typology, but their complex status can be represented under a more refined analysis: they are inflectional, though non-prototypical, verb forms in categorial, c-structural, and semantic terms, morphologically adjectival, and with a functional range including adjectival, adverbial, and cosubordinatory uses.

. Conclusion The basic facts concerning the use of tense-aspect stem participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit have been known for a long time, but the details have never been clearly investigated or explicated. In this work I have considered in detail the distinct syntactic employments of tense-aspect stem participles, and the inherent and contextual semantics of the category. This has permitted a reconsideration of the position of tense-aspect stem participles within the tense-aspect system of the language. I have shown that tenseaspect stem participles cannot be considered identical to finite verbs in this respect, but rather that different participles correlate with or differ from the tense-aspect semantics of corresponding finite verbs to different degrees. The recognition of this fact must be carried over into more general treatments of verbal tense-aspect and of individual

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Conclusion

verbal stem categories, where previously the tendency has been to assume an identity between participles and finite verbs wherever possible. While recognizing the independence of the participial system within the wider verbal system, I have also stressed the verbal properties of participles, in particular their categorial status as verb forms, that is as adjectival verbs. It is in this way that tense-aspect stem participles are distinct from the more varied collection of verbal adjectives. I have also established a more precise assessment of the membership of the category of tense-aspect stem participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit, and of the membership of the different tense-aspect stem participles therein. In particular, Caland adjectives, adverbs, and lexicalized participles have been distinguished as synchronically, and in some cases also diachronically, distinct categories. The syntactic and semantic multivalency of tense-aspect stem participles makes them difficult to fully grasp, to completely understand both in individual occurrences and as a whole category. This multivalency is also what makes them particularly deserving of detailed study. Undeniably this work has not exhausted the scope for the study of Rigvedic participles, but it does, I hope, constitute a worthwhile initial foray into this rich and complex field of study.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

APPENDIX

Participles in the Indian grammatical tradition A. The As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı and the Indian grammatical tradition This appendix provides a brief survey of the treatment of participles and tense-aspect in the As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı of P¯an.ini, in the light of and for comparison with the analyses advanced in the main part of this work.1 The As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı, although itself undoubtedly the product of a long tradition of grammatical scholarship, is the earliest surviving work of the Indian grammatical tradition: it came to be considered so comprehensive that it rendered all previous works obsolete. It became the cornerstone of vy¯akaran.a, the indigenous tradition of Sanskrit linguistics, and had a significant influence on the beginnings of modern Western linguistics, influencing in particular Franz Bopp and Ferdinand de Saussure. The As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı is the work of P¯an.ini, who probably lived between about 500 and 300 bc, and is believed to have come from the region of Gandh¯ara, in the far northwest of the Indian subcontinent. The origins of the Sanskrit grammatical tradition lie in the desire to preserve, and preserve understanding of, the Vedic Sanskrit language at a time when the colloquial language was becoming ever more divergent from the language of the sacred Vedic texts. P¯an.ini’s work therefore stands as the last complete and comprehensive attempt to define and preserve the grammar of the late Vedic Sanskrit language; it became, however, the definitive statement of Classical Sanskrit grammar, and in this way it marks the end of the Vedic Sanskrit period. It is a generative grammar of sorts, by which in theory any grammatical sentence of Classical Sanskrit can be correctly formed. Although the Sanskrit described and defined by P¯an.ini is later than the language of the Rigveda, his early date and comprehensive and insightful treatment of the language make his work, and the subsequent grammatical tradition, invaluable for any study of Sanskrit grammar, including Rigvedic. Moreover, P¯an.ini does attempt to specify the points of variance between the contemporary spoken Sanskrit being defined and the language of the metrical Vedic texts (including the Rigveda), although it is clear that he did not fully understand the differences that he recognized in the earlier texts. It is generally agreed that P¯an.ini had the Rigveda in substantially the same form as we now have it. According to Cardona (1991: 130) ‘there is irrefutable evidence that P¯an.ini knew Ś¯akalya’s Padap¯a.tha to the Rigveda’ which, as Bronkhorst (1991: 104) states, ‘leaves little room for changes other than sandhi’. The As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı of P¯an.ini is a collection of around 4,000 highly compact rules (s¯utras), written using a complex metalanguage of symbols, technical terms, and syntactic conventions. For example, the first rule of the As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı runs as follows: 1 Editions of the Asta . . ¯ dhy¯ay¯ı include von Böhtlingk (), Dwarikadas Shastri and Shukla (–: with commentaries), and Katre ().

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Appendix

(A.1) vr.ddhir a¯ d-aic ‘The technical term vr.ddhi refers to the vowels a¯ , ai and au.’ (As..t. 1.1.1) This rule defines the technical term vr.ddhi, which essentially refers to the lengthened vowel grades. The first word of the rule is the technical term in the nominative, while the second is a dvandva compound that defines the term. The first element of the dvandva is a¯ t (¯ad by sandhi); this consists of the vowel a¯ and an anubandha, a metalinguistic symbol that indicates how the a¯ should be interpreted. The anubandha t is defined (in rule 1.1.70) to indicate the set of vowels that share the quality and quantity of the vowel to which it is attached: so a¯ t refers to all six ˙˘ a¯´, a¯´m, ˙˘ a¯` , and a¯` m. ˙˘ The varieties of the a¯ vowel, distinguished by accent and nasality, i.e. a¯ , a¯ m, second element of the dvandva is aic, which again consists of a vowel, ai, and an anubandha c. This anubandha is defined in the Śiva-s¯utras, a set of fourteen rules that enable reference to any group of phonemes that function together in respect of a particular grammatical rule. The anubandha c following the vowel ai indicates that ai be taken to refer to the two diphthongs ai and au (again, of all accentual and nasal combinations). In sum, then, this rule defines the technical term vr.ddhi as referring to all variants of the vowels a¯ , ai, and au. In this first rule of the As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı, syntactic convention is violated, supposedly for reasons of auspiciousness: when technical terms are defined they should come after the definition. This convention is otherwise observed consistently, for example in the very next rule, 1.1.2, which defines the technical term gun.a: (A.2) ad-e˙n gun.ah. ‘The technical term gun.a refers to the vowels a, e and o.’ (As..t. 1.1.2) In this rule, t (by sandhi d) and n˙ are anubandhas, functioning in combination with the vowels a and e to make reference to all varieties of the vowels a, e, and o, just like t and c in combination with a¯ and ai in (A.1). Due to the complexities of the P¯an.inian metalanguage, in the following I will restrict myself to explaining the import of the rules, without delving too deeply into the details of their construction. I do not provide interlinear glosses for the P¯an.inian rules, since one cannot easily gloss a metalanguage; moreover, the translations provided are in no way literal but are instead interpretive, explaining the effect of the rule (sometimes in combination with other rules) rather than its specific formulation.

A. The category of participles Tense-aspect stem participles, as they have been defined in this work, are not treated together by P¯an.ini as a distinct class within either the verbal or nominal systems. However, this is only because the productive set of tense-aspect participles was considerably smaller in P¯an.ini’s Sanskrit than in the earlier Vedic language. As..t. 3.2.124 ((A.3)) introduces the suffixes for the present active and mediopassive participles, śatr. (for -nt-) and ś¯anac (for -(m)¯ana-) respectively;2 these are the only productive tense-aspect participle categories in P¯an.inian Sanskrit, and are grouped

2 With these and other suffixes mentioned below, the first and/or last (here both) segments are anubandhas, attached to the actual form of the suffix (in a particular ablaut grade/allophonic variant).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Appendix



together under the technical designation sat by As..t. 3.2.127 ((A.4)). The use of these suffixes is extended to the future tense by As..t. 3.3.14 ((A.5)).3 (A.3) lat.ah. śatr.-ś¯anac¯av apratham¯asam¯an¯adhikaran.e ‘The (participial) affixes śatr. and ś¯anac are used following a present verbal stem when the verbal activity is predicated of an entity that does not appear in the nominative case.’ (As..t. 3.2.124) (A.4) tau sat ‘The technical term sat refers to the two suffixes śatr. and ś¯anac.’ (As..t. 3.2.127) (A.5) lr..tah. sad v¯a ‘Optionally, the (participial) suffixes referred to by sat are used following a future verbal stem.’ (As..t. 3.3.14) The future participle, which is formed with the same suffixes found in the present, is treated in a parallel manner to the present participles. By As..t. 3.3.14 the participial suffix is an alternative for the finite endings of the future tense, employed according to exactly the same patterns. In this way, the productive tense-aspect participles are treated as a distinct class. P¯an.ini does not recognize the existence of aorist participles, nor the existence of a stative, but he does recognize the existence of perfect participles in the early Vedic language. The suffixes for these (k¯anac for mediopassive -¯ana- and kvasu for active -vám . s-) are defined in As..t. 3.2.106 ((A.6)) and 3.2.107 ((A.7)). But, presumably because they were not a part of P¯an.ini’s own language and have no significant place in his grammar, they are not given a joint designation nor united with the present/future participles. (A.6) lit.ah. k¯anaj v¯a ‘Optionally in the metrical Vedic texts the (participial) suffix k¯anac is used following a perfect verbal stem (in place of finite endings).’ (As..t. 3.2.106) (A.7) kvasuś ca ‘Optionally in the metrical Vedic texts the (participial) suffix kvasu is also used following a perfect verbal stem (in place of finite endings).’ (As..t. 3.2.107) In rules 3.2.108–9 ((A.8) and (A.9)) P¯an.ini specifies six perfect participles that were still √ √ current in the contemporary spoken language: sedivám . s- to sad ‘sit’, us . ivám . s- to vas ‘dwell, √ √ spend the night’, śuśruvám s- to úpa-  i ‘approach’, an¯aśvám . s. s- to śru ‘hear, listen, upeyivám √ √ . (with negative prefix) to aś ‘eat’, and an¯uc¯aná- to ánu- vac ‘study’. All these perfect participles are used syntactically as equivalents of finite verbal forms (by 3.2.106), with simple past tense reference (by 3.2.84), and nothing more specific is said of them.

3 The optionality referred to in (A.) is merely the same variation found in the present, and specified by rules ..–..: use of the participial suffixes is obligatory when the subject of the participle is not in the nominative case (As..t. .., (A.), and .., (A.)), and optional in the nominative according to the specifications of rule .. ((A.)).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Appendix

(A.8) bh¯as.a¯ y¯am . sadavasaśruvah. ‘In the contemporary language the (participial) suffix kvasu can be used following the √ √ √ perfect verbal stems of the roots sad,  vas and śru.’ (As..t. 3.2.108) (A.9) upeyiv¯anan¯aśv¯anan¯uc¯anaś ca ‘In the contemporary language the (participial) suffix kvasu can be used following the √ √ √ perfect verbal stems of the roots úpa-  i, aś and ánu- vac to derive the forms upeyivám . s-, an¯aśvám . s- and an¯uc¯aná-.’ (As..t. 3.2.109) As is evident from the above rules, participles are defined by the adjectival suffixes that form them. The participial suffixes are nominal (i.e. non-verbal) suffixes, but in contrast to other nonverbal suffixes the participial suffixes are attached to a tense-aspect stem, rather than a verbal root or nominal stem. This is not merely a morphological fact, independent of the semantics: the function of the tense-aspect stem in the participle is identical to the function of the tenseaspect stem in the finite verb forms. So the present tense is marked by the suffix lat., which is specified for an action taking place in ‘present time’ (as discussed below). In the same way as the finite verbal endings, the present participle suffixes are direct substitutes of lat. (by the rule in (A.3)), and therefore necessarily have the same temporal reference as finite present forms. This is distinctly different from, e.g. the -tá- adjective (or past passive participle), of which the temporal reference, namely past time, is defined independently of any finite verbal stem (As..t. 3.2.102).4 Moreover, the syntactic properties that participles share with finite verbs are, in P¯an.ini’s system, directly due to their common derivation from a tense-aspect stem. So, rule 2.3.69 ((A.10)) prohibits the use of the genitive case to express either the subject or object after a variety of suffixes; here, both finite verb forms and tense-aspect stem participles are specified by the single reference to tense-aspect stem formants (la-). (A.10) na lok¯avyayanis..th¯akhalarthatr.n.a¯ m ‘The genitive is not used to denote the subject or object of words formed with tenseaspect stems, the suffixes u, uka, the indeclinables (ktv¯a, tosun, kasun), kta, ktavatu, synonyms of khal, or tr.n.’ (As..t. 2.3.69) In As..t. 3.2.128–33, P¯an.ini treats certain participle-like nominals which, although we may treat them as deriving diachronically from participles, and although synchronically they could be homophonous with genuine participles, were not synchronically participles in P¯an.ini’s language. These forms are entirely parallel to some of the lexicalized participles discussed in §6.6, and indeed some of the lexicalized participles attested in the Rigveda survive into P¯an.ini’s grammar. Rule 3.2.128 ((A.11)) specifies the synchronic nouns pávam¯ana- ‘Soma’ and yájam¯ana‘sacrificer’ by reference not to the participial suffix ś¯anac, which would produce the correct form, but to a technically distinct suffix ś¯anan. Rules 3.2.130–3 specify the adjectives adh¯ıyánt- ‘good at studying’, dh¯aráyant- ‘good at retaining (information)’, dvis.ánt- ‘inimical; enemy’, sunvánt4 One other, specifically Vedic, nominal formation is associated with a tense-aspect stem, namely reduplicated stems in -i- of the cákri- type (cf. §.), by rule ... In this case the association is primarily formal, in order to explain the perfect-like reduplication in the category, and does not extend to its semantics: it is specified as expressing habitual disposition towards, duty to undertake, or excellence in performing an activity (by rule ..), rather than any kind of temporal-aspectual or evidential meaning. It does however have a syntactic correlate, insofar as it falls under the application of rule .. ((A.)), just like tense-aspect stem participles.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Appendix



‘participating in the sacrifice’, and árhant- ‘worthy of honour’, by reference to the suffix śatr. attached not to a verbal stem as such (i.e. not as a substitite of the present tense marker lat.), but attached to a verbal root. (A.11)

p¯un˙ -yajoh. ś¯anan √ √ ‘The affix ś¯anan can be used with the roots p¯u ‘purify’ and yaj ‘sacrifice’. ’ (As..t. 3.2.128)

(A.12) i˙n-dh¯aryoh. śatr akr.cchrin.i √ √ ‘The affix śatr. can be used with the roots (ádhi-) i ‘study’ and dh¯aray ‘hold’ when the subject studies/retains (information) without difficulty.’ (As..t. 3.2.130) (A.13) dvis.o ’mitre √ ‘The affix śatr. can be used with the root dvis. ‘hate’ when indicating an enemy.’ (As..t. 3.2.131) (A.14) suño yajña-sam . yoge √ ‘The affix śatr. can be used with the root su ‘press’ when indicating participation in a sacrifice.’ (As..t. 3.2.132) (A.15) arhah. p¯uj¯ay¯am √ ‘The affix śatr. can be used with the root arh ‘deserve’ when indicating honour.’ (As..t. 3.2.133) These forms are not treated as participles because they do not correspond semantically to the related verbal stems; so for example while sunvánt- synchronically means ‘participating in the √ sacrifice’, inflectional verbal forms of the root su directly reflect the lexical meaning ‘press’, e.g. finite sunóti súr¯am ‘he presses out (i.e. distils) liquor’. The existence of these lexicalized nouns and adjectives does not preclude the existence of homophonous inflectional participles, just as we find in the Rigveda (cf. §6.6.2). Rule 3.2.129 ((A.16)) specifies a slightly different sort of adjectival formation that appears formally similar to a participial formation. It defines a suffix c¯anaś, used to form adjectives indicating habitual disposition, age, or ability in respect to the eventuality of the verbal root. This suffix produces, in the final output, a word phonologically and morphologically identical to a mediopassive present participle, except that it can be formed to any root, including those that do not form finite mediopassive present stems. (A.16) t¯acch¯ılyavayovacanaśaktis.u c¯anaś ‘The affix c¯anaś can be used after any verbal root to indicate habitual disposition, age, or ability.’ (As..t. 3.2.129) Examples given in the commentaries include (kavacam) bibhr¯an.a- ‘old enough to wear (a coat of mail)’, and nighn¯ana- ‘habituated to/capable of killing’. For P¯an.ini, nighn¯ana- cannot be √ a participle since (ni-) han ‘slay’ does not form a finite mediopassive present stem. This shows that, for P¯an.ini, a present participle could only be formed to a tense-aspect stem for which finite forms existed.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Appendix

There is therefore a very clear distinction in the As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı between participles, productively derived from tense-aspect stems, and other adjectives, including participle-like adjectives. This extends to functional differences, as discussed in §A.3.

A. The functions of participles Since only present and future participles were a productive part of P¯an.ini’s language, his remarks on participial functionality are essentially restricted to these. He treats the functionality of the present participle in rules 3.2.124–6, and this employment is extended to the future participle by rule 3.3.14 ((A.5)). Rule 3.2.124, given here as (A.3), defines the present participle as the primary means of expressing an eventuality in the present tense when its grammatical subject is not in the nominative case in the sentence. In other words, any eventuality which takes place in ‘present time’ relative to the event time of the main verb can be expressed by the present participle, as long as the participle and main verb do not share the same grammatical subject. That is, present participles outside the nominative case express temporal simultaneity or concomitance, that is, that the eventuality expressed by the participle is taking place at the same time as the eventuality expressed by the finite verb. The restriction of this function to the non-nominative cases is perhaps more of a technical necessity than a semantic restriction, since if it were permitted in the nominative it would license the use of participles as primary predicates in finite clauses (as discussed in §4.6). P¯an.ini defines the vocative as a sub-class of nominative, so has to license the use of the participle in the vocative by a separate rule (3.2.125, (A.17)). (A.17) sam . bodhane ca ‘The (participial) affixes śatr. and ś¯anac are used following a present verbal stem when used in addressing someone (i.e. in the vocative).’ (As..t. 3.2.125) By extension, the future participle is used as the primary means of expressing an eventuality in the future tense when its grammatical subject is not in the nominative case in the sentence. Ceteris paribus we might expect that at a time when the aorist and perfect participles were still a productive part of the language, they would be used in parallel manner, according to the tenseaspect properties of the respective verbal stems. Of course present and future participles can be used in the nominative in P¯an.inian Sanskrit, just as in Rigvedic Sanskrit. This is licensed by rule 3.2.126 ((A.18)), which in fact applies to participles in any grammatical case. According to this rule, participles can be used to express a ‘laks.an.a’ or ‘hetu’ of another action (normally that referred to by the main verb). (A.18) laks.an.ahetvoh. kriy¯ay¯ah. ‘The (participial) affixes śatr. and ś¯anac are used following a present verbal stem when the eventuality expressed is a ‘characteristic’ or ‘cause’ of another action.’ (As..t. 3.2.126) Both laks.an.a and hetu are terms that are potentially ambiguous. The term hetu is an abstract √ noun from the root hi ‘impel’, and so refers literally to an impulse or impulsion. In this context, understood as mental impulse or impulsion, it corresponds to the purposive and causal functionalities of participles, as described above (§§5.3.1 and 5.3.2). The meaning of laks.an.a is √ somewhat less specific; it is a factitive nominal derivative from laks. ‘perceive, mark, indicate,

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Appendix



characterize, define’, and is often translated ‘characteristic’. Its precise meaning in this context, at least as it was understood by the early post-P¯an.inian tradition, can be discerned from Patañjali’s comment on P¯an.ini’s rule. Patañjali’s Mah¯abh¯as.ya (c.150 bc, edited by Kielhorn 1880–85) is the earliest surviving commentary on P¯an.ini’s As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı.5 Patañjali’s comment on (K¯aty¯ayana’s v¯arttika on) As..t. 3.2.126 is given in (A.19): (A.19) gacchan bhaks.ayat¯ıti gacchati-kriy¯a bhaks.ayati-kriy¯ay¯a laks.an.am . . . ya a¯ ste going eats=quot going-action eating-action.g characteristic who sits c¯adh¯ıte ca sa caitrah. . . . naitad kriy¯ay¯a laks.an.am. kim . tarhi. and=studies and he Caitra not=that action.g characteristic what then kartr.-laks.an.am etat. subject-characteristic that ‘In the sentence ‘going along he eats’ the action of going (expressed by the participle) is a characteristic of the action of eating (expressed by the finite verb) . . . however in the sentence ‘he who sits and studies is Caitra’ . . . this (i.e. the actions of sitting and studying, expressed by finite verbs) are not characteristics of an action, but characteristics of the subject.’ (MBh. ad 3.2.126) We can understand this to mean that laks.an.a indicates the function that a finite verb has, at least in some contexts, in relation to its subject. Given the literal meaning of laks.an.a, we can understand this to refer to the fact that a finite verb predicates something of its subject, and thereby makes a semantic contribution to our knowledge about that subject. The parallel drawn by Patañjali implies that the same use of laks.an.a can apply to the function of a participle in relation to its matrix verb. Thus laks.an.a refers to participles that make a semantic contribution to our knowledge about the main predication, rather than the subject specifically. That is, we are talking about converbal participles, in particular those expressing ‘manner’ and ‘attendant circumstance’ (§5.3.7). The definition of participial functionality in P¯an.ini’s grammar does not seem to cover the syntactic and semantic variety found in the Rigveda. Nominative participles used attributively, to take just one example, are strictly speaking not permitted. However in reality in Classical Sanskrit the range of participial functionality is essentially the same as that seen in the Rigveda, allowing for the loss of some participle categories in the former. P¯an.ini’s statements about participial functionality are best understood not, primarily, as restrictions on how participles can be used, but rather about distinguishing participles from finite verbs, and ensuring that participles are not used in place of finite verbs (or vice versa).

A. Tense and aspect Insofar as the use of present participles is specified by reference to the present verbal stem to which they are formed ((A.3)), and given the importance of verbal tense-aspect for understanding the use of participles in the Rigveda and their place within the verbal system, it is relevant

5 More accurately it is a commentary on an earlier set of comments, called v¯ arttikas, by a grammarian K¯aty¯ayana (c. rd century bc).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Appendix

to consider also the Indian grammatical tradition’s understanding of the inherent semantics of the different verbal stems. A.. The present While the past and future tenses have incontestably undergone certain changes between the Rigvedic stage of the language and that treated by P¯an.ini, the present tense appears to show a greater degree of semantic continuity between the two periods. P¯an.ini defines the use of the present tense in rule 3.2.123 ((A.20)). (A.20) vartam¯ane lat. ‘Present tense verbal forms are used in reference to an ongoing eventuality.’ (As..t. 3.2.123) The key term, translated ‘ongoing’ above, is vartam¯ana, itself morphologically a present √ participle of the verb vr.t ‘happen, occur’. This term is not further explained by P¯an.ini himself, but the later grammatical tradition discusses its definition in detail. All definitions attempt to express what we would understand as the fundamentally ‘imperfective’ nature of present time: an eventuality that is vartam¯ana is one that has begun but has not completed. For example, K¯aty¯ayana’s v¯arttika on 3.2.123 states that the present tense is used pravr.ttasy¯avir¯ame ‘in the case of the non-cessation of something which has begun’ (v¯arttika 1 on 3.2.123). One of the most detailed treatments in the Indian tradition of the concept of time is found in the K¯alasamuddeśa, section 3.9 of Bhartr.hari’s V¯akyapad¯ıya (c. 7th c. ad), and in the detailed commentary on this, the Prak¯ırn.akaprak¯aśa of Hel¯ar¯aja (c. 11th c. ad).6 Hel¯ar¯aja’s definition of present time (commenting on V¯akyapad¯ıya 3.9.89) is given below. pr¯arabdh¯aparisam¯aptatvam (A.21) na hi sattvam . vartam¯anat¯a-laks.an.am . . kim . tu not for existence present-definition but_rather begun_and_not_completed ‘For the state of existence is not the definition of the concept of present time, rather the state of having begun and not having completed (is the definition of present time).’ (As..t. 3.2.123) ‘Begun’ here may apply to anything which necessarily precedes the accomplishment of an activity; ‘completed’ refers to any achievement, termination or change of state. An exception was made in the tradition for states which could be conceived of as being eternal (such as the standing of mountains or the flowing of rivers) and hence would have no possible beginning or end; for our purposes this can be ignored. As the tradition understood it, every eventuality is composed of a sequence of smaller constituent eventualities which together can be conceived as a whole. The present tense therefore applies not specifically to an eventuality of which some part is actively taking place at the ‘present’ moment, but to an eventuality of which at least the first constituent eventuality has begun and of which the final, terminating or achieving constituent eventuality has not finished, regardless of whether anything is actually ongoing at the ‘present’ moment or not. Translating Hel¯ar¯aja’s description into modern terminology, he is describing imperfectivity and/or present tense, and asserting that this is the primary semantic feature of the present tense-aspect. His analysis perhaps aligns more closely with imperfectivity, but as discussed in §5.5.1, in Reichenbachian terms the distinction between present tense and 6

Both texts edited by Subramania-Iyer () and translated by Sharma ().

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Appendix



imperfective aspect is often blurred. Imperfective aspect, at least, correlates precisely with the reconstructed inherited value of the present tense-aspect, and also correlates well with the value of the present tense-aspect in the Rigveda. It is worth noting that the ‘present time’ expressed by vartam¯ana- is not limited to finite and non-finite present tense verb forms (including participles). The tradition understands vartam¯ane from As..t. 3.2.123 to be inferred in every rule up to 3.3.1, thus applying also to a number of nominal formations that are introduced in the sixty-one verses following 3.2.127. This includes not only the non-participial forms in -¯ana- and -nt- introduced in rules 3.2.128–33 (discussed above) but also e.g. root-accented agent nouns in -tr.-, adjectives in -is.n.u-, -snu-, -nú-, -ín-, -aka-, -aná-, and several others. What distinguishes e.g. the present participle kurvánt- ‘making’ from the agent noun kártr.- ‘maker’ is not imperfective or relative ‘present-time’ reference as such, since both formations share this, but that the participle derives this feature (and others) directly from its association with the present tense-aspect stem. Present-tense verb forms are also admitted for use in reference to past time in conjunction with certain particles and in certain contexts (e.g. in conjunction with the past time referring particle sma), by rules 3.2.118–22. Similarly, present tense verb forms are admitted for use in the near past or future by 3.3.131. In principle such ‘loose’ present time is not excluded for the present participle, but in practice this does not occur, and is certainly absent from the Rigvedic language. A.. Past tenses The distinctions between the past tenses, imperfect, aorist, and perfect, are treated by P¯an.ini and the subsequent tradition in terms of temporal remoteness. As most recently noted by Dahl (2010: 7–8), the system described by P¯an.ini may have been an accurate description of the facts in the language of his time, but they do not adequately account for the situation in the earlier Vedic language. Nevertheless there are elements of the P¯an.inian account of the Sanskrit past tenses that do appear to reflect features of the Rigvedic language. The primary distinctions made by P¯an.ini are the following. The aorist tense is specified for past time in the broadest sense, by rule 3.2.110 ((A.22)). (A.22) lu˙n ‘Aorist tense verbal forms are used in reference to past time.’ (As..t. 3.2.110) The term used for past time is bh¯uta- (inferred here from rule 3.2.84), -tá- adjective from the √ root bh¯u ‘become’ and literally referring to ‘what has come about’, i.e. whatever has already happened. The range of the imperfect is more specific; by rule 3.2.111 ((A.23)), it is defined for use in reference to eventualities that have occurred ‘not on the current day’. This is the definition of the remote past in Sanskrit grammar, and corresponds to non-hodiernal tenses, in the terminology of Dahl (1984). (A.23) anadyatane la˙n ‘Imperfect tense verbal forms are used in reference to past time but excluding the current day.’ (As..t. 3.2.111) More specific again is the range of the perfect: by rule 3.2.115 ((A.24)), this is used for an eventuality in the non-hodiernal past that is also paroks.e lit. ‘beyond the perception (of the

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Appendix

speaker)’. That is, the perfect can only be used in reference to something that has not been witnessed by the speaker; it therefore contrasts with the aorist and imperfect primarily in terms of evidentiality.7 (A.24) paroks.e lit. ‘Perfect tense verbal forms are used in reference to past time excluding the current day, when the eventuality was not witnessed by the speaker.’ (As..t. 3.2.115) The distinct uses of the three tenses can be understood in terms of blocking: the aorist is the general past tense, but it is blocked from the non-hodiernal past by the imperfect, which in turn is blocked from the non-hodiernal past in conjunction with non-first-hand evidentiality by the perfect.8 Although this system cannot be projected back to the language of the Rigveda, there are certain similarities, such as the use of the aorist for the near or recent past. There are several very specific addenda to these more general rules governing the assignment of the past tenses, but most are irrelevant for the present survey. One that is relevant is rule 3.3.135 ((A.25)), which specifies an exception to the use of the imperfect as defined in rule 3.2.111 above. (A.25) n¯anadyatanavat kriy¯aprabandhas¯am¯ıpyayoh. ‘When there is continuity of action or temporal proximity, the tenses specified for use in non-hodiernal time are not used.’ (As..t. 3.3.135) This rule means that the imperfect should not be used for the remote past when ‘continuity of action’ or ‘proximity’ are expressed.9 By virtue of the more general rule specifying the aorist for past time (3.2.110, (A.22)), it is the aorist that is to be used in these contexts, in place of the imperfect. The use of the aorist in the context of temporal proximity (s¯am¯ıpya) is entirely comprehensible given the default use of the aorist for the near past (adyatana), reflecting its use as an immediative category in the Rigveda (cf. §2.3.5). What is meant by ‘continuity of action’, on the other hand, is slightly more difficult. The Sanskrit is kriy¯aprabandha, literally meaning ‘a connection/collection of actions’; the K¯aśik¯a commentary glosses kriy¯a-prabandha as s¯atatyen¯anus..th¯anam ‘continual performance’. A common example of this use of the aorist in the commentaries is the sentence in (A.26): (A.26) y¯avaj j¯ıvam annam ad¯at . bhr.śam while alive continually food give.aor.3sg ‘Throughout his life he has continually given food.’ This would appear to refer either to an imperfective or (perhaps more likely) iterative reading, or both. This is surprising insofar as the imperfect derives ultimately from an inherited imperfective category, while the aorist derives ultimately from an inherited perfective category, so we would hardly expect the blocking to work this way round. However, Dahl (2010: 299–301, 307–8, 341) provides some evidence that the Rigvedic aorist may have an ‘iterative-habitual’

7 In the typology of Aikhenvald (), P¯ an.inian Sanskrit can be treated as a language of the ‘A’ type, distinguishing non-first-hand information from all other types. 8 Interestingly, this contrasts with the system of blocking proposed for Vedic by Kiparsky (), in which it is the specific readings of the aorist which block the use of the more general imperfect and perfect. 9 This rule also applies to the future tenses, as discussed below.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Appendix



reading in some instances, which might permit the beginnings of this development to be projected to the Rigvedic period. Given the close semantic relation between the perfect and aorist in early Vedic, both being aspectually anterior categories, it is possible that something of the stative sense of the perfect was adopted by the aorist.10 In P¯an.inian Sanskrit, then, the aorist was the default finite past tense, with no necessary perfective aspectual properties, while the imperfect and perfect had specific readings which blocked the aorist; but interestingly the specific readings of the imperfect did not include imperfectivity or iteration. P¯an.ini himself recognized that the uses of the past tenses as he specifies them do not precisely match the Vedic situation. In rule 3.2.105 he allows for the perfect to express general past time in the Vedas, not restricted by the evidential constraint specified for the contemporary language in rule 3.2.115; moreover this is extended to the otherwise moribund perfect participles by 3.2.106 and 3.2.107 ((A.6) and (A.7)). This extension to general past time does not reflect a specific understanding of the Vedic verbal system on P¯an.ini’s part, but merely an appreciation that the use of the perfect in Vedic was less restricted than in his own language. A.. The future As with the past tenses, there was clearly considerable development between Rigvedic Sanskrit and P¯an.inian Sanskrit in relation to the expression of future tense and time. In the Rigveda the subjunctive mood is widely taken as the regular means of forming a finite verb with future temporal reference, while the ‘future’ tense itself is rare and possibly preserves some evidence of a modal or desiderative sense; above I analysed the Rigvedic future as a category expressing present tense and posterior aspect (cf. §5.5.5). In P¯an.inian Sanskrit, however, the subjunctive was lost, and the surviving synthetic future formation in -sya- (i.e. the Rigvedic ‘future’) is in competition with a new periphrastic future tense formed with the -tr.- agent noun. Since we are dealing not only with potential changes in the meanings of the categories involved (as with the past tenses), but also with changes of the actual categories involved in reference to future time, the distance between the P¯an.inian future in -sya- and its Rigvedic precursor is particularly great. The main rule introducing the future tense is 3.3.13 ((A.27)). This rule specifies the -sya- future for general use in future time and for expressing purpose. (A.27) lr..t śes.e ca ‘The future tense in -sya- is used in reference to future time, or to express the purpose of another action.’ (As..t. 3.3.13) The term for future time, inferred from rule 3.3.3, is bhavis.yant-, which, like the term for √ present time, vartam¯ana-, is a participle, in this case to the synthetic future stem of bh¯u ‘become, be’. Its meaning is therefore literally ‘(that which is) going to come about’.11 The expression of purpose, inferred in 3.3.13 from rule 3.3.10, shows that in P¯an.ini’s Sanskrit the future in -sya- retains some non-temporal functionality, as is the case in the Rigveda (§5.5.5) and as is widely found cross-linguistically (§2.3.4). 10

Perhaps the use of the perfect for ‘persistent situations’ (Comrie : ). There is of course a circularity in defining tense reference using a term that contains the very tense formant under discussion. That is, one must know what bhavis.yant- means before one can properly use the -sya- future-tense, to which bhavis.yant- is formed. The same is true of the definition of present-tense reference. 11

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Appendix

One notable point in the P¯an.inian treatment of the synthetic future is its functional parallelism with the aorist tense. In the same way that the aorist is specified as the general past tense but is then blocked from remote past contexts by the imperfect, so the synthetic future is specified as the general future tense but then blocked from the remote future by the periphrastic future, by rule 3.3.15 ((A.28)). (A.28) anadyatane lut. ‘The periphrastic future in -tr.- is used in reference to future time excluding the current day.’ (As..t. 3.3.15) As with the distinction between aorist and imperfect, the distinction is between hodiernal and non-hodiernal tense. Furthermore, rule 3.3.135 ((A.25)) applies not only to the past tenses, prohibiting the use of the imperfect in the context of imperfectivity/iteration or proximity, but also in precisely parallel manner to the future tenses, prohibiting the periphrastic future in the context of imperfectivity/iteration or proximity. As with the past tenses, the more general rule (3.3.13) causes the future in -sya- to occur in such contexts. This does not necessarily imply any historical connection between the synthetic future and the aorist, nor any synchronic temporal or aspectual relation beyond the fact that the aorist and the synthetic future are the default past and future tense markers respectively. But as with the aorist, this rule shows that the synthetic future has a specifically immediate future reference and is compatible with a specifically imperfective/iterative reading. The reference to the immediate future, at least, corresponds well with the analysis of the Rigvedic future presented above (§5.5.5).

A. Conclusion P¯an.ini’s treatment of participial functionality and verbal tense-aspect is brief, but rich in implications for his assumptions regarding their position within the verbal and nominal system of the language. But his aim is prescriptive, not analytic, and we can only learn from him how he considered participles should be used, not how they were used. Although the grammatical tradition that he represents reflects a stage of the language somewhat later than that of the Rigveda, there are clear points of contact between the two, which demonstrates the value of the Indian grammatical tradition even for Rigvedic studies and clearly indicates the continuity of linguistic development between the two periods.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References Ackerman, Farrell and John Moore (2001). Proto-Properties and Grammatical Encoding: A Correspondence Theory of Argument Selection. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Ackerman, Farrell, Gregory T. Stump, and Gert Webelhuth (2011). ‘Lexicalism, periphrasis, and implicative morphology’. In Robert D. Borsley and Kersti Börjars (eds.), NonTransformational Syntax: Formal and Explicit Models of Grammar, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 325–358. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. (2004). Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aissen, Judith L. (1992). ‘Topic and Focus in Mayan’. Language 68(1): 43–80. Aitzetmüller, Rudolf (1968). ‘Das angebliche s-Futurum des Slavischen’. In Manfred Mayrhofer (ed.), Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft und Kulturkunde: Gedenkschrift für Wilhelm Brandenstein, Innsbruck: Institut für Vergleichende Sprachwissenschaft der Leopold-FranzensUniversität Innsbruck, pp. 11–16. Al Sharifi, Budour and Louisa Sadler (2009). ‘The adjectival construct in Arabic’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 26–43. Alexiadou, Artemis and Elena Anagnostopoulou (2008). ‘Structuring participles’. In Charles B. Chang and Hannah J. Haynie (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Somerville, MA.: Cascadilla Proceedings Project, pp. 33–41. Alexiadou, Artemis and Monika Rathert (eds.) (2010). The Syntax of Nominalizations across Languages and Frameworks. Berlin: De Gruyter. Alsina, Alex (1996). The Role of Argument Structure in Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Altshuler, Daniel (2013). ‘There is no Netural Aspect’. Proceedings of SALT 23: 40–62. Amith, Jonathan D. and Thomas C. Smith-Stark (1994). ‘Transitive Nouns and Split Possessive Paradigms in Central Guerrero Nahuatl’. International Journal of American Linguistics 60(4): 342–68. Anderson, Stephen R. (1996). ‘How to Put Your Clitics in Their Place’. Linguistic Review 13: 165–191. Anderson, Stephen R. (2000). ‘Towards an Optimal account of second-position phenomena’. In Joost Dekkers, Frank van der Leeuw, and Jeroen van de Weijer (eds.), Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax, and Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 302–33. Andrews, Avery D. (2008). ‘The role of PRED in LFG+Glue’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 47–67. Anttila, Raimo (1970). ‘Soon again’. Die Sprache 16: 171–4. Arka, I Wayan (2009). ‘The core-oblique distinction and core index in some Austronesian languages of Indonesia’. MS from keynote paper presented at International ALT (Association of Linguistic Typology conference) VI, Padang Indonesia, July 2005 under the title ‘On the distinction between Core and Obliques in the Austronesian languages

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

of Indonesia’. Downloaded from http://rspas.anu.edu.au/linguistics/projects/iwa/ArkaCoreOblique-PaperAndTables.pdf November 2010. Arka, I Wayan (2013). ‘Nominal aspect in Marori’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 27–47. Arnold, Doug (2007). ‘Non-restrictive Relatives are not Orphans’. Journal of Linguistics 43: 271–309. Arnold, Doug and Louisa Sadler (2010). ‘Pottsian LFG’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 43–63. Arnold, Doug and Louisa Sadler (2013). ‘Displaced dependent constructions’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 48–68. Arnold, Edward Vernon (1905). Vedic Metre in its Historical Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Asudeh, Ash (2000). ‘Functional identity and resource sensitivity in control’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG00 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 2–24. Asudeh, Ash (2002a). ‘A resource-sensitive semantics for equi and raising’. In D. I. Beaver, S. Kaufmann, B. Clark, and L. Casillas (eds.), The Construction of Meaning, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 1–22. Asudeh, Ash (2002b). ‘The syntax of preverbal particles and adjunction in Irish’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 1–18. Asudeh, Ash (2006). ‘Direct compositionality and the architecture of LFG’. In Miriam Butt, Mary Dalrymple, and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Intelligent Linguistic Architectures: Variations on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 363–87. Asudeh, Ash (2012). The Logic of Pronominal Resumption. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Asudeh, Ash, Mary Dalrymple, and Ida Toivonen (2008). ‘Constructions with lexical integrity: Templates as the lexicon-syntax interface’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 68–88. Asudeh, Ash, Mary Dalrymple, and Ida Toivonen (2013). ‘Constructions with Lexical Integrity’. Journal of Language Modelling 1(1): 1–54. Asudeh, Ash and Gianluca Giorgolo (2012). ‘Flexible composition for optional and derived arguments’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 64–84. Asudeh, Ash and Ida Toivonen (2010). ‘Lexical-Functional Grammar’. In Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 425–458. Attia, Mohammed (2008). ‘A unified analysis of copula constructions in LFG’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 89–108. Austin, Peter and Joan Bresnan (1996). ‘Non-configurationality in Australian Aboriginal Languages’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 14(2): 215–68.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Bach, Emmon (1981). ‘On time, tense and aspect: An essay in English metaphysics’. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical Pragmatics, New York: Academic Press, pp. 62–81. Badecker, William and Alfonso Caramazza (1989). ‘A Lexical Distinction between Inflection and Derivation’. Linguistic Inquiry 20(1): 108–16. Bader, Françoise (1975a). ‘Adjectifs verbaux hétéroclitiques (∗ -i-/∗ -nt-/∗ -u-) en composition nominale’. Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes, ser. 3 49=101: 19–48. Bader, Françoise (1975b). ‘La loi de Caland et Wackernagel en grec’. In Mélanges linguistiques offerts à Émile Benveniste, Louvain: Peeters, pp. 19–32. Baker, Mark C. (1996). The polysynthesis parameter. New York: Oxford University Press. Baker, Mark C. (2001a). ‘Configurationality and polysynthesis’. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook (vol. 2), Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 1433–41. Baker, Mark C. (2001b). ‘The natures of non-configurationality’. In Mark Baltin and Chris Collins (eds.), Handbook of Syntax, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 407–38. Baker, Mark C. (2003). Lexical Categories: Verbs, Nouns, and Adjectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baker, Mark C. and Nadya Vinokurova (2009). ‘On Agent Nominalizations and why they are not like Event Nominalizations’. Language 85(3): 517–56. Baker, Mark C. and Nadya Vinokurova (2012). ‘Forms of Predication in Sakha (Turkic): Will the True Lexical Predicates Please Stand Up?’ The Canadian Journal of Linguistics / La revue canadienne de linguistique 57(2): 177–207. Balles, Irene (2003). ‘Die lateinische idus-Adjektive und das Caland system’. In Eva Tichy, Dagmar S. Wodtko, and Britte Sofie Irslinger (eds.), Indogermanisches Nomen. Derivation, Flexion und Ablaut. Akten der Arbeitstagung der indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Freiburg, 19–22 September 2001, Bremen: Hempen, pp. 9–29. Balles, Irene (2006). Die altindische cvi-Konstruktion: Form, Funktion, Ursprung. Bremen: Hempen. Balles, Irene (2009). ‘The Old Indic cvi construction, the Caland system, and the PIE adjective’. In Jens Elmeård Rasmussen, Thomas Olander, and Anders Richardt Jørgensen (eds.), Internal Reconstruction in Indo-European: Methods, Results, Problems. Section Papers from the XVI International Conference on Historical Linguistics, University of Copenhagen, 11–15 August 2003, Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, pp. 1–15. Bammesberger, Alfred (1965). ‘Old English gycer and Gothic jukuzi’. Language 41(3): 416–19. Banfield, Ann (1973). ‘Narrative Style and the Grammar of Direct and Indirect Speech’. Foundations of Language 10: 1–39. Banti, Giorgio (1980). ‘I clitici antico-indiani’. In Pierangiolo Berrettoni (ed.), Problemi di analisi linguistica, Roma: Cadmo editore, pp. 9–42. Banti, Giorgio (2010). ‘Typology of converbs and their functional equivalents in East Cushitic’. In Sascha Völmin, Azeb Amha, Christian J. Rapold, and Silvia Zaugg-Coretti (eds.), Converbs, Medial Verbs, Clause Chaining and Related Issues (vol. 19 (2007) of Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter), Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, pp. 31–80. Banti, Giorgio (2012). ‘Syntax and Information Structure (IS) in Vedic Prose’. Lecture at Vedica Neapolitana, Procida, Italy, 3 October 2012.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Bartholomae, Christian (1888). ‘Die arische flexion der adjektiva und partizipia auf nt-’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 29: 487–586. Bartholomae, Christian (1900). ‘Arica XIII’. Indogermanische Forschungen 11: 112–44. Bary, Corien and Markus Egg (2012). ‘Variety in Ancient Greek Aspect Interpretation’. Linguistics and Philosophy 35: 111–34. Bary, Corien and Dag Haug (2011). ‘Temporal Anaphora Across and Inside Sentences: The Function of Participles’. Semantics and Pragmatics 4, article 8: 1–56. Bauer, Brigitte L. M. (2000). Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Bauer, Gero (1970). ‘The English ‘Perfect’ Reconsidered’. Journal of Linguistics 6(2): 189–98. Bauer, Hans and Pontus Leander (1927). Grammatik des Biblisch-Aramäischen. Halle: Niemeyer. Bauer, Laurie (2004). ‘The function of word-formation and the inflection-derivation distinction’. In Henk Aertsen, Mike Hannay, and Rod Lyall (eds.), Words in their Places. A Festschrift for J. Lachlan Mackenzie, Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, pp. 283–292. Baum, Daniel (2006). The Imperative in the Rigveda. Utrecht: LOT. Bavant, Marc (2008). ‘Proto-Indo-European Ergativity . . . Still to be Discussed’. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 44(4): 433–47. Beaver, David (1992). ‘The kinematics of presupposition’. In Paul Dekker and Martin Stockhof (eds.), Proceedings of the Eighth Amsterdam Colloquium, University of Amsterdam: ILLC. Beekes, Robert S. P. (1982). ‘GAv. må the PIE Word for ‘Moon, Month’, and the Perfect Participle’. Journal of Indo-European Studies 10: 53–63. Beermann, Dorothee A. and Lars Hellan (2002). ‘VP-Chaining in Oriya’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 40–56. Behrens, Bergljot, Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen, and Kåre Solfjeld (2012). ‘Competing structures: the discourse perspective’. In Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen and Dag T. T. Haug (eds.), Big Events, Small Clauses: The Grammar of Elaboration, Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 179–225. Belyaev, Oleg (2014). ‘Systematic Mismatches: Coordination and Subordination at Three Levels of Grammar’. To appear in Journal of Linguistics. Belyaev, Oleg and Arseniy Vydrin (2011). ‘Participle-converbs in Iron-Ossetic: Syntactic and semantic properties’. In Agnes Korn, Geoffrey Haig, Simin Karimi, and Pollet Samvelian (eds.), Topics in Iranian Linguistics, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 117–34. Benveniste, Émile (1935a). Les infinitifs avestiques. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. Benveniste, Émile (1935b). Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen. Paris: AdrienMaisonneuve. Benveniste, Émile (1948). Noms d’agent et noms d’action en indo-européen. Paris: AdrienMaisonneuve. Benveniste, Émile (1959). ‘La forme du participe en luwi’. In R. von Kienle (ed.), Festschrift Johannes Friedrich zum 65. Geburtstag am 27. August 1958 gewidmet, Heidelberg: Winter, pp. 53–9. Benveniste, Émile (1963). ‘Interférences lexicales entre le gotique et l’iranien’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 58: 41–57.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Benveniste, Émile (1964). ‘La racine yat- en indo-iranien’. In Indo-Iranica: Mélanges présentés à Georg Morgenstierne, à l’occasion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 21–7. Bhat, Darbhe (1994). The Adjectival Category: Criteria for Differentiation and Identification. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Bhatt, V. M. (2000). ‘Pragmatics of Absolute Locative in Sanskrit’. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 81: 279–82. Bhawe, S. S. (1957). The Soma-Hymns of the Rgveda: a Fresh Interpretation (3 vols.). Baroda: Oriental Institute. Birnbaum, David J. (1995). ‘The Church Slavonic Future Participle from a Comparative Perspective’. Die Welt der Slaven 40(1): 76–92. Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, and Robert Walter Funk (1961). A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bloch, Jules (1965). Indo-Aryan from the Vedas to Modern Times. Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve. Bloom, Lois, Margaret Lahey, Lois Hood, Karin Lifter, and Kathleen Fiess (1980). ‘Complex Sentences: Acquisition of Syntactic Connectives and the Semantic Relations they Encode’. Journal of Child Language 7: 235–61. Bloomfield, Leonard (1933). Language. London: Allen & Unwin. Blümel, Wolfgang (1982). Die aiolischen Dialekte: Phonologie und Morphologie der inschriftlichen Texte aus generativer Sicht. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Bock, Bettina (2009). ‘Relativsätze mit Nebensinn in altindogermanischen Sprachen’. In Elisabeth Rieken and Paul Widmer (eds.), Pragmatische Kategorien: Form, Funktion und Diachronie. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 24. bis 26. September 2007 in Marburg, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 15–28. Bögel, Tina (2010). ‘Pashto (endo-)clitics in a parallel architecture’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 85–105. Bögel, Tina (2012). ‘The P-Diagram – A syllable-based approach to P-structure’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 99–117. Bögel, Tina and Miriam Butt (2013). ‘Possessive clitics and ezafe in Urdu’. In Kersti Börjars, David Denison, and Alan Scott (eds.), Morphosyntactic Categories and the Expression of Possession, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 291–322. Bögel, Tina, Miriam Butt, Ronald M. Kaplan, Tracy Holloway King, and John T. Maxwell III (2009). ‘Prosodic phonology in LFG: A new proposal’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 146–66. Bögel, Tina, Miriam Butt, Ronald M. Kaplan, Tracy Holloway King, and John T. Maxwell III (2010). ‘Second Position and the prosody-syntax interface’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 106–26. Bögel, Tina, Miriam Butt, and Sebastian Sulger (2008). ‘Urdu ezafe and the morphologysyntax interface’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 129–49.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Böhtlingk-Roth, PW (Petersburg Wörterbuch) = von Böhtlingk and Roth (1855–75). Bolling, George Melville (1902). The Participle in Apollonius Rhodius. Baltimore. Booij, Geert E. (2006). ‘Inflection and Derivation’. In Keith Brown (ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (vol. 5), Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 654–61. Börjars, Kersti (2013). ‘Modelling linguistic change: grammaticalization, gradualness and persistence’. Keynote lecture at the 21st International Conference on Historical Linguistics, University of Oslo, 6 August 2013. To appear in the proceedings. Börjars, Kersti, John Payne, and Erika Chisarik (1999). ‘On the justification for functional categories in LFG’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Bošković, Željko and Howard Lasnik (eds.) (2006). Minimalist Syntax: The Essential Readings. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Bozic, Mirjana and William Marslen-Wilson (2010). ‘Neurocognitive Contexts for Morphological Complexity: Dissociating Inflection and Derivation’. Language and Linguistics Compass 4(11): 1063–73. Brereton, Joel P. (1985). ‘Style and Purpose in R.gveda II 11’. Indo-Iranian Journal 28: 237–62. Bresnan, Joan (1976). ‘On the Form and Functioning of Transformations’. Linguistic Inquiry 7(1): 3–40. Bresnan, Joan (1978). ‘A realistic transformational grammar’. In Morris Halle, Joan Bresnan, and George A. Miller (eds.), Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–59. Bresnan, Joan (1982a). ‘Control and Complementation’. Linguistic Inquiry 13(3): 343–434. Reprinted in Joan Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, pp. 282–390. Bresnan, Joan (ed.) (1982b). The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Bresnan, Joan (1982c). ‘The passive in lexical theory’. In Joan Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 3–86. Bresnan, Joan (1996). ‘LFG in an OT setting: Modelling competition and economy’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG96 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Bresnan, Joan (1997). ‘Mixed categories as head sharing constructions’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Bresnan, Joan (2000). ‘Optimal syntax’. In Joost Dekkers, Frank van der Leeuw, and Jeroen van de Weijer (eds.), Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax and Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 334–85. Bresnan, Joan (2001a). ‘The emergence of the unmarked pronoun’. In Géraldine Legendre, Jane Grimshaw, and Sten Vikner (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 113–42. Bresnan, Joan (2001b). Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell. Bresnan, Joan and Jonni M. Kanerva (1989). ‘Locative Inversion in Chichewa: ˆ A Case Study of Factorization in Grammar’. Linguistic Inquiry 20: 1–50.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Bresnan, Joan and Lioba Moshi (1990). ‘Object Asymmetries in Comparative Bantu Syntax’. Linguistic Inquiry 21(2): 147–85. Bresnan, Joan and John Mugane (2006). ‘Agentive nominalizations in G˜ık˜uy˜u and the Theory of Mixed Categories’. In Miriam Butt, Mary Dalrymple, and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Intelligent Linguistic Architectures: Variations on themes by Ronald M. Kaplan, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 201–34. Brockington, John (1969). ‘The Nominal System of the R¯am¯ayan.a’. Journal of the Oriental Institute, Baroda 19: 369–415. Reprinted in Greg Bailey and Mary Brockington (eds.), 2000, Epic Threads: John Brockington on the Sanskrit Epics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 41–97. Bronkhorst, Johannes (1991). ‘P¯an.ini and the Veda reconsidered’. In Madhav M. Desphande and Saroja Bhate (eds.), Paninian Studies: Professor S.D. Joshi Felicitation Volume, Ann Arbor, MI: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan, pp. 75–121. Brosman, Paul W. (2010). ‘The nt- participles and the verbal adjectives in ∗ -to-’. Indogermanische Forschungen 115: 22–34. Buijs, M. (2003). Clause combining in Ancient Greek narrative discourse: the distribution of subclauses and participial clauses in Xenophon’s Hellenica & Anabasis. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leiden. Burrow, Thomas (1955). ‘Vedic is.- ‘to prosper’’. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 17(2): 326–45. Burrow, Thomas (1960). ‘Sanskrit krand- ‘step, stride, etc.’’. Bulletin of the Deccan College Research Institute 20: 281–7. Burrow, Thomas (1973a). ‘Sanskrit p¯a- ‘go, move, pass, traverse”. Indo-Iranian Journal 15(2): 81–108. Burrow, Thomas (1973b). The Sanskrit Language. London: Faber, second edition. Burrow, Thomas (1986). ‘The Vedic Verb pávate ‘goes, moves, (wind) blows, (Soma) flows”. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 49(2): 292–8. Butt, Miriam (1995). The Structure of Complex Predicates in Urdu. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Butt, Miriam (2001). ‘The treatment of Tense’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 426–32. Butt, Miriam (2012). ‘Questions in Urdu/Hindi: Moving beyond Movement’. Paper presented at LFG2012, Udayana University, Bali, 28 June 2012. Butt, Miriam, Mary Dalrymple, and Annette Frank (1997). ‘An architecture for linking theory in LFG’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Butt, Miriam and Tracy Holloway King (1996). ‘Structural Topic and Focus without Movement’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG96 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Butt, Miriam and Tracy Holloway King (1997). ‘Null elements in discourse structure’. MS, University of Konstanz. http://ling.uni-konstanz.de/pages/home/butt/main/papers/nulls97.pdf. Butt, Miriam and Tracy Holloway King (1998). ‘Interfacing phonology with LFG’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG98 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Butt, Miriam and Tracy Holloway King (eds.) (2000). Argument Realization. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Butt, Miriam and Tracy Holloway King (2004). ‘The Status of Case’. In Veneeta Dayal and Anoop Mahajan (eds.), Clause Structure in South Asian Languages, Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 153–198. Butt, Miriam, Tracy Holloway King, María-Eugenia Niño, and Frédérique Segond (1999). A Grammar Writer’s Cookbook. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Butt, Miriam, María-Eugenia Niño, and Frédérique Segond (1996). ‘Multilingual Processing of Auxiliaries within LFG’. In Dafydd Gibbon (ed.), Natural Language Processing and Speech Technology: Results of the 3rd KONVENS Conference, Bielefeld, October 1996, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 111–122. Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins, and William Pagliuca (1994). The Evolution of Grammar: Tense, Aspect and Modality in the languages of the world. University of Chicago Press: Chicago. Caland, Willem (1892). ‘Beiträge zur kenntniss des Avesta’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 31: 256–73. Caland, Willem (1893). ‘Beiträge zur kenntniss des Avesta’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 32: 589–95. Callaway, Morgan (1901). The Appositive Participle in Anglo-Saxon. Baltimore: The Modern Language Association of America. Cantera, Alberto (2005). ‘Adverbal-prädikative Adjektive im Indoiranischen’. Historische Sprachforschung 118: 101–29. Cardona, George (1991). ‘On P¯an.ini, Ś¯akalya, Vedic dialects and Vedic exegetical traditions’. In Madhav M. Desphande and Saroja Bhate (eds.), Paninian Studies: Professor S.D. Joshi Felicitation Volume, Ann Arbor, MI: Center for South and Southeast Asian Studies, University of Michigan, pp. 123–34. Carr, Charles Telford (1939). Nominal Compounds in Germanic. London: Humphrey Milford. Catt, Adam A. (2013). ‘Root-final consonant variation in Avestan’. Paper presented at the 25th UCLA Indo-European Conference, 26 October 2013. Chantraine, Pierre (1967). ‘Exemples de la loi de Caland’. In Wolfgang Meid (ed.), Beiträge zur Indogermanistik und Keltologie: Julius Pokorny zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet, Innsbruck: Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut der Universität Innsbruck, pp. 21–4. Chierchia, Gennaro (1985). ‘Formal semantics and the grammar of predication’. Linguistic Inquiry 16(3): 417–43. Choi, Hye-Won (1996). Optimizing structure in context. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford, CA. Choi, Hye-Won (1999). Optimizing Structure in Context. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Chomsky, Noam (1970). ‘Remarks on Nominalization’. In Roderick A. Jacobs and Peter S. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English Transformational Grammar, Waltham, MA: Ginn, pp. 184–221. Also in: Chomsky, Noam (1972), Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar, The Hague: Mouton, pp. 11–61. Chomsky, Noam (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, Noam (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam (1993). ‘A Minimalist program for linguistic theory’. In Kenneth L. Hale and S. Jay Keyser (eds.), The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–52.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Chomsky, Noam (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Christie, Liz (2013). ‘Result XPs and the argument-adjunct distinction’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 212–31. Clackson, James (2007). Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Comrie, Bernard (1976). Aspect: An Introduction to Verbal Aspect and Related Problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cowgill, Warren (1969). ‘On the origin of the Indic es.-precative’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 25: 27–38. Cowgill, Warren (1970). ‘The Nominative Plural and Preterit Singular of the Active Participles in Baltic’. In Thomas F. Magner and William R. Schmalstieg (eds.), Baltic Linguistics, University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 23–37. Cowgill, Warren (1975). ‘More evidence for Indo-Hittite: The tense-aspect systems’. In Luigi Heilmann (ed.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of Linguists, Bologna–Florence, 28 Aug.–2 Sept., 1972, vol. 2, Bologna: Società editrice di Mulino, pp. 557–70. Croft, William A. (2001). Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crouch, Dick, Mary Dalrymple, Ronald M. Kaplan, Tracy Holloway King, John T. Maxwell III, and Paula Newman (2011). XLE Documentation. Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, CA. http://www2.parc.com/isl/groups/nltt/xle/doc/xle_toc.html Crouch, Dick and Valeria de Paiva (2004). ‘Linear Logic for Linguists: Foundational Course, ESSLLI-04’. MS, http://esslli2004.loria.fr/content/readers/57.pdf downloaded 20 September 2011. Crouch, Dick and Josef van Genabith (2000). ‘Linear Logic for Linguists: Introductory Course, ESSLLI-00’. MS, www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~pollard/681/crouch.pdf downloaded 6 October 2010. Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff (1997). ‘Semantic subordination despite syntactic coordination’. Linguistic Inquiry 28: 195–217. Culicover, Peter W. and Ray Jackendoff (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dahl, Eystein (2008a). Time, tense and aspect in Early Vedic grammar: A time relational approach to the morphosyntax-semantics interface. Ph.D. thesis, University of Oslo. Dahl, Eystein (2009a). ‘Semantische und Pragmatisch-kontextuelle Faktoren in der Entwicklung des altindoarischen Perfekts’. In Elisabeth Rieken and Paul Widmer (eds.), Pragmatische Kategorien: Form, Funktion und Diachronie. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 24. bis 26. September 2007 in Marburg, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 37–52. Dahl, Eystein (2009b). ‘Some semantic and pragmatic aspects of object alternation in Early Vedic’. In Jóhanna Barðdal and Shobhana L. Chelliah (eds.), The Role of Semantic, Pragmatic and Discourse Factors in the Development of Case, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 23–55. Dahl, Eystein (2010). Time, Tense and Aspect in Early Vedic Grammar. Leiden: Brill. Dahl, Eystein (2011a). ‘Tense and Aspect in Indo-Iranian Part 1: The Present and Aorist’. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(5): 265–81. Dahl, Eystein (2011b). ‘Tense and Aspect in Indo-Iranian Part 2: The Perfect, Futurate, Participial and Periphrastic Categories’. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(5): 282–96.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Dahl, Eystein (2012). ‘Evidence for evidentiality in Late Vedic’. In Jared S. Klein and Kazuhiko Yoshida (eds.), Indic Across the Millennia: From the Rigveda to Modern Indo-Aryan, Bremen: Hempen, pp. 9–21. Dahl, Eystein (2014). ‘The development of the Vedic perfect: From anterior present to inferential past’. In Jared S. Klein and Elizabeth Tucker (eds.), Vedic and Sanskrit Historical Linguistics: Papers from the 13th World Sanskrit Conference, New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, pp. 179–242. Dahl, Eystein (forthcoming). ‘Zur Typologie des frühvedischen Tempus/Aspektsystems’. To appear in Rosemarie Lühr and Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.), Struktur und Semantik der Verbalphrase: Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft in Jena, April 2006. Dahl, Östen (1984). ‘Temporal distance: remoteness distinctions in tense-aspect systems’. In Brian Butterworth, Bernard Comrie, and Östen Dahl (eds.), Explanations for Language Universals, Berlin: Mouton, pp. 105–22. Dahl, Östen (2000). ‘Egophoricity in Discourse and Syntax’. Functions of Language 7: 33–77. Dahl, Östen (2008b). ‘Animacy and Egophoricity: Grammar, Ontology and Phylogeny’. Lingua 118: 141–50. Dalrymple, Mary (ed.) (1999). Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Dalrymple, Mary (2001). Lexical Functional Grammar. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Dalrymple, Mary, Helge Dyvik, and Tracy Holloway King (2004). ‘Copular complements: closed or open?’ In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG04 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 188–98. Dalrymple, Mary, Vineet Gupta, John Lamping, and Vijay Saraswat (1999). ‘Relating resourcebased semantics to categorial semantics’. In Mary Dalrymple (ed.), Semantics and Syntax in Lexical Functional Grammar, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 261–80. Also in Proceedings of the Fifth Meeting on Mathematics of Language (MOL5), Schloss Dagstuhl, Saarbrücken, Germany, August 1997. Dalrymple, Mary, Ronald M. Kaplan, and Tracy Holloway King (2004). ‘Linguistic generalizations over descriptions’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG04 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 199–208. Dalrymple, Mary, Ronald M. Kaplan, and John T. Maxwell III (eds.) (1995). Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Dalrymple, Mary, John Lamping, Fernando Pereira, and Vijay Saraswat (1996). ‘A deductive account of quantification in LFG’. In Makoto Kanazawa, Christopher J. Piñón, and Henriette de Swart (eds.), Quantifiers, Deduction and Context, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 33–57. Dalrymple, Mary, John Lamping, Fernando Pereira, and Vijay Saraswat (2002). ‘Linear Logic for Meaning Assembly’. Revised version of the paper in Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Logic for Natural Language Processing, Edinburgh, UK, 1995. Downloaded from www2.parc.com/istl/groups/nltt/semantics/edinburgh.ps 6 October 2010. Dalrymple, Mary, John Lamping, and Vijay Saraswat (1993). ‘LFG semantics via constraints’. In Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 97–105. Dalrymple, Mary, John J. Lowe, and Louise Mycock (forthcoming). Lexical Functional Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press, second edition.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Dalrymple, Mary and Louise Mycock (2011). ‘The prosody-semantics interface’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 173–93. Dalrymple, Mary and Irina Nikolaeva (2011). Objects and Information Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. de Bernardo Stempel, Patrizia (1994). ‘Das indogermanische m(V)no-Verbaladjektiv im Keltischen’. In Roland Bielmeier and Reinhard Stempel (eds.), Indogermanica et Caucasica: Festschrift für Karl Horst Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 281–305. de Groot, Casper (1995). ‘The Hungarian converb or verbal adverbial in -va/-ve’. In Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms - Adverbial Participles, Gerunds -, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 283–311. de Lamberterie, Charles (1990). Les adjectifs grecsen -υς : Sémantique et comparaison. Louvainla-Neuve: Peeters. Dehé, Nicole, Ray Jackendoff, Andrew McIntyre, and Silke Urban (eds.) (2002). Verb-Particle Explorations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Dekkers, Joost, Frank van der Leeuw, and Jeroen van de Weijer (eds.) (2000). Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax, and Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DeLancey, S. (1981). ‘An interpretation of split-ergativity and related patterns’. Language 57: 626–57. Delbrück, Berthold (1888). Altindische Syntax. Halle: Verlag der Buchhandlung des Waisenhauses. Demirdache, Hamida and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria (2000). ‘The primitives of temporal relations’. In Roger Martin, David Michaels, and Juan Uriagereka (eds.), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 157–86. Demirdache, Hamida and Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria (2004). ‘The syntax of time adverbials’. In Jacqueline Guéron and Jacqueline Lecarme (eds.), The Syntax of Time, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 143–79. den Dikken, Marcel (1995). Particles: On the Syntax of Verb-Particle, Triadic, and Causative Constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Di Giovine, Paolo (1990a). Studio sul perfetto indoeuropeo, parte I: La funzione originaria del perfetto studiata nella documentazione delle lingue storiche. Roma: Dipartimento di studi glottoantropoligici dell’Università di Roma ‘La Sapienza’. Di Giovine, Paolo (1990b). Studio sul perfetto indoeuropeo, parte II: La posizione del perfetto all’interno del sistema verbale indeoeuropeo. Roma: Calamo. Dik, Helma (1995). Word Order in Ancient Greek: A Pragmatic Account of Word Order Variation in Herodotus. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben. Dik, Helma (2007). Word Order in Greek Tragic Dialogue. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dione, Cheikh Bamba (2012). ‘An LFG approach to Wolof cleft constructions’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 157–76. Dixon, R. M. W. (1972). The Dyirbal Language of North Queensland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dixon, R. M. W. (1979). ‘Ergativity’. Language 55(1): 59–138.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Dixon, R. M. W. (1982). Where Have All the Adjectives Gone? And Other Essays in Semantics and Syntax. Berlin: Mouton. Dixon, R. M. W. (1994). Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dixon, R. M. W. (2004). ‘Adjective classes in typological perspective’. In R. M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.), Adjective Classes: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–49. Dixon, R. M. W. and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald (eds.) (2004). Adjective Classes: A Cross-Linguistic Typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dowty, David R. (1989). ‘On the semantic content of the notion of ‘thematic role”. In Gennaro Chierchia, Barbara H. Partee, and Raymond Turner (eds.), Properties, Types and Meaning II: Semantic Issues, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, pp. 69–129. D¯oyama, Eijir¯o (2008). ‘On the Function of the Root-Aorist Participle’. Journal of Indian and Buddhist Studies 56(3): 1043–8. Drinka, Bridget (2009). ‘The ∗ -to-/-no- construction of Indo-European: Verbal adjective or past passive participle?’ In Vít Bubeník, John Hewson, and Sarah Rose (eds.), Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages: Papers Presented at the Workshop on Indo-European Linguistics at the XVIIIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Montreal, 2007, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 141–58. Duchesne-Guillemin, Jacques (1936). Les composés avestiques (Études de morphologie iranienne). Liège: Faculté de philosophie et lettres de l’Université de Liège. Dwarikadas Shastri, Swami and Kalikaprasad Shukla (eds.) (1965–1967). Ny¯asa or Pañcik¯a ¯ arya Jinendrabuddhip¯ada and Padamañjar¯ı of Haradatta Miśra on the Commentary of Ac¯ K¯aśik¯avr.tti [Commentary on the As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı of P¯an.ini] of V¯amana-Jay¯aditya (6 vols.). Varanasi: Prachya Bharati Prakashan. Dyvik, Helge J. J. (1999). ‘The universality of f-structure: discovery or stipulation? The case of modals’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. É. Kiss, Katalin (ed.) (1995). Discourse Configurational Languages. New York: Oxford University Press. É. Kiss, Katalin (2001). ‘Discourse configurationality’. In Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König (eds.), Sprachtypologie und sprachliche Universalien: ein internationales Handbuch, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1442–52. Ebert, Karen H. (2003). ‘Equivalents of ‘conjunctive participles’ in Kiranti languages’. In Tej R. Kasakar and Mark Turin (eds.), Themes in Himalayan Linguistics, Heidelberg: Südasien Institut, pp. 27–47. Ebert, Karen H. (2008a). ‘Forms and functions of converbs’. In Karen H. Ebert, Johanna Mattissen, and Rafael Suter (eds.), From Siberia to Ethiopia: Converbs in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Zürich: Universität Zürich, pp. 7–33. Ebert, Karen H. (2008b). ‘Converbs in Kiranti languages’. In Karen H. Ebert, Johanna Mattissen, and Rafael Suter (eds.), From Siberia to Ethiopia: Converbs in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Zürich: Universität Zürich, pp. 63–89. Ebert, Karen H., Johanna Mattissen, and Rafael Suter (eds.) (2008). From Siberia to Ethiopia: Converbs in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Zürich: Universität Zürich. (Arbeiten des Seminars für Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft 20).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Eichner, Heiner (1974). ‘Untersuchungen zur hethitischen Deklination’. Inaugural-Dissertation der Philosophischen Fakultät der Friedrich-Alexander-Universität zu Erlangen-Nürnberg (Teildruck). Eklund, Sten (1970). The Periphrastic, Completive and Finite Uses of the Present Participle in Latin: With Special Regard to Translations of Christian Texts in Greek up to 600 AD. Uppsala: Universitet Uppsala. Emonds, J. E. (1976). A Transformational Approach to English Syntax. New York: Academic Press. Evans, Nicholas (2003). ‘Typologies of Agreement: Some Problems from Kayardild’. Transactions of the Philological Society 101(2): 203–34. Evans, Nicholas (2004). ‘Word classes in the world’s languages’. In Geert Booj, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan (eds.), Morphologie: ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, 2. Halbband = Morphology: an International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation, (vol. 2), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 708–32. Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine and Dag T. T. Haug (eds.) (2012a). Big Events, Small Clauses: The Grammar of Elaboration. Berlin: de Gruyter. Fabricius-Hansen, Cathrine and Dag T. T. Haug (2012b). ‘Co-eventive adjuncts: main issues and clarifications’. In Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen and Dag T. T. Haug (eds.), Big Events, Small Clauses: The Grammar of Elaboration, Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 21–54. Falk, Yehuda N. (1984). ‘The English Auxiliary System: A Lexical-Functional Analysis’. Language 60(3): 483–509. Falk, Yehuda N. (2001). Lexical-Functional Grammar: an Introduction to Parallel ConstraintBased Syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Falk, Yehuda N. (2003). ‘The English auxiliary system revisited’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG03 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 184–204. Falk, Yehuda N. (2004). ‘The Hebrew present-tense copula as a mixed category’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG04 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 226–46. Flobert, Pierre (1975). Les verbes déponents latins des origines à Charlemagne. Paris: Belles Lettres. Foley, William A. and Robert D. Van Valin, Jr. (1984). Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Forssman, Bernhard (1964). ‘δρακείς’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 16: 17–19. Forssman, Bernhard (2000). ‘Review of ‘Introduction to the ‘Laryngeal Theory” by Fredrik Otto Lindeman’. Kratylos 45: 68–75. Fortson, IV, Benjamin W. (2004). Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell. Frank, Annette and Annie Zaenen (2002). ‘Tense in LFG: syntax and morpology’. In Hans Kamp and Uwe Reyle (eds.), How We Say When It Happens: Contributions to the Theory of Temporal Reference in Natural Language, Tübingen: Niemeyer. Friedrich, Johannes (1960). Hethitisches Elementarbuch, 1er Teil. Heidelberg: Winter, second edition. Frisk, Hjalmar (1936). ”Wahrheit” und ”Lüge” in den indogermanischen Sprachen, vol. XLI, 1935: 3 of Göteborgs Högskolas Årsskrift. Göteborg: Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Fry, John (2005). ‘Resource-logical Event Semantics for LFG’. Draft MS, based on a paper originally presented at LFG99, Manchester. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download? doi=10.1.1.84.6503&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Gaedicke, Carl (1880). Der Accusativ im Veda. Breslau: Wilhelm Koebner. Gamkrelidze, Thomas V. and V. Ivanov, Vyačeslav (1995). Indo-European and the IndoEuropeans: A Reconstruction and Historical Analysis of a Proto-language and a Proto-culture. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. García Ramón, José Luis (1998). ‘Indogermanisch ∗ guh en- ‘(wiederholt) schlagen’, ‘töten’’. In Jay Jasanoff, H. Craig Melchert, and Lisi Oliver (eds.), Mír Curad, Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, pp. 139–54. García Ramón, José Luis (2004). ‘On Vedic suppletion: d¯aś and vidh’. In John W. H. Penney (ed.), Indo-European Perspectives: Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 487–513. García Ramón, José Luis (2009a). ‘Formal correspondences, different functions’. In Vít Bubeník, John Hewson, and Sarah Rose (eds.), Grammatical Change in Indo-European Languages: Papers Presented at the Workshop on Indo-European Linguistics at the XVIIIth International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Montreal, 2007, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 237–50. García Ramón, José Luis (2009b). ‘Idg. ∗ (s)peh2 - ‘in (heftige) Bewegung setzen, ziehen’: Ved. p¯a3 , heth. pipp(a)-hhi und gr. σπάω, arm. hanem’. In Rosemarie Lühr and Sabine Ziegler (eds.), Protolanguage and Prehistory: Akten der XII. Fachtagung der indogermanischen Gesellschaft, vom 11. bis 15. Oktober 2004 in Krakau, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 134–48. García Ramón, José Luis (2010). ‘On Hittite verbs of the type mimma-hhi ‘refuse’: Aktionsart and Aspect in Indo-European reconstruction’. In Ronald Kim, Norbert Oettinger, Elisabeth Rieken, and Michael Weiss (eds.), Ex Anatolia Lux: Anatolian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of H. Craig Melchert on the Occasion on his Sixty-fifth Birthday, Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press, pp. 40–54. García Ramón, José Luis (2014). ‘On polymorphic presents in the Rig Veda: reduplication and ‘Aktionsart”. In Jared S. Klein and Elizabeth Tucker (eds.), Vedic and Sanskrit Historical Linguistics: Papers from the 13th World Sanskrit Conference, New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, pp. 45–78. García Ramón, José Luis (forthcoming). ‘Non-finite verbal morphology’. To appear in A. Garrett and M. Weiss (eds.), Handbook of Indo-European Studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Garrett, Andrew (1996). ‘Wackernagel’s Law and unaccusativity in Hittite’. In Aaron L. Halpern and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 85–113. Gazdik, Anna (2011). Multiple questions in French and Hungarian: A Lexical-Functional Analysis with special emphasis on the syntax-discourse interface. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris Diderot - Paris 7. Geldner, RV = Geldner, Karl Friedrich (1951–1957). Der Rig-Veda aus dem Sanskrit ins Deutsche übersetzt (4 vols.), vols. 33–36 of Harvard Oriental Series. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gillon, Brendan S. and Benjamin Shaer (2005). ‘Classical Sanskrit, “wild trees”, and the properties of free word order languages’. In Katalin É. Kiss (ed.), Universal Grammar in the Reconstruction of Ancient Laguages, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 457–93.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Giorgolo, Gianluca and Ash Asudeh (2011a). ‘Multidimensional semantics with unidimensional Glue Logic’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 236–56. Giorgolo, Gianluca and Ash Asudeh (2011b). ‘Multimodal communication in LFG: Gestures and the Correspondence Architecture’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 257–77. Giorgolo, Gianluca and Ash Asudeh (2012). ‘Missing resources in a resource-sensitive semantics’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 219–39. Gippert, Jost (1984). ‘Ein indo-iran. Infinitiv des Mediopassivs?’ Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 43: 25–44. Gippert, Jost (2000). ‘R.gveda-Sam . hit¯a: On the basis of the edition by Th. Aufrecht, Bonn, 1877 (2.Aufl.), entered by H.S. Ananthanarayana, Austin / Texas; TITUS version with corrections by Fco.J. Martínez García, synoptically arranged with the metrically restored version by B. van Nooten and G. Holland and the “Padap¯atha” version by A. Lubotsky’. Frankfurt am Main, 1.6.2000. http://titus.uni-frankfurt.de/texte/etcs/ind/aind/ved/rv/mt/rv.htm. Girard, Jean-Yves (1987). ‘Linear Logic’. Theoretical Computer Science 50: 1–102. Girard, Jean-Yves (1995). ‘Linear Logic: Its syntax and semantics’. In Jean-Yves Girard, Yves Lafont, and Laurent Regnier (eds.), Advances in Linear Logic, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–42. Givón, Talmy (2001). Syntax: An Introduction (2 vols.). Amsterdam: Benjamins, second edition. Glasbey, Sheila (2001). ‘Tense, aspect and the temporal structure of discourse: Towards an LFG account’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 464–78. Goldberg, Adele E. (2006). Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gonda, Jan (1959). ‘On amplified sentences and similar structures in the Veda’. In Four Studies in the Language of the Veda, ’s-Gravenhage: Mouton, pp. 7–70. Gonda, Jan (1975). Vedic Literature. Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden. (= History of Indian Literature, vol. 1, fasc. 1). Goodwin, William Watson (1889). Syntax of the Moods and Tenses of the Greek Verb. London: Macmillan. Got¯o, Toshifumi (1987). Die ,,I. Präsensklasse“ im Vedischen: Untersuchung der vollstufigen thematischen Wurzelpräsentia. Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Got¯o, Toshifumi (1989). ‘Rgvedisch vipanya¯´-, vipanyú- und vipanya¯´mahe’. Indo-Iranian Journal 32: 281–4. Got¯o, Toshifumi (1997). ‘Überlegungen zum indogermanischen “Stativ”’. In Emilio Crespo and José-Luis García Ramón (eds.), Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropean hoy. Actas del Coloquio de la Indogermanische Gesellschaft, Madrid, 21–24 de septiembre de 1994, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 165–92. Got¯o, Toshifumi (2012). ‘Grammatical irregularities in the Rigveda, book IV’. In Jared S. Klein and Kazuhiko Yoshida (eds.), Indic Across the Millennia: From the Rigveda to Modern IndoAryan, Bremen: Hempen, pp. 23–36.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Grassmann, Hermann (1873). Wörterbuch zum Rig-Veda. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Sixth edition 1996, edited by Maria Kozianka. Grestenberger, Laura (2013). ‘The Indo-Iranian cákri-type’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 133(2): 269–93. Grimshaw, Jane (2001). ‘Optimal clitic position and the lexicon in Romance clitic systems’. In Géraldine Legendre, Jane Grimshaw, and Sten Vikner (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 205–40. Guo, Yuqing, Josef van Genabith, and Haifeng Wang (2007). ‘Treebank-based acquisition of LFG resources for Chinese’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG07 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 214–32. Gusmani, Roberto (1968). Il lessico ittito. Napoli: Libreria scientifica editrice. Hale, Kenneth (1983). ‘Warlpiri and the Grammar of Non-configurational Languages’. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1: 5–47. Hale, Mark R. (1987a). Studies in the comparative syntax of the oldest Indo-Iranian languages. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University. Hale, Mark R. (1987b). ‘Notes on Wackernagel’s Law in the language of the Rigveda’. In Calvert Watkins (ed.), Studies in Memory of Warren Cowgill, 1929–1985: Papers from the Fourth East Coast Indo-European Conference, Cornell University, June 6–9, 1985, Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 38–50. Hale, Mark R. (1990). ‘Preliminaries to the Study of the Relationship between Sandhi and Syntax in the Language of the Rigveda’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 51: 77–96. Hale, Mark R. (1991). ‘Some observations on intersentential pronominalization in the language of the Taittir¯ıya Sam . hit¯a’. In Joel P. Brereton and Stephanie W. Jamison (eds.), Sense and Syntax in Vedic, Leiden: Brill, pp. 1–21. Hale, Mark R. (1995). ‘Wackernagel’s Law’. Draft MS, available at http://modlang-hale.concordia. ca/Hale-WackernagelsLaw1995.pdf. Hale, Mark R. (1996). ‘Deriving Wackernagel’s Law: Prosodic and syntactic factors determining clitic placement in the language of the Rigveda’. In Aaron L. Halpern and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 165–97. Hale, Mark R. (2007). Historical Linguistics: Theory and Method. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Halpern, Aaron L. (1995). On the Placement and Morphology of Clitics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Halvorsen, Per-Kristian and Ronald M. Kaplan (1988). ‘Projections and semantic description in Lexical-Functional Grammar’. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems, Tokyo: Institute for New Generation Computer Technology, pp. 1116–22. Haspelmath, Martin (1992). ‘From resultative to perfect in Ancient Greek’. In José Luis Iturrioz Leza (ed.), Nuevos estudios sobre construcciones resultativos, Guadalajara: Centro de Investigación de Lengas Indigenas, pp. 187–224. Haspelmath, Martin (1994). ‘Passive participles across languages’. In Barbara Fox and Paul J. Hopper (eds.), Voice: Form and Function, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 151–77.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Haspelmath, Martin (1995). ‘The converb as a cross-linguistically valid category’. In Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms–Adverbial Participles, Gerunds, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 1–55. Haspelmath, Martin (1996). ‘Word-class-changing Inflection and Morphological Theory’. Yearbook of Morphology 1995: 43–66. Haspelmath, Martin and Ekkehard König (eds.) (1995). Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms–Adverbial Participles, Gerunds, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Haug, Dag T. T. (2008a). ‘Detecting word order freezing in old Indo-European languages’. Paper presented at NRG 2008 (New Reflections on Grammaticalization 4), Leuven, 16 July 2008. Slides downloaded from http://www.hf.uio.no/ifikk/english/research/projects/proiel/ Activities/proiel/publications/NRGpresentation.pdf 6th June 2014. Haug, Dag T. T. (2008b). ‘From resultatives to anteriors in Ancient Greek’. In Thórhallur Eythórsson (ed.), Grammatical Change and Linguistic Theory: The Rosendal Papers, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 285–305. Haug, Dag T. T. (2008c). ‘Tense and aspect for Glue Semantics: The case of participial xadj’s’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 291–311. Haug, Dag T. T. (2010). ‘Participles, events and discourse structure in Ancient Greek’. Paper presented at the Oxford Linguistics Seminar, Oxford, 1 March 2010. Haug, Dag T. T. (2011). ‘Backward control in Ancient Greek—subsumption or linearization?’ In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 278–98. Haug, Dag T. T. (2012). ‘Open verb-based adjuncts in New Testament Greek and the Latin of the Vulgate’. In Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen and Dag T. T. Haug (eds.), Big Events, Small Clauses: The Grammar of Elaboration, Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 287–321. Haug, Dag T. T. (2013a). ‘Partial control and the semantics of anaphoric control in LFG’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 274–94. Haug, Dag T. T. (2013b). ‘Partial Dynamic Semantics for Anaphora: Compositionality without Syntactic Coindexation’. Journal of Semantics Advance Access. First published online August 24, 2013. DOI: 10.1093/jos/fft008. Haug, Dag T. T., Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen, Bergljot Behrens, and Hans Petter Helland (2012). ‘Open adjuncts: degrees of event integration’. In Cathrine Fabricius-Hansen and Dag T. T. Haug (eds.), Big Events, Small Clauses: The Grammar of Elaboration, Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 131–78. Haug, Dag T. T. and Tanya Nikitina (2012). ‘The many cases of non-finite subjects: The challenge of “dominant” participles’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 292–311. Heenen, François (2006). Le désidératif en védique. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Hertzenberg, Mari Johanne (2012). ‘The use and development of habere + infinitive in Latin’. In Ans van Kemenade and Nynke de Haas (eds.), Historical Linguistics 2009: Selected papers from the 19th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Nijmegen, 10–14 August 2009, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 373–97.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Hettrich, Heinrich (1988). Untersuchungen zur Hypotaxe im Vedischen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Hettrich, Heinrich (2007). Materialien zu einer Kasussyntax des Rgveda. Würzburg: Institut für Altertumswissenschaften der Universität Würzburg. Hill, Eugen (2007). Die Aorist-Präsentien des Indoiranischen. Bremen: Hempen Verlag. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. and Eva Schultze-Berndt (2005). ‘Issues in the syntax and semantics of participant-oriented adjuncts: an introduction’. In Nikolaus P. Himmelmann and Eva Schultze-Berndt (eds.), Secondary Predication and Adverbial Modification, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–67. Hinge, George (2007). ‘The authority of truth and the origin of ο῞ σιος and ῎ετυμος (= Skt. satyáand t¯utumá-) with an excursus on pre-consonantal laryngeal loss’. In Coulter H. George, Matthew McCullagh, Benedicte Nielsen, Antonia Ruppel, and Olga Tribulato (eds.), Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, pp. 145–61. Hintze, Almut (1995). ‘The Rise of the Saviour in the Avesta’. In Christiane Reck and Peter Zieme (eds.), Iran und Turfan: Beiträge Berliner Wissenschaftler, Werner Sundermann zum 60. Geburtstag gewidmet, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 77–97. Hintze, Almut (2007). A Zoroastrian Liturgy: The Worship in Seven Chapters (Yasna 35–41). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hirt, Hermann (1900). Der indogermanische Ablaut: vornehmlich in seinem Verhältnis zur Betonung. Trübner: Strassburg. Hirt, Hermann (1913). ‘Fragen des Vokalismus und der Stammbildung im Indogermanischen’. Indogermanische Forschungen 32: 209–318. Hirt, Hermann (1921–1937). Indogermanische Grammatik (7 vols.). Heidelberg: Winter. Hock, Hans Henrich (1982). ‘Clitic Verbs in PIE or Discourse-Based Verb Fronting?’ Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 12(2): 1–38. Hock, Hans Henrich (1987). ‘Reduced-clause and clause-union absolutives and participles in Vedic prose’. In Elena Bashir, Madhav M. Deshpande, and Peter Edwin Hook (eds.), Select Papers from SALA-7, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club, pp. 182–97. Hock, Hans Henrich (1989). ‘Conjoined We Stand: Theoretical Implications of Sanskrit Relative Structures’. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 19(1): 93–126. Hock, Hans Henrich (1991). Principles of Historical Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, second edition. Hock, Hans Henrich (1993). ‘Some peculiarities of Vedic-prose relative clauses’. In Gerhard Oberhammer and Roque Mesquita (eds.), Proceedings of the VIIIth World Sanskrit Conference, Vienna, 1990 (= Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde Südasiens und Archiv für indische Philosophie 35, Suppl.), Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, pp. 19–29. Hock, Hans Henrich (1996). ‘Who’s on first? Toward a prosodic account of P2 clitics’. In Aaron L. Halpern and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 199–270. Hock, Hans Henrich (1997a). ‘Chronology or genre? Problems in Vedic syntax’. In Michael Witzel (ed.), Inside the Texts, Beyond the Texts: New Approaches to the Study of the Vedas:

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Proceedings of the International Vedic Workshop, Harvard University, June 1989, Cambridge, MA: Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies, Harvard University, pp. 103–26. Hock, Hans Henrich (1997b). ‘Nexus and ‘extraclausality’ in Vedic, or ‘sa-figé’ all over again: A historical (re)examination’. In Hans Henrich Hock (ed.), Historical, Indo-European, and Lexicographical Studies: a Festschrift for Ladislav Zgusta on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 49–78. Hock, Hans Henrich (1999). ‘Finality, prosody, and change’. In Osamu Fujimura, Brian D. Joseph, and Bohumil Palek (eds.), Proceedings of LP ’98, Prague: Karolinum Press, pp. 15–30. Hock, Hans Henrich (2000). ‘Genre, discourse, and syntax in Early Indo-European, with emphasis on Sanskrit’. In Susan C. Herring, Pieter van Reenen, and Lene Schøsler (eds.), Textual Parameters in Older Languages, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 163–95. Hock, Hans Henrich (2013). ‘Proto-Indo-European verb-finality: Reconstruction, Typology, Validation’. Journal of Historical Linguistics 3(1): 49–76. Hoffmann, Karl (1957). ‘Zwei vedische Wortsippen’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 10: 59–71. Hoffmann, Karl (1967). Der Injunktiv im Veda. Heidelberg: Winter. Hoffmann, Karl (1968). ‘Ved. santya- und ahd. samfti, ags. s¯efte’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 23: 29–38. (= Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik vol. 2: 494–501). Hoffmann, Karl (1969a). ‘Vedisch vidh, vindh’. Die Sprache 15: 1–7. (= Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik vol. 1: 238–45). Hoffmann, Karl (1969b). ‘Die av. Verbalformen jauua Yt. 5, 63, nið¯ata¯e-ca Yt. 13, 66 und frað¯ata¯e-ca Yt. 13, 68’. In Studia classica et orientalia Antonino Pagliaro oblata III, Roma: no pub., pp. 17–32. (= Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik vol. 1 pp. 258–73). Hoffmann, Karl (1982). ‘Vedica’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 41: 61–94. Hoffner, Harry A. and H. Craig Melchert (2008). A Grammar of the Hittite Language (2 vols.). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. Holland, Gary B. (1986). ‘Nominal Sentences and the Origin of Absolute Constructions in IndoEuropean’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 99: 163–93. Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson (1980). ‘Transitivity in Grammar and Discourse’. Language 56(2): 251–99. Hopper, Paul J. and Sandra A. Thompson (1984). ‘The Discourse Basis for Lexical Categories in Universal Grammar’. Language 60(4): 703–52. Hübschmann, Johann Heinrich (1900). ‘Besprechung von ‘Der indogermanische Ablaut, vornehmlich in seinem Verhältnis zur Betonung’ von H. Hirt’. Indogermanische Forschungen (Anzeiger) 11: 24–56. Humbach, Helmut (1959). Die Gathas des Zarathustra (2 vols.). Heidelberg: Winter. Humbach, Helmut (1991). The G¯ath¯as of Zarathushtra: and the other Old Avestan texts (2 vols.). Heidelberg: Winter. Iida, Masayo (1987). ‘Case-assignment by nominals in Japanese’. In Masayo Iida, Stephen Wechsler, and Draga Zec (eds.), Working Papers in Grammatical Theory and Discourse Structure: Interactions of Morphology, Syntax, and Discourse, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 93–138. Insler, Stanley (1968a). ‘The Origin of the Sanskrit Passive Aorist’. Indogermanische Forschungen 73: 312–46.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Insler, Stanley (1968b). ‘Vedic áñjas¯a, r.ñjas¯aná- and the Type sahas¯aná-’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 82: 1–23. Insler, Stanley (1972). ‘Some Irregular Vedic Imperatives’. Language 48(3): 551–65. Insler, Stanley (1975). The G¯ath¯as of Zarathustra. Leiden: Brill. It¯o, Giky¯o (1972). ‘Gathica [IX–X]’. Orient 8: 37–51. Jackendoff, Ray (1977). X¯ Syntax: A Study of Phrase Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jacobsson, Gunnar (1963). ‘The Slavic Active Participles: Original Structure and Interference’. Scando-Slavica 9: 123–38. Jaeger, T. Florian and Veronica A. Gerassimova (2002). ‘Bulgarian word order and the role of the direct object clitic in LFG’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG02 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 197–219. Jamison, Stephanie W. (1979a). ‘The case of the agent in Indo-European’. Die Sprache 25: 129–43. Jamison, Stephanie W. (1979b). ‘Remarks on the Expression of Agency with the Passive in Vedic and Indo-European’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 93: 196–219. Jamison, Stephanie W. (1979c). ‘Voice Fluctuation in the Rig Veda: Medial -anta in Active Paradigms’. Indo-Iranian Journal 21: 149–69. Jamison, Stephanie W. (1983a). Function and Form in the -áya-Formations of the Rig Veda and Atharva Veda. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Jamison, Stephanie W. (1983b). ‘“Sleep” in Vedic and Indo-European’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 96: 6–16. Jamison, Stephanie W. (1983c). ‘Two Problems in the Inflection of the Vedic Intensive’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 42: 41–73. Jamison, Stephanie W. (1984). ‘The Vedic Passive Optative and its Functional Equivalents: A Study in the Syntax of the Gerundive’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 104(4): 609–20. Jamison, Stephanie W. (1990). ‘The Tense of the Predicated Past Participle in Vedic and Beyond’. Indo-Iranian Journal 33: 1–19. Jamison, Stephanie W. (1991a). ‘A Cart, an Ox, and the Perfect Participle in Vedic’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 52: 77–100. Jamison, Stephanie W. (1991b). ‘The syntax of direct speech in Vedic’. In Joel P. Brereton and Stephanie W. Jamison (eds.), Sense and Syntax in Vedic, Leiden: Brill, pp. 40–65. Jamison, Stephanie W. (1992). ‘Natural History Notes on the Rigvedic ‘Frog’ Hymn’. Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 73: 137–44. Jamison, Stephanie W. (1993). ‘Determining the synchronic syntax of a dead language’. In Henk Aertsen and Robert J. Jeffers (eds.), Historical Linguistics 1989: Papers from the 9th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Rutgers University, 14–18 August 1989, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 211–220. Jamison, Stephanie W. (2008). ‘Women’s language in the Rig Veda?’ In Leonid Kulikov and Maxim Rusanov (eds.), Indologica: T. Ya. Elizarenkova Memorial Volume, part I, Moscow: Russian State University for Humanities, pp. 153–65. Jamison, Stephanie W. and Joel P. Brereton (2014). The Rigveda: The Earliest Religious Poetry of India. An English Translation. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press. Jasanoff, Jay H. (1975). ‘The Baltic Future’. Indo-European Studies 2: 90–100.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Jasanoff, Jay H. (1978). Stative and Middle in Indo-European. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Jasanoff, Jay H. (1997). ‘Gathic Avestan cik¯oitәrәš’. In Alexander Lubotsky (ed.), Sound Law and Analogy: Papers in Honor of Robert S.P. Beekes on the Occasion of his 60th Birthday, Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 119–30. Jasanoff, Jay H. (2002). ‘The Vedic Imperatives yódhi ‘fight’ and bodhi ‘heed”. Journal of the American Oriental Society 122(2): 290–5. Jasanoff, Jay H. (2003a). Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jasanoff, Jay H. (2003b). ‘“Stative” ∗ -¯e- revisited’. Die Sprache 43(2): 127–70. Jasanoff, Jay H. (2004). ‘Plus ça change . . . : Lachmann’s Law in Latin’. In John W. H. Penney (ed.), Indo-European Perspectives: Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 405–16. Jasanoff, Jay H. (2009). ‘The origin of the Latin gerund and gerundive: A new proposal’. In Harvey Goldblatt and Nancy Shields Kollman (eds.), Rus’ Writ Large: Languages, Histories, Cultures. Essays Presented in Honor of Michael S. Flier on his Sixty-Fifth Birthday (Harvard Ukrainian Studies 28), pp. 195–208. Jaszczolt, Katarzyna M. (2009). Representing Time: An Essay on Temporality as Modality. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jeffers, Robert J. (1975). ‘Remarks on Indo-European Infinitives’. Language 51(1): 133–48. Joachim, Ulrike (1978). Mehrfachpräsentien im Rgveda. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. Jones, Frank Pierce (1939). The ab urbe condita Construction in Greek: A Study in the Classification of the Participle. Language Dissertations 28, Baltimore, MD: Linguistic Society of America. Kalinina, Elena Jur’evna (2001). Nefinitnye skazuemye v nezavisimom predloenii. Moscow: imli ran. Kammenhuber, Annelies (1961). ‘Zur Stellung des Hethitisch-Luvischen innerhalb der indogermanischen Gemeinsprache’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 77: 31–75. Kamp, Hans and Uwe Reyle (1993). From Discourse to Logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Kamp, Hans, Josef van Genabith, and Uwe Reyle (2011). ‘Discourse Representation Theory’. In Dov M. Gabbay and Franz Günthner (eds.), Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Dordrecht: Springer, second edition, pp. 125–394. Kaplan, Ronald M. (1987). ‘Three Seductions of Computational Psycholinguistics’. In P. Whitelock, M. M. Wood, H. L. Somers, R. Johnson, and P. Bennett (eds.), Linguistic Theory and Computer Applications, London: Academic Press, pp. 149–181. Also in Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, ed. Mary Dalrymple, Ronald M. Kaplan, John T. Maxwell III and Annie Zaenen, CSLI Publications, 1995, pp. 339–67. Kaplan, Ronald M. (1989). ‘The formal architecture of Lexical-Functional Grammar’. In ChuRen Huang and Keh-Jiann Chen (eds.), ROCLING II: Proceedings of the Computational Linguistics Conference, Tapei: The Association for Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing (ACLCLP), pp. 3–18. Also published in Journal of Information Science and Engineering 5 (1989): 305–22, and in Formal Issues in Lexical-Functional Grammar, ed. Mary Dalrymple, Ronald M. Kaplan, John T. Maxwell III and Annie Zaenen, CSLI Publications, 1995, pp. 7–27.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Kaplan, Ronald M. and Joan Bresnan (1982). ‘Lexical-Functional Grammar: A formal system for grammatical representation’. In Joan Bresnan (ed.), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 173–281. Kaplan, Ronald M. and Miriam Butt (2002). ‘The morphology-syntax interface in LFG’. Paper presented at the LFG02 Conference. Abstract available at http://cslipublications.stanford. edu/LFG/7/lfg02.html. Katre, Sumitra M. (1987). As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı of P¯an.ini. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Katz, Graham (2003). ‘A modal account of the English present perfect puzzle’. In Robert B. Young and Yuping Zhou (eds.), Proceedings of SALT XIII, Ithaca: CLC Publications, pp. 145–61. Kaufmann, Stefan, Cleo Condoravdi, and Valentina Harizanov (2006). ‘Formal approaches to modality’. In William Frawley (ed.), The Expression of Modality, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 71–106. Keenan, E. L. and B. Comrie (1977). ‘Noun Phrase Accessibility and Universal Grammar’. Linguistic Inquiry 8(1): 63–99. Keith, A. Berriedale (1909). ‘Participles as Finite Verbs’. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 63: 346–9. Kellens, Jean (1984). Le Verbe Avestique. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kellens, Jean (1987). ‘Sur une hétéroclisie verbale avestique’. Indo-Iranian Journal 30: 9–12. Kellens, Jean and Éric Pirart (1988–1991). Les textes vieil-avestiques (3 vols.). Wiesbaden: Reichert. Keydana, Götz (1997). Absolute Konstruktionen in altindogermanischen Sprachen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Keydana, Götz (2009). ‘Latente Objekte und altindische Diskursgrammatik’. In Elisabeth Rieken and Paul Widmer (eds.), Pragmatische Kategorien. Form, Funktion und Dichronie. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 24. bis 26. September 2007, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 125–42. Keydana, Götz (2011). ‘Wackernagel in the Language of the Rgveda’. Historische Sprachforschung 124: 80–107. Keydana, Götz (2013). Infinitive im Rigveda: Formen, Funktion, Diachronie. Leiden: Brill. Keydana, Götz and Silvia Luraghi (2012). ‘Definite Referential Null Objects in Vedic Sanskrit and Ancient Greek’. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 44(2): 116–28. Kibort, Anna (2001). ‘The Polish passive and impersonal in Lexical Mapping Theory’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG01 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 163–83. Kibort, Anna (2005). ‘The ins and outs of the participle-adjective conversion rule’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG05 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 205–25. Kibort, Anna (2007). ‘Extending the Applicability of Lexical Mapping Theory’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG07 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 250–70. Kibort, Anna (2012). ‘Participles, adjectives, and the role of argument structure’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 323–40. Kielhorn, Franz (1880–1885). The Vyâkaran.a-Mahâbhâshya of Patanjali (3 vols.). Bombay: Government Central Book Depôt.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Killie, Kristin (2007). ‘On the history of verbal present participles converbs in English and Norwegian and the concept of ‘change from below”. In Stephan Elspass, Nils Langer, and Joachim Scharloth (eds.), Germanic Language Histories ‘From Below’ (1700–2000), Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 149–62. King, Tracy Holloway (1995). Configuring Topic and Focus in Russian. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. King, Tracy Holloway (1997). ‘Focus domains and information-structure’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. King, Tracy Holloway and Valeria de Paiva (eds.) (2013). From Quirky Case to Representing Space: Papers in Honor of Annie Zaenen. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. King, Tracy Holloway and Annie Zaenen (2004). ‘F-structures, information structure, and discourse structure’. Paper presented at the LFG04 conference, Christchurch, New Zealand. Kiparsky, Paul (1965). Phonological change. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Kiparsky, Paul (1968). ‘Tense and Mood in Indo-European Syntax’. Foundations of Language 4(1): 30–57. Kiparsky, Paul (1995). ‘Indo-European origins of Germanic syntax’. In Adrian Battye and Ian G. Roberts (eds.), Clause Structure and Language Change, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 140–69. Kiparsky, Paul (1998). ‘Aspect and event structure in Vedic’. In R. Singh (ed.), The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 1998, London: Sage Publications, pp. 29–61. Kiparsky, Paul (2002). ‘Event structure and the perfect’. In David I. Beaver, Luis D. Casillas Martínez, Brady Z. Clark, and Stefan Kaufmann (eds.), The Construction of Meaning, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 113–36. Kiparsky, Paul (2005). ‘The Vedic Injunctive: Historical and Synchronic Implications’. Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics 2005: 219–35. Klein, Jared S. (1984). ‘Review of ‘Stative and Middle in Indo-European’ by Jay H. Jasanoff ’. Language 60(1): 131–8. Klein, Jared S. (1992a). On Verbal Accentuation in the Rigveda. New Haven, Connecticut: American Oriental Society. ¯ Klein, Jared S. (2003). ‘Amred . itas and Related Constellations in the Rigveda’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 123: 773–802. Klein, Wolfgang (1992b). ‘The Present Perfect Puzzle’. Language 68(3): 525–52. Klein, Wolfgang (1994). Time in Language. London: Routledge. Klein, Wolfgang (1995). ‘A Time-Relational Analysis of Russian Aspect’. Language 71(4): 669–95. Klein, Wolfgang (2006). ‘On finiteness’. In Veerle van Geenhoven (ed.), Semantics in Acquisition, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 245–72. Klein, Wolfgang (2009). ‘How time is encoded’. In Wolfgang Klein and Ping Li (eds.), The Expression of Time, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 39–82. Klingenschmitt, Gert (1975). ‘Tocharisch und Urindogermanisch’. In Helmut Rix (ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung: Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Regensburg, 9.–14. September 1973, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 148–63. Klingenschmitt, Gert (1982). Das altarmenische Verbum. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kloekhorst, Alwin (2008). Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon. Leiden: Brill.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Kloekhorst, Alwin (2013). ‘Indo-European nominal ablaut patterns: The Anatolian evidence’. In Götz Keydana, Paul Widmer, and Thomas Olander (eds.), Indo-European Accent and Ablaut, University of Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, pp. 107–28. Knobl, Werner Franz (2004). ‘The nonce formation: A more-than-momentary look at the Augenblicksbildung’. In Arlo Griffiths and Jan E. M. Houben (eds.), The Vedas: Texts, Language & Ritual; Proceedings of the Third International Vedic Workshop, Leiden 2002, Groningen: Egbert Forsten, pp. 261–83. Knobl, Werner Franz (2005). ‘Studies on the Present Participle: 1. The Present Participle Expressive of Intentionality’. Journal of Indological Studies 16–17: 65–108. Knobl, Werner Franz (2006). ‘On the concessive meaning of sánt- in Vedic’. Paper presented at the 13th World Sanskrit Conference, Edinburgh, Scotland, 10–14 July, 2006. Knobl, Werner Franz (2009a). ‘Portmanteau words in the Rgveda’. In Kazuhiko Yoshida and Brent Vine (eds.), East and West: Papers in Indo-European Studies, Bremen: Hempen, pp. 89–110. Knobl, Werner Franz (2009b). ‘S∗ T∗ A∗ R∗ S: Four-in-one’. In A surplus of meaning: The intent of irregularity in Vedic poetry, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Leiden, pp. 117–37. Downloaded from https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/handle/1887/14036 1 September 2011. Kobayashi, Masato (2004). Historical Phonology of Old Indo-Aryan Consonants. Tokyo: ICLAA, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies. Kobayashi, Masato (2012). ‘Information structure and the particles vái and evá in Vedic prose’. In Jared S. Klein and Kazuhiko Yoshida (eds.), Indic Across the Millennia: From the Rigveda to Modern Indo-Aryan, Bremen: Hempen, pp. 77–92. Kölligan, Daniel (2002). ‘Zur Funktion schwundstufiger -éie/o-Präsentia im Indogermanischen’. In Heinrich Hettrich (ed.), Indogermanische Syntax: Fragen und Perspektiven, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 137–56. König, Ekkehard (1991). ‘Concessive Relations as the Dual of Causal Relations’. In Dietmar Zaefferer (ed.), Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics, Berlin: Foris Publications, pp. 190–209. König, Ekkehard (1995). ‘The meaning of converb constructions’. In Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms: Adverbial Participles, Gerunds, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 57–95. König, Ekkehard and Johan van der Auwera (1990). ‘Adverbial participles, gerunds and absloute constructions in the languages of Europe’. In Johannes Bechert, Giuliano Bernini, and Claude Buridant (eds.), Toward a Typology of European Languages, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 337–55. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Maria (1993). Nominalizations. London: Routledge. Kortmann, Bernd (1995). ‘Adverbial participial clauses in English’. In Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms: Adverbial Participles, Gerunds, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 189–237. Kortmann, Bernd (1998). ‘Adverbial subordinators in the languages of Europe’. In Johan van der Auwera and Dónall P. Ó Baoill (eds.), Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 457–561.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Kratzer, Angelika (1991). ‘Modality’. In Arnim von Stechow and Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: ein internationales Handbuch der zeitgenössischen Forschung, Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 639–50. Kratzer, Angelika (1998). ‘More structural analogies between pronouns and tenses’. In Devon Strolovitch and Aaron Lawson (eds.), Proceedings from Semantics and Linguistic Theory VIII, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, pp. 92–109. Krifka, Manfred (1989). ‘Nominal reference, temporal constitution and quantification in event semantics’. In Renate Bartsch, Johan van Benthem, and P. van Emde Boas (eds.), Semantics and Contextual Expression, Dordrecht: Foris Publications, pp. 75–115. Krisch, Thomas (1984). Konstruktionsmuster und Bedeutungswandel indogermanischer Verben: Anwendungsversuche von Valenztheorie und Kasusgrammatik auf Diachronie und Rekonstruktion. Frankfurt: Lang. Krisch, Thomas (1990). ‘Das Wackernagelsche Gesetz aus heutiger Sicht’. In Heiner Eichner and Helmut Rix (eds.), Sprachwissenschaft und Philologie: Jacob Wackernagel und die Indogermanistik heute: Kolloquium der indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 13. bis 15. Oktober 1988 in Basel, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 64–81. Krisch, Thomas (1997). ‘Delbrücks Arbeiten zur Wortstellung aus heutiger Sicht’. In Emilio Crespo and José-Luis García Ramón (eds.), Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropean hoy. Actas del Coloquio de la Indogermanische Gesellschaft, Madrid, 21–24 de septiembre de 1994, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 283–309. Krisch, Thomas (1998). ‘Zum Hyperbaton in altindogermanischen Sprachen’. In Wolfgang Meid (ed.), Sprache und Kultur der Indogermanen: Akten der X. Fachtagung der indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Innsbruck, 22–28. September 1996, Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, pp. 351–84. Krisch, Thomas (2002). ‘Indogermanische Wortstellung’. In Heinrich Hettrich (ed.), Indogermanische Syntax: Fragen und Perspektiven, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 249–61. Krisch, Thomas (2005). ‘Preliminaries to the study of adjectival syntax in Proto-Indo-European’. In Günter Schweiger (ed.), Indogermanica: Festschrift Gert Klingenschmitt, Taimering: Schweiger VWT-Verlag, pp. 303–20. Krisch, Thomas (2006). RIVELEX: Rigveda-Lexicon, Band 1: Wörter beginnend mit “a”. Graz: Leykam. Kroeger (1993). Phrase Structure and Grammatical Relations in Tagalog. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Kuhn, Jonas (1999a). ‘Towards a simple architecture for the structure–function mapping’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG99 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Kuhn, Jonas (1999b). ‘Two ways of formalizing OT Syntax in the LFG framework’. MS, Institut für maschinelle Sprachverarbeitung, Universität Stuttgart. Downloaded from http:// citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.34.747 November 2011. Kuhn, Jonas (2001a). ‘Generation and parsing in Optimality Theoretic syntax: Issues in the formalization of OT-LFG’. In Peter Sells (ed.), Formal and Empirical Issues in Optimality Theoretic Syntax, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 313–66. Kuhn, Jonas (2001b). ‘Resource sensitivity in the syntax-semantics interface and the German split NP construction’. In W. Detmar Meurers and Tibor Kiss (eds.), Constraint-Based Approaches to Germanic Syntax, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 177–216.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Kulikov, Leonid (2006a). ‘The Vedic medio-passive aorists, statives and their participles: reconsidering the paradigm’. In Bertil Tikkanen and Heinrich Hettrich (eds.), Themes and Tasks in Old and Middle Indo-Aryan Linguistics (Papers of the 12th World Sanskrit Conference vol. 5), Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, pp. 45–63. Kulikov, Leonid (2006b). ‘Passive and middle in Indo-European: Reconstructing the early Vedic passive paradigm’. In Werner Abraham and Larisa Leisiö (eds.), Passivization and Typology: Form and function, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 62–81. Kulikov, Leonid (2009). ‘Valency-changing categories in Indo-Aryan and Indo-European: A diachronic typological portrait of Vedic Sanskrit’. In Anju Saxena and Åke Viberg (eds.), Multilingualism: Proceedings of the 23rd Scandinavian Conference of Linguistics, Uppsala University, 1–3 October 2008, Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, pp. 75–92. Kulikov, Leonid (2010). ‘Nominal composition, noun incorporation and non-finite formations in Sanskrit: Delimiting the Boundaries of the Verbal Paradigm’. In Klaus Karthuner (ed.) Studia Orientalia 108, Anantam ˙ Ś¯astram: Indological and Linguistic Studies in Honour of Bertil Tikkanen, pp. 111–31. Kulikov, Leonid (2012). The Vedic -ya- presents: Passives and intransitivity in Old Indo-Aryan. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Kümmel, Martin Joachim (1996). Stativ und Passivaorist im Indoiranischen. Historische Sprachforschung: Ergänzungheft 39, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Kümmel, Martin Joachim (1998). ‘Wurzelpräsens neben Wurzelaorist im Indogermanischen’. Historische Sprachforschung 111: 191–208. Kümmel, Martin Joachim (2000a). Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen: eine Untersuchung der Form und Funktion einer ererbten Kategorie des Verbums und ihrer Weiterentwicklung in den altindoiranischen Sprachen. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Kümmel, Martin Joachim (2000b). ‘Der Aorist der Wurzel(n) ar im Indoiranischen’. In Bernhard Forssman and Robert Plath (eds.), Indoarisch, Iranisch und die Indogermanistik: Arbeitstagung der indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 2. bis 5. Oktober 1997 in Erlangen, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 253–66. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy (1936). ‘Derivation lexicale et derivation semantique (contribution a la théorie des parties de discours)’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 37: 79–92. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy (1964). The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European. Heidelberg: Winter. Kuryłowicz, Jerzy (1968). Indogermanische Grammatik II: Akzent-Ablaut. Heidelberg: Winter. Kuz’mina, Elena E. (2007). The Origin of the Indo-Iranians. Leiden: Brill. Laczkó, Tibor (2000). ‘Derived nominals, possessors, and Lexical Mapping Theory in Hungarian DPs’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Argument Realization, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 189–227. Laczkó, Tibor (2012). ‘On the (un)bearable lightness of being an LFG style copula in Hungarian’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 341–61. Laczkó, Tibor (2013). ‘Hungarian particle verbs revisited: Representational, derivational and implementational issues from an LFG perspective’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 377–97.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Larsson, Ida (2009). Participles in time: The development of the perfect tense in Swedish. Ph.D. thesis, University of Gothenberg. Laudanna, Alessandro, William Badecker, and Alfonso Caramazza (1992). ‘Processing Inflectional and Derivational Morphology’. Journal of Memory and Language 31: 333–48. Laughton, Eric (1964). The Participle in Cicero. London: Oxford University Press. Legendre, Géraldine (1996). ‘Clitics, Verb (Non)-Movement, and Optimality in Bulgarian’. Technical Report JHU-CogSci-96-5, Department of Cognitive Science, John Hopkins University, Baltimore. Legendre, Géraldine (1999). ‘Morphological and prosodic alignment at work: The case of South Slavic clitics’. In S. J. Blake, E.-S. Kim, and K. N. Shahin (eds.), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics XVII, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 436–50. Legendre, Géraldine (2000). ‘Morphological and prosodic alignment of Bulgarian clitics’. In Joost Dekkers, Frank van der Leeuw, and Jeroen van de Weijer (eds.), Optimality Theory: Phonology, Syntax and Acquisition, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 423–62. Legendre, Géraldine (2001). ‘Masked second-position effects and the linearization of functional features’. In Géraldine Legendre, Jane Grimshaw, and Sten Vikner (eds.), Optimality-Theoretic Syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 241–77. Legendre, Géraldine, Jane Grimshaw, and Sten Vikner (eds.) (2001). Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lehmann, Christian and Edith Moravcsik (2004). ‘Noun’. In Geert Booj, Christian Lehmann, and Joachim Mugdan (eds.), Morphologie: ein internationales Handbuch zur Flexion und Wortbildung, 2. Halbband = Morphology: an International Handbook on Inflection and WordFormation, vol. 2, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 732–57. Lehmann, Winfred P. (1986). A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Leiden: Brill. Lehmann, Winfred P. (1989). ‘Problems in Proto-Indo-European Grammar: Residues from PreIndo-European Active Structure’. General Linguistics 29(4): 228–46. Lehmann, Winfred P. (1993). Theoretical Bases of Indo-European Linguistics. London: Routledge. Lehmann, Winfred P. (1995). Residues of Pre-Indo-European Active Structure and their Implications for the Relationships among the Dialects. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Lehrman, Alexander (1996). ‘Indo-Hittite Revisited’. Indogermanische Forschungen 101: 73–88. Lehrman, Alexander (1998). Indo-Hittite Redux: Studies in Anatolian and Indo-European Verb Morphology. Moscow: Paleograph Press. Lehrman, Alexander (2001). ‘Reconstructing Proto-Indo-Hittite’. In Robert Drews (ed.), Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite Lanaguage Family: Papers Presented at a Colloquium hosted by the University of Richmond, March 18–19, 2000, Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, pp. 106–30. Leumann, Manu (1952). Morphologische Neuerungen im altindischen Verbalsystem. Amsterdam: Noord-Hollandsche Uitgevers Maatschappij. Levin, Beth and Malka Rappaport Hovav (2005). Argument Realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liao, Gwen W.-T. (2010). An LFG account of empty pronouns in Mandarin Chinese. D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford. LIV = Rix et al. (2001).

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Lowe, John J. (2011a). ‘Negated Participles in R.gvedic Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European’. IndoIranian Journal 54: 19–38. Lowe, John J. (2011b). ‘R.gvedic clitics and ‘prosodic movement”. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 360–80. Lowe, John J. (2012a). The syntax and semantics of tense-aspect stem participles in Early R.gvedic Sanskrit. D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford. Lowe, John J. (2012b). ‘Caland adjectives and participles in the R.gveda: the case of -¯ana-’. In Stephanie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Bremen: Hempen, pp. 83–98. Lowe, John J. (2013a). ‘Indo-European “transitive” nouns and the accusative of experiencer’. In Stephanie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert, and Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Bremen: Hempen, pp. 122–36. Lowe, John J. (2013b). ‘(De)selecting arguments for transitive and predicated nominals’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 398–418. Lowe, John J. (2013c [forthcoming]). ‘Indo-European Caland Adjectives in ∗ -nt- and Participles in Sanskrit’. Historische Sprachforschung 126. Lowe, John J. (2014a). ‘Accented clitics in the R.gveda’. Transactions of the Philological Society 112(1): 5–43. Lowe, John J. (2014b). ‘Review of Infinitive im Rgveda by Götz Keydana’. Indo-Iranian Journal 57(3), pp. 261–70. Lowe, John J. (2014c). ‘Transitive Nominals in Old Avestan’. To appear in Journal of the American Oriental Society 134. Lowe, John J. (forthcoming a). ‘English Possessive ’s: Clitic and Affix’. To appear in Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. Lowe, John J. (forthcoming b). ‘The Aorist Participles of the R.gveda’. To appear in Proceedings of the 6th International Vedic Workshop, held at Kozhikode, India, 7–10 January 2014. Lowe, John J. (forthcoming c). ‘Clitics: Separating Syntax and Prosody’. To appear in Journal of Linguistics. Lowe, John J. and Louise Mycock (2014). ‘Issues in the Representation of Information Structure’. MS, University of Oxford. Lubotsky, Alexander (1989). ‘The Vedic -áya- formations’. Indo-Iranian Journal 32: 89–113. Lubotsky, Alexander (1997a). A R.gvedic Word Concordance (2 vols.), vols. 82–83 of American Oriental Series. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society. Lubotsky, Alexander (1997b). ‘Review of ‘Das Intensivum im Vedischen’ by Christiane Schaefer’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 117(3): 558–64. Lühr, Rosemarie (1979). ‘Das Wort ‘und’ im Westgermanischen’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 38: 117–54. Lühr, Rosemarie (2008). ‘Competitive Indo-European syntax’. In Gisella Ferraresi and Maria Goldbach (eds.), Principles of Syntactic Reconstruction, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 121–59. Lühr, Rosemarie (2009). ‘P2-Partikeln in indogermanischen Sprachen’. In Elisabeth Rieken and Paul Widmer (eds.), Pragmatische Kategorien: Form, Funktion und Diachronie. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 24. bis 26. September 2007 in Marburg, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 173–86.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Luraghi, Silvia (1997). ‘Omission of the Direct Object in Latin’. Indogermanische Forschungen 102: 239–57. Luraghi, Silvia (2001). ‘The discourse function of cum with the subjunctive in narrative texts’. In Claude Moussy (ed.), De lingua Latina novae quaestiones: actes du Xe colloque international de linguistique latine, Paris, Sèvres, 19–23 avril 1999, Louvain: Peeters, pp. 409–26. Luraghi, Silvia (2003). ‘Definite Referential Null Objects in Ancient Greek’. Indogermanische Forschungen 108: 167–94. Luraghi, Silvia (2004). ‘Null objects in Latin and Greek and the relevance of linguistic typology for language reconstruction’. In Karlene Jones-Bley (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles, November 7–8, 2003, Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, pp. 234–56. Lyons, John (1966). ‘Towards a ‘Notional’ Theory of the ‘Parts of Speech”. Journal of Linguistics 2: 209–36. Maiocco, Marco (2005). Absolute Participial Constructions: A Contrastive Approach to the Syntax of Greek and Latin. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso. Maling, Joan (1983). ‘Transitive adjectives: a case of categorial reanalysis’. In Frank Heny and Barry Richard (eds.), Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles (vol. 1), Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 253–89. Manessy-Guitton, Jacqueline (1964). ‘Les adjectifs simples en -as- dans la Rk-Sam . hit¯a’. IndoIranian Journal 7(4): 259–83. Manolessou, Io (2005). ‘From participles to gerunds’. In Melita Stavrou and Arhonto Terzi (eds.), Advances in Greek Generative Syntax: in Honor of Dimitra Theophanopoulou-Kontou, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 241–83. Matasović, Ranko (1995). ‘A Re-examination of Winter’s Law in Baltic and Slavic’. Lingua Posnaniensis 37: 57–70. Matić, Dejan (2003). ‘Topic, focus and discourse structure: Ancient Greek Word Order’. Studies in Language 27(3): 573–633. Matsumoto, Yo (1996). Complex Predicates in Japanese: A Syntactic and Semantic Study of the Notion ‘Word’. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Matsumoto, Yo (1998). ‘A reexamination of the cross-linguistic parameterization of causative predicates: Japanese perspectives’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG98 Conference, Stanford: CSLI Publications. Mayrhofer, KEWA = Mayrhofer, Manfred (1953–1980). Kurzgefasstes etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindischen (4 vols.). Heidelberg: Winter. Mayrhofer, EWA = Mayrhofer, Manfred (1986–2001). Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen (3 vols.). Heidelberg: Winter. McCarthy, John J. and Alan S. Prince (1993). ‘Prosodic Morphology: Constraint Interaction and Satisfaction’. Technical Report 3, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. McCawley, James D. (1981). ‘Notes on the English Present Perfect’. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1(1): 81–90. McCone, Kim (1991). ‘OIr. -ic ‘reaches’, ithid ‘eats’, rigid ‘stretches, directs, rules’, and the PIE ‘Narten’ present in Celtic’. Ériu 42: 1–11.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

McFadden, Thomas and Artemis Alexiadou (2010). ‘Perfects, Resultatives, and Auxiliaries in Earlier English’. Linguistic Inquiry 41(3): 389–425. Meid, Wolfgang (1975). ‘Probleme der räumlichen und zeitlichen Gliederung des Indogermanischen’. In Helmut Rix (ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung: Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Regensburg, 9.–14. September 1973, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 204–19. Meid, Wolfgang (1990). ‘Reconstructing Indo-European: A methodological approach’. In S. R. Banerjee (ed.), Essays on Indo-European Linguistics, Calcutta: The Asiatic Society, pp. 5–22. Meier-Brügger, Michael (2003). Indo-European Linguistics. Berlin: De Gruyter. Meier-Brügger, Michael (2010). Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. Berlin: De Gruyter, ninth edition. Meillet, Antoine (1929). ‘Les adjectifs grecs en -τος’. In Donum Natalicum Schrijnen: Verzameling van opstellen door oud-leerlingen en bevriende vakgenooten opgedragen aan J. Schrijnen, bij gelegenheid van zijn zestigsten verjaardag 3 Mei 1929, Nijmegen-Utrecht: Dekker & Van de Vegt, pp. 635–9. Meillet, Antoine (1931). ‘Essai de chronologie des langues indo-européennes’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 32: 1–28. Meillet, Antoine (1933). ‘Grec μαινάς’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 34: 3–4. Melchert, H. Craig (1983). ‘A ‘New’ PIE ∗ men Suffix’. Die Sprache 29(1): 1–26. Melchert, H. Craig (1999). ‘Hittite tuk(kan)zi- “cultivation, breeding” ’. Ktema 24: 17–23. Melchert, H. Craig (forthcoming). ‘The position of Anatolian’. To appear in A. Garrett and M. Weiss (eds.), Handbook of Indo-European Studies, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pre-print version available from http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/people/Melchert/recent_ papers.html. Meyer-Viol, Wilfried P. M. and Howard S. Jones (2011). ‘Reference Time and the English Past Tenses’. Linguistics and Philosophy 34: 223–56. Miceli, Gabriele and Alfonso Caramazza (1988). ‘Dissociation of Inflectional and Derivational Morphology’. Brain and Language 35: 24–65. Michaelis, Laura A. (1994). ‘The Ambiguity of the English Present Perfect’. Journal of Linguistics 30(1): 111–57. Migron, Saul (1975). ‘The Rigvedic Passive Aorist in -i: A Functional Study’. Folia Linguistica 8: 271–310. Migron, Saul (1990). ‘R.gvedic jus.- and jos..tŕ.-, Old Persian dauštar-: A Semantic Investigation’. Die Sprache 34: 124–34. Mirambel, André (1961). ‘Participe et gérondif en grec médiéval et moderne’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 56: 46–79. Mithun, Marianne (2000). ‘Noun and verb in Iroquoian languages: Multicategorisation from multiple criteria’. In Petra Maria Vogel and Bernard Comrie (eds.), Approaches to the Typology of Word Classes, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 397–420. Mittendorf, Ingo and Louisa Sadler (2008). ‘NP would like to meet GF: a Welsh adjectival construction’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 373–93.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Mittwoch, Anita (1988). ‘Aspects of English Aspect: on the Interaction of Perfect, Progressive and Durational Phrases’. Linguistics and Philosophy 11(2): 203–54. Mittwoch, Anita (2008). ‘The English Resultative Perfect and its Relationship to the Experiential Perfect and the Simple Past Tense’. Linguistics and Philosophy 31: 323–51. Mohanan, K. P. (1983). ‘Functional and Anaphoric Control’. Linguistic Inquiry 14(4): 641–74. Morpurgo-Davies, Anna (1978). ‘Thessalian εἴντεσσι and the participle of the verb ‘to be”. In Étrennes de septantaine : travaux de linguistique et de grammaire comparée offerts à Michel Lejeune par un groupe de ses élèves, Paris: Klincksieck, pp. 157–66. Mottausch, Karl-Heinz (2003). ‘Das thematische Verb im Indogermanischen und seine Verwandten’. Historische Sprachforschung 116: 1–34. Müller, Max (1890–1892). Rig-Veda-Samhitâ: The Sacred Hymns of the Brâhmans, together with the Commentary of Sâyanâkârya (4 vols.). London: Henry Frowde, second edition. Müller, Stefan (2002). Complex Predicates: Verbal Complexes, Resultative Constructions, and Particle Verbs in German. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Müller, Stefan (2010). Grammatiktheorie. Tübingen: Staufenberg. Mumm, Peter Arnold (1995). ‘Verbale Definitheit und der vedische Injunktiv’. In Heinrich Hettrich (ed.), Verba et structurae: Festschrift für Klaus Strunk zum 65. Geburtstag, Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, pp. 169–93. Mumm, Peter Arnold (2002). ‘Retrospektivität im Rigveda: Aorist und Perfekt’. In Heinrich Hettrich (ed.), Indogermanische Syntax: Fragen und Perspektiven, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 157–88. Muskens, Reinhard (1996). ‘Combining Montague Semantics and Discourse Representation’. Linguistics and Philosophy 19: 143–86. Mycock, Louise (2006). The typology of constituent questions: A Lexical-Functional Grammar analysis of ‘wh’-questions. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester. Mycock, Louise (2010). ‘Prominence in Hungarian: The Prosody-Syntax Connection’. Transactions of the Philological Society 108(3): 265–97. Mycock, Louise (2013). ‘Discourse functions of question words’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 419–39. Mycock, Louise and John J. Lowe (2013). ‘The prosodic marking of discourse functions’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, Stanford: CSLI Publications, pp. 440–60. Nakhleh, Luay, Tandy Warnow, Don Ringe, and Steven N. Evans (2005). ‘A Comparison of Phylogenetic Reconstruction Methods on an Indo-European Dataset’. Transactions of the Philological Society 103(2): 171–92. Narten, Johanna (1960). ‘Das vedische Verbum math’. Indo-Iranian Journal 4: 121–35. Narten, Johanna (1964). Die Sigmatischen Aoriste im Veda. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Narten, Johanna (1968). ‘Zum ‘proterodynamischen’ Wurzelpräsens’. In J. C. Heesterman, G. H. Schokker, and V. I. Subramoniam (eds.), Pratid¯anam: Indian, Iranian, and Indo-European Studies Presented to Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper on his Sixtieth Birthday, The Hague: Mouton, pp. 9–19.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Narten, Johanna (1969). ‘Ai. sr in synchronischer und diachronischer Sicht’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 26: 77–103. Narten, Johanna (1972). ‘Jágat- im R.gveda’. In J. Ensink and P. Gaeffke (eds.), India Maior: Congratulatory Volume Presented to J. Gonda, Leiden: Brill, pp. 161–6. Narten, Johanna (1987). ‘Vedisch d¯ıda¯´ya ‘leuchtet’ und Zugehöriges’. Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 13/14, pp. 149–61. Nedjalkov, Igor’ V. (1998). ‘Converbs in the languages of Europe’. In Johan van der Auwera and Dónall P. Ó Baoill (eds.), Adverbial Constructions in the Languages of Europe, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 421–55. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. (1995). ‘Some typological parameters of converbs’. In Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms—Adverbial Participles, Gerunds, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 97–136. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. and Sergej J. Jaxontov (1988). ‘The typology of resultative constructions’. In Vladimir P. Nedjalkov (ed.), Typology of Resultative Constructions, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 4–62. Volume translated from the Russian edition (1983), under editorship of Bernard Comrie. Needham, Stephanie and Ida Toivonen (2011). ‘Derived arguments’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 401–21. Nemati, Fatemeh (2010). ‘Incorporation and complex predication in Persian’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 374–94. Neu, Erich (1968). Das hethitische Mediopassiv und seine indogermanischen Grundlagen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Nikitina, Tatiana V. (2008). The mixing of syntactic properties and language change. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University. Nikitina, Tatiana V. and Dag T. T. Haug (2013). ‘Latin constructions with participles in a diachronic perspective’. Paper presented at the 21st International Conference on Historical Linguistics, University of Oslo, 9 August 2013. Nikolaev, Alexander S. (2006). ‘O suffikse indoevrope˘ iskih i toharskih e > pratoh. *æ)’. Acta priqasti˘ i (k probleme zvukovogo pazviti i.-e. ∗˘ Linguistica Petropolitana 2(1), pp. 46–78. Nikolaeva, Irina (ed.) (2007). Finiteness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nishimura, Naoko (2003). ‘The Mantra g(h)os.ad asi in the Yajurveda’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 63: 109–19. Nishiyama, Atsuko and Jean-Pierre Koenig (2010). ‘What is a Perfect State?’ Language 86(3): 611–46. Nordlinger, Rachel (1998a). A Grammar of Wambaya, Northern Australia. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics. Nordlinger, Rachel (1998b). Constructive Case: Evidence from Australian Languages. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Nordlinger, Rachel (2001). ‘Non-finite subordinate verbs in Australian Aboriginal languages: Are nominalised verbs really nominalised?’ In Cynthia Allen (ed.), Proceedings of the 2001 Conference of the Australian Linguistic Society. http://www.als.asn.au.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Nordlinger, Rachel and Louisa Sadler (2004a). ‘Tense beyond the Verb: Encoding Clausal Tense/Aspect/Mood on Nominal Dependents’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 22(3): 597–641. Nordlinger, Rachel and Louisa Sadler (2004b). ‘Nominal Tense in Crosslinguistic Perspective’. Language 80(4): 776–806. Nordlinger, Rachel and Louisa Sadler (2007). ‘Verbless clauses: Revealing the structure within’. In Annie Zaenen, Jane Simpson, Tracy Holloway King, Jane Grimshaw, Joan Maling, and Chris Manning (eds.), Architectures, Rules and Preferences: Variations on Themes by Joan Bresnan, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 139–60. Nordlinger, Rachel and Louisa Sadler (2008). ‘When is a temporal marker not a tense?’ Language 84(2): 325–31. Nussbaum, Alan J. (1976). Caland’s “Law” and the Caland system. Ph.D. thesis, Harvard University. Nussbaum, Alan J. (1996). ‘Latin ac¯etum, ac¯utus, aur¯ıtus, av¯ıtus: Four of a kind?’ Paper presented at the 15th East Coast Indo-European Conference, Yale University, 14 June 1996. Nussbaum, Alan J. (1998). ‘More on ‘decasuative’ nominal stems in IE’. Paper presented at the 17th East Coast Indo-European Conference, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 30 May 1998. Oberlies, Thomas (2003). A Grammar of Epic Sanskrit. Berlin: de Gruyter. O’Connor, Rob (2006). Information structure in Lexical-Functional Grammar: The discourseprosody correspondence. Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester. Oertel, Hanns (1926). The Syntax of Cases in the Narrative and Descriptive Prose of the Br¯ahman.as. Heidelberg: Winter. Oettinger, Norbert (1976). ‘Der indogermanische Stativ’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 34: 109–49. Oettinger, Norbert (1993). ‘Zur Funktion des indogermanischen Stativs’. In Gerhard Meiser (ed.), Indogermanica et Italica: Festschrift für Helmut Rix zum 65. Geburtstag, Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck, pp. 347–61. Oldenberg, Hermann (1903). ‘Kr¯an.á-, kr¯an.a¯´ im R.gveda’. In Album—Kern: opstellen geschreven te eere van Dr. H. Kern, hem aangeboden door vrienden en leerlingen op zijn zeventigsten verjaardag, den vi. April MDCCCCIII, Leiden: Brill, pp. 33–6. Oldenberg, Noten = Oldenberg, Hermann (1909–1912). Rgveda: Textkritische und exegetische Noten (2 vols.). Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung. Olsen, Birgit Anette (1989). ‘A Trace of Indo-European Accent in Armenian’. Historische Sprachforschung 102: 220–40. Olsen, Birgit Anette (2004). ‘A note on ∗ s/t-stems and secondary derivation’. In Adam Hyllested, A. R. Jørgensen, J. H. Larsson, and T. Olander (eds.), Per aspera ad asteriscos: studia indogermanica in honorem Jens Elmegård Rasmussen sexagenarii Idibus Martiis anno MMIV, Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck, pp. 419–28. Payne, John, Rodney Huddleston, and Geoffrey K. Pullum (2010). ‘The Distribution and Category Status of Adjectives and Adverbs’. Word Structure 3(1): 31–81. Perlmutter, David M. (1970). ‘Surface Structure Constraints in Syntax’. Linguistic Inquiry 1(2): 187–255. Peters, Martin (2004). ‘On some Greek nt-Formations’. In John W. H. Penney (ed.), IndoEuropean Perspectives: Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 266–76.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Peterson, Peter G. (2004). ‘Non-restrictive relatives and other non-syntagmatic relations in an LF framework’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG04 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 391–7. Petit, Daniel (2005). ‘Le participe du verbe « être » en vieux prussien’. In N. N. Kazanskij (ed.), Hrda¯´ Mánas¯a : Sbornik state˘ i k 70-leti so dn rodeni professora Leonarda Georgieviqa Gercenberga, Saint Petersburg: Nauka, pp. 141–5. Piccoli, Francesco (1972). Participium praesentis activi und ablativus gerundii: Aspekte ihrer syntaktischen Entwicklung im Latein der Kaiserzeit. Zürich: aku-Fotodruck. Pinault, Georges-Jean (1988). ‘Védique jírvi/jívri’. Indologica Taurinensia 14: 313–38. Pinault, Georges-Jean (1989). ‘Reflets dialectaux en védique ancien’. In Colette Caillet (ed.), Dialectes dans les littératures indo-aryennes, Paris: College de France, Institut de civilisation indienne, pp. 35–96. Pinault, Georges-Jean (1995–1996). Bibliographie des travaux de Louis Renou, 1896–1966. Supplément au Bulletin d’Études Indiennes no. 13–14. Paris: Association française pour les études indiennes. Pinault, Georges-Jean (forthcoming). ‘Back to the source: the Rigvedic name Svàrn.ar(a)-’. To appear in Proceedings of the 6th International Vedic Workshop, held at Kozhikode, India, 7–10 January 2014. Pinkster, Harm (1990). Latin Syntax and Semantics. New York: Routledge. Pischel, Richard (1881). ‘Miscellanea’. Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenländischen Gesellschaft 35, pp. 711–24. Pischel, Richard and Karl Friedrich Geldner (1892). Vedische Studien. Zweiter Band. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Platzack, Christer (1982a). ‘Transitive Adjectives in Swedish: A Phenomenon with Implications for the Theory of Abstract Case’. Linguistic Review 2: 39–56. Platzack, Christer (1982b). ‘Transitive adjectives in Old and Modern Swedish’. In Anders Ahlqvist (ed.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 273–82. Pollard, Carl and Ivan A. Sag (1994). Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Potts, Christopher (2005). The Logic of Conventional Implicatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prince, Alan and Paul Smolensky (1993/2004). Optimality Theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. (Blackwell version 2004. Originally Technical Report CU-CS-696-93, Department of Computer Science, University of Colorado at Boulder, and Technical Report TR-2, Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, April 1993.). Probert, Philomen (2003). A New Short Guide to the Accentuation of Ancient Greek. London: Bristol Classical Press. Puhvel, Jaan (1953). ‘Indo-European Negative Composition’. Language 29: 14–25. Radford, Andrew (1988). Transformational Grammar: A First Course. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rákosi, György (2006). ‘On the need for a more refined approach to the argument-adjunct distinction: the case of dative experiencers in Hungarian’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG06 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 416–36. Rákosi, György (2012). ‘Non-core participant PPs are adjuncts’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 524–43. Rákosi, György (2013). ‘Down with obliques?’ In Tracy Holloway King and Valeria de Paiva (eds.), From Quirky Case to Representing Space: Papers in Honor of Annie Zaenen, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 127–38. Ramstedt, Gustaf John (1903). Über die Konjugation des Khalkha-Mongolischen. Helsingfors: Druckerei der Finnischen Litteraturgesellschaft. Randall, William and Howard Jones (forthcoming). ‘On the Early Origins of the Germanic Preterite Presents’. To appear in Transactions of the Philological Society. Rapold, Christian J. (2008). ‘Medial verbs in Bechnon’. In Karen H. Ebert, Johanna Mattissen, and Rafael Suter (eds.), From Siberia to Ethiopia—Converbs in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Zürich: Universität Zürich, pp. 155–83. Rapold, Christian J. (2010). ‘Defining converbs ten years on—a hitchhiker’s guide’. In Sascha Völmin, Azeb Amha, Christian J. Rapold, and Silvia Zaugg-Coretti (eds.), Converbs, Medial Verbs, Clause Chaining and Related Issues (vol. 19 (2007) of Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter), Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, pp. 7–30. Rappaport, Malka (1983). ‘On the nature of derived nominals’. In Lori Levin, Malka Rappaport, and Annie Zaenen (eds.), Papers in Lexical-Functional Grammar, Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club, pp. 111–42. Rasmussen, Jens Elmegård (1994). ‘Ablaut zwischen Konsonanten: Die Quellen von idg. /s/’. In George E. Dunkel (ed.), Früh-, Mittel-, Spätindogermanisch: Akten der IX. Fachtagung der indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 5. bis 9. Oktober 1992 in Zürich, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 325–36. Rau, Jeremy (1998). ‘PIE ∗ uóidu-/∗ uéidu- and its Derivatives’. Die Sprache 40(2): 133–60. Rau, Jeremy (2009). Indo-European Nominal Morphology: The Decads and the Caland System. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck. Raza, Ghulam and Tafseer Ahmed (2011). ‘Argument scrambling within Urdu NPs’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 461–81. Reichelt, Hans (1902). ‘Beiträge zue geschichte der indogermanischen Konjugation’. Beiträge zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen 27: 63–105. Reichenbach, Hans (1947). Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: The Free Press. Renou, Louis (1925). La valeur du parfait dans les hymnes védiques. Paris: É. Champion. Renou, Louis (1928). ‘Les formes dites d’injonctif dans le Rgveda’. In Étrennes de linguistique offertes par quelques amis à Émile Benveniste, Paris: P. Geuthner, pp. 63–80. Renou, Louis (1935). ‘L’absolutif sanskrit en -am’. Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 23: 359–92. Renou, Louis (1936a). ‘Dénominatifs du Rgveda en -aryati, -anyati’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 37: 17–39. Renou, Louis (1936b). Études de grammaire sanskrite. Première série. Paris: AdrienMaisonneuve.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Renou, Louis (1937). ‘Infinitifs et dérivés nominaux dans le Rgveda’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 38: 69–87. Renou, Louis (1940). ‘Notes de grammaire védique’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 41: 208–20. Renou, EVP = Renou, Louis (1955–1969). Études védiques et p¯an.inéenes (17 vols.). Paris: É. de Broccard. Renou, Louis (1961). ‘Le futur dans le Véda’. Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 56, pp. 6–14. Renou, Louis (1964). ‘Védique s¯adh-, kh¯ad- et ś¯as-’. In Indo-Iranica : Mélanges présentés à Georg Morgenstierne, à l’occasion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 163–167. Reyle, Uwe (1988). ‘Compositional semantics for LFG’. In Uwe Reyle and Christian Rohrer (eds.), Natural Language Parsing and Linguistic Theories, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 448–474. Ringe, Don, Tandy Warnow, and Ann Taylor (2002). ‘Indo-European and Computational Cladistics’. Transactions of the Philological Society 100(1), pp. 59–129. Risch, Ernst (1937). Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter. Risch, Ernst (1974). Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache. Berlin: de Gruyter, second edition. RIVELEX = Krisch (2006). Rix, Helmut (1976). Historische Grammatik des Griechischen: Laut- und Formenlehre. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft. (Second, corrected edition published 1992). Rix, Helmut (1988). ‘The Proto-Indo-European Middle: Content, Forms and Origin’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 49: 101–119. Rix, Helmut, Martin Joachim Kümmel, Thomas Zehnder, Reiner Lipp, and Brigitte Schirmer (2001). LIV, Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Wiesbaden: Reichert, second edition. Roesler, Ulrike (1997). Licht und Leuchten im R.gveda: Untersuchungen zum Wortfeld des Leuchtens und zur Bedeutung des Lichts. Swisttal-Odendorf: Indica et Tibetica Verlag. Rosén, Victoria (1996). ‘The LFG architecture and “verbless” syntactic constructions’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG96 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Ross, John Robert (1972). ‘The category Squish: Endstation Hauptwort’. In Paul M. Peranteau, Judith N. Levi, and Gloria C. Phares (eds.), Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, April 14–16, 1972, Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, pp. 316–28. Rumsey, Alan (1987a). ‘The Chimera of Proto-Indo-European Ergativity: Lessions for Historical Syntax’. Lingua 71: 297–318. Rumsey, Alan (1987b). ‘Was Proto-Indo-European an Ergative Language?’ Journal of IndoEuropean Studies 15: 19–37. Ruppel, Antonia (2012a). Absolute Constructions in Early Indo-European. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ruppel, Antonia (2012b). ‘The origins of the genitive absolute in Sanskrit’. In Jared S. Klein and Kazuhiko Yoshida (eds.), Indic Across the Millennia: From the Rigveda to Modern Indo-Aryan, Bremen: Hempen, pp. 135–43. Růžička, Rudolf (1963). Das syntaktische system der altslavischen Partizipien und sein Verhältnis zum Griechischen. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Sadler, Louisa (1997). ‘Clitics and the structure–function mapping’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG97 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Sadler, Louisa and Doug Arnold (1994). ‘Prenominal Adjectives and the Phrasal/Lexical Distinction’. Journal of Linguistics 30: 187–226. Sadler, Louisa and Andrew Spencer (2001). ‘Syntax as an exponent of morphological features’. In Geert Booij and Jaap van Marle (eds.), Yearbook of Morphology, Amsterdam: Kluwer, pp. 71–96. Sag, Ivan A., Thomas Wasow, and Emily Bender (2003). Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, second edition. Savčenko, A. N. (1967). ‘rgativna konstrukci predloeni v praindoevrope˘ iskom zyke’. In V. M. Žirmunskij (ed.), rgativna konstrukci predloeni v zykah razliqnyh tipov, Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 74–90. Schachter, Paul and Timothy Shopen (1985). ‘Parts-of-speech systems’. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic Description. Volume 1: Clause Structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, second edition, pp. 1–60. Schaefer, Christiane (1994). Das Intensivum im Vedischen. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Schaffner, Stefan (2001). Das Vernersche Gesetz und der innerparadigmatische grammatische Wechsel des Urgermanischen im Nominalbereich. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck. Schäufele, Steven (1988). ‘Where’s my NP? Non-Transformational Analyses of Vedic Pronominal Fronting’. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 18(2): 129–62. Schäufele, Steven (1991a). Free word order syntax: The challenge from Vedic Sanskrit to contemporary formal syntactic theory. Ph.D. thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Schäufele, Steven (1991b). ‘Single-word topicalization in Vedic prose: A challenge to Government & Binding?’ In Hans Henrich Hock (ed.), Studies in Sanskrit Syntax: A Volume in Honor of the Centennial of Speijer’s Sanskrit Syntax, 1886–1986, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, pp. 153–75. Schäufele, Steven (1991c). ‘Verb-medial clauses in Vedic: Some theoretical implications’. In Hans Henrich Hock (ed.), Studies in Sanskrit Syntax: A Volume in Honor of the Centennial of Speijer’s Sanskrit Syntax, 1886–1986, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, pp. 177–96. Schäufele, Steven (1993). ‘The Vedic Clause-initial String and Universal Grammar’. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 23(1): 131–61. Schäufele, Steven (1996). ‘Now that we’re all here, where do we sit? Phonological ordering in the Vedic clause-initial string’. In Aaron L. Halpern and Arnold M. Zwicky (eds.), Approaching Second: Second Position Clitics and Related Phenomena, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 447–75. Schindler, Jochem (1975). ‘Armenisch erkn, griechisch ὀδύνη, irisch idu’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 89: 53–65. Schindler, Jochem (1982). ‘Zum Nom. Sing. m. der nt-Partizipien im Jungavestischen’. In Erich Neu (ed.), Investigationes philologicae et comparativae: Gedenkschrift für Heinz Kronasser, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 186–209. Schindler, Jochem (1994). ‘Alte und neue Fragen zum indogermanischen Nomen’. In Jens Elmegård Rasmussen and Benedicte Nielsen (eds.), In honorem Holger Pedersen: Kolloquium der indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 25. bis 28. März 1993 in Kopenhagen, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 397–400.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Schlerath, Bernfried (1996). ‘Indo-iranisch ∗ v¯ataz ∗ vaˆghati “der Wind weht” und idg. ∗ ueˆgh “schweben” ’. Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik 20: 379–87. Schmidt, Hanns-Peter (1957). ‘Awestische Wortstudien’. Indo-Iranian Journal 1(2): 160–75. Schmidt, Karl Horst (1964). ‘Präteritales Partizip und Diathese’. Indogermanische Forschungen 69(1): 1–9. Schmidt, Karl Horst (1977). ‘Probleme der Ergativkonstruktion’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 36: 97–116. Schmidt, Karl Horst (1979). ‘Reconstructing active and ergative stages of Pre-Indo-European’. In Frans Plank (ed.), Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations, London: Academic Press, pp. 333–45. Schmidt, Karl Horst (1980). ‘Zur Typologie des Vorindogermanischen’. In Paolo Ramat (ed.), Linguistic Reconstruction and Indo-European Syntax: Proceedings of the Colloquium of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft, University of Pavia, 6–7 September 1979, Amsterdam: Benjamins, pp. 91–112. Schultze-Berndt, Eva and Nikolaus P. Himmelmann (2004). ‘Depictive Secondary Predicates in Crosslinguistic Perspective’. Linguistic Typology 8: 59–131. Seebold, Elmar (1969). ‘Germanisch ∗ sanþ-/sund- ‘seiend, wahr’’. Die Sprache 15: 14–45. Seebold, Elmar (1973). ‘Die Stammbildungen der idg. Wurzel ∗ ueid- und deren Bedeutungen’. Die Sprache 19: 20–38, 158–79. Seiss, Melanie (2008). ‘The English -ing form’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG08 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 454–72. Sells, Peter (ed.) (2001). Formal and Empirical Issues in Optimality Theoretic Syntax. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. Sen, Sukumar (1928). ‘An Outline Syntax of Buddhistic Sanskrit’. Journal of the Department of Letters, University of Calcutta 17(2): 1–65. Sen, Sukumar (1953). ‘Historical Syntax of Middle Indo-Aryan’. Indian Linguistics 13: 1–140. Senart, Émile (1894). ‘Rapport de la Sous-commission pour la transcription des alphabets sanscrits et pracrits’. In Rapport de la Commission de Transcription, Xme Congrès International des Orientalistes, Session de Genève, Leiden: Brill, pp. 9–13. Sharma, Peri Sarveswara (1972). The K¯alasamuddeśa of Bhartr.hari’s V¯akyapad¯ıya together with Hel¯ar¯aja’s commentary translated from the Sanskrit for the first time. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Shatskov, A. B. (2005). ‘Hettskie prilagatelMnye s suffiksom -ant-’. In N. N. Kazanskij (ed.), Hrda¯´ Mánas¯a : Sbornik state˘ i k 70-leti so dn rodeni professora Leonarda Georgieviqa Gercenberga, Saint Petersburg: Nauka, pp. 104–30. Sigurðsson, Halldór Ármann (1993). ‘Argument-drop in Old Icelandic’. Lingua 89: 247–80. Sihler, Andrew L. (1995). New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Simpson, Jane (1991). Warlpiri Morpho-syntax: A Lexicalist Approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Simpson, Jane (2007). ‘Expressing pragmatic constraints on word order in Warlpiri’. In Annie Zaenen, Jane Simpson, Tracy Holloway King, Jane Grimshaw, Joan Maling, and Chris Manning (eds.), Architectures, Rules and Preferences: Variations on Themes by Joan Bresnan, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 403–27.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Simpson, Jane and M. Margaret Withgott (1986). ‘Pronominal clitic clusters and templates’. In Hagit Borer (ed.), The Syntax of Pronominal Clitics (vol. 19 of Syntax and Semantics), Orlando, FL: Academic Press, pp. 150–74. Skjaervø, Prods Oktor (2009). ‘Old Iranian’. In Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian Languages, London: Routledge, pp. 43–195. Sluiter, Ineke (2000). ‘Seven Grammarians on the Ablative Absolute’. Historiographia Linguistica 27(2/3): 379–414. Smith, Carlota S. (1997). The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic, second edition. Smyth, Herbert Weir (1956). Greek Grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, second edition. Revised by Gordon M. Messing. Snijders, Liselotte (2012). ‘Issues concerning constraints on discontinuous NPs in Latin’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG12 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 565–81. Sommer, Ferdinand (1947). Hethiter und Hethitisch. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Sommer, Ferdinand (1958). ‘Vedisch vehát’. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 11: 5–21. Spector, Ilona (2009). ‘Hebrew floating quantifiers’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 520–40. Spencer, Andrew (2005). ‘Case in Hindi’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG05 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 429–46. Speyer, Jacob Samuel (1886). Sanskrit Syntax. Leiden: Brill. Speyer, Jacob Samuel (1896). Vedische und Sanskrit-Syntax. Strassburg: K. J. Trübner. Squartini, Mario and Pier Marco Bertinetto (2000). ‘The simple and compound past in Romance languages’. In Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 403–39. Staal, J. Frits (1967). Word Order in Sanskrit and Universal Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. Stassen, Leon (1992). ‘A hierarchy of main predicate encoding’. In Michel Kefer and Johan van der Auwera (eds.), Meaning and Grammar: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives, Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 179–201. Stassen, Leon (1997). Intransitive Predication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Streitberg, Wilhelm (1894). ‘Die Entstehung der Dehnstufe’. Indogermanische Forschungen 3: 305–416. Strunk, Klaus (1985). ‘Flexionskategorien mit akrostatischem Akzent und die sigmatischen Aoriste’. In Bernfried Schlerath (ed.), Grammatische Kategorien: Funktion und Geschichte: Akten der VII. Fachtagung der indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, 20.–25. Februar 1983, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 490–514. Strunk, Klaus (1986). ‘Miscellanea zum avestischen Verbum’. In Rüdiger Schmitt and Prods Oktor Skjaervø (eds.), Studia Grammatica Iranica: Festschrift für Helmut Humbach, München: R. Kitzinger, pp. 441–59. Sturtevant, Edgar Howard (1926). ‘On the Position of Hittite among the Indo-European Languages’. Language 2(1): 25–34. Sturtevant, Edgar Howard (1929). ‘The Relationship of Hittite to Indo-European’. Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 60: 25–37.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Sturtevant, Edgar Howard (1939). ‘The Pronoun ∗ so, ∗ s¯a, ∗ tod and the Indo-Hittite Hypothesis’. Language 15(1): 11–19. Sturtevant, Edgar Howard (1962). ‘The Indo-Hittite Hypothesis’. Language 38(2): 105–10. Originally published in the Course Program of the Linguistic Institute in Ann Arbor, 1939. Subramania-Iyer, K. A. (ed.) (1973). V¯akyapad¯ıya of Bhartr.hari, with the Prak¯ırn.akaprak¯aśa of Hel¯ar¯aja. K¯an.d.a III, part ii. Poona: Dr. H. D. Sankalia. Sulger, Sebastian (2009). ‘Irish clefting and information-structure’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 562–82. Szemerényi, Oswald John Louis (1967). ‘The Perfect Participle Active in Mycenean and IndoEuropean’. Studi micenei ed egeo-anatolici 2: 7–26. Szemerényi, Oswald John Louis (1987). Scripta minora: Selected Essays in Indo-European, Greek and Latin (5 vols.). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck. Talmy, Leonard (1991). ‘Path to realization: A typology of Event Conflation’. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: General Session and Parasession on the Grammar of Event Structure, Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, pp. 480–519. Thieme, Paul (1929). Das Plusquamperfektum im Veda. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Thieme, Paul (1938). Der Fremdling im Rgveda: eine Studie über die Bedeutung der Worte ari, arya, aryaman und ärya. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. Thim-Mabrey, Christiane (1990). ‘Attributives Partizip Präsens im Mittelhochdeutschen’. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 112(3): 371–403. Tichy, Eva (1994). Die Nomina agentis auf -tar- im Vedischen. Heidelberg: Winter. Tichy, Eva (1997). ‘Vom indogermanischen Tempus/Aspekt-System zum vedischen Zeitstufensystem’. In Emilio Crespo and José-Luis García Ramón (eds.), Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropean hoy. Actas del Coloquio de la Indogermanische Gesellschaft, Madrid, 21–24 de septiembre de 1994, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 589–609. Tichy, Eva (2006). Der Konjunktiv und seine Nachbarkategorien: Studien zum indogermanischen Verbum, ausgehend von der älteren vedischen Prosa. Bremen: Hempen. Tichy, Eva (2009). Indogermanistisches Grundwissen für Studierende sprachwissenschaftlicher Disziplinen. Bremen: Hempen, third edition. Tikkanen, Bertil (1987). The Sanskrit Gerund: A Synchronic, Diachronic, and Typological Analysis. Helsinki: Finnish Oriental Society. Tikkanen, Bertil (2001). ‘Converbs’. In Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher, and Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook (Vol. 2), Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 1112–23. Toivonen, Ida (2003). Non-Projecting Words: A Case Study of Swedish Verbal Particles. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Toivonen, Ida (2013). ‘English benefactive NPs’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG13 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 503–23. Tonhauser, Judith (2011). ‘Temporal Reference in Paraguayan Guaraní, a Tenseless Language’. Linguistics and Philosophy 34: 257–303.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Tremblay, Xavier (1997). ‘Études sur le verbe vieil-irlandais : III. Les parfaits à longue en Celtique et Germanique’. Études Celtiques 33: 109–42. Tronskij, I. M. (1967). ‘O donominativnom proxlom indoevrope˘ iskih zykov’. In V. M. Žirmunskij (ed.), rgativna konstrukci predloeni v zykah razliqnyh tipov, Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 91–4. Tucker, Elizabeth (1981). ‘Greek Factitive Verbs in -οω, -αινω and -υνω’. Transactions of the Philological Society 79(1): 15–34. Tucker, Elizabeth (1988). ‘Some Innovations in the System of Denominative Verbs in Early Indic’. Transactions of the Philological Society 86: 93–114. Tucker, Elizabeth (2002a). ‘When Old Is Not Old . . . : RV jarádas..ti-, jaradvís.am, and the Vulture Jaradgava’. Journal of the American Oriental Society 122(2): 419–27. Tucker, Elizabeth (2002b). ‘RV r.gmín-, r.gmíya- and r.ñjate’. Historische Sprachforschung 115: 274–300. Tucker, Elizabeth (2009). ‘Old Iranian Superlatives in -išta-’. In Werner Sundermann, Almut Hintze, and François de Blois (eds.), Exegisti monumenta: Festschrift in Honour of Nicholas Sims-Williams, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, pp. 509–26. Uhlenbeck, Christianus Cornelius (1901). ‘Agens und Patiens im Kasussystem der indogermanischen Sprachen’. Indogermanische Forschungen 12: 170–72. Ultan, Russell (1978). ‘The nature of future tenses’. In Joseph H. Greenberg, Charles A. Ferguson, and Edith A. Moravcsik (eds.), Universals of Human Language: Vol. 3, Word Structure, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, pp. 83–123. Reprinted from Working Papers on Language Universals 8 (1972), pp. 55–100. Vaillant, André (1936). ‘L’ergatif indo-européen’. Bulletin de la Societé de Linguistique de Paris 37: 93–108. van der Wurff, Wim (1997). ‘Syntactic reconstruction and reconstructability: Proto-IndoEuropean and the typology of null objects’. In Jacek Fisiak (ed.), Linguistic Reconstruction and Typology, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 337–56. van Kemenade, Ans (1987). Syntactic Case and Morphological Case in the History of English. Dordrecht: Foris. van Nooten, Barend A. and Gary B. Holland (1994). Rig Veda: A Metrically Restored Text. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. van Riemsdijk, Henk (1983). ‘The Case of German adjectives’. In Frank Heny and Barry Richard (eds.), Linguistic Categories: Auxiliaries and Related Puzzles (vol. 1), Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 223–52. Van Valin, Jr., Robert D. (2003). Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vester, Elseline (1977). ‘On the So-Called ‘Participium Coniunctum”. Mnemosyne (series 4) 30(3): 243–85. Villar, Francisco (1983). Ergatividad, acusatividad y género en la familia lingüística indoeuropea. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca. Villar, Francisco (1984). ‘Ergativity and animate/inanimate gender in Indo-European’. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 97: 167–96. Vincent, Nigel and Kersti Börjars (2010). ‘Complements of adjectives: A diachronic approach’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG10 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 458–78.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Vine, Brent (1999). ‘Latin ¯ın¯are/¯ın¯ar¯ı’. In Brent Vine and Vyacheslav V. Ivanov (eds.), UCLA Indo-European Studies (Vol. 1), Los Angeles, CA: UCLA, pp. 71–84. Vine, Brent (2009). ‘On the Vedic Denominative Type putr¯ıyánt-’. Paper presented at the 14th World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto, Japan, September 2009. Viti, Carlotta (2007). Strategies of Subordination in Vedic. Milan: F. Angeli. Viti, Carlotta (2008a). ‘The phylogenesis of hypotaxis in Vedic’. Diachronica 25(3): 386–409. Viti, Carlotta (2008b). ‘The verb-initial word order in the early poetry of Vedic and Ancient Greek’. In Karlene Jones-Bley, Martin E. Huld, Angela Della Volpe, and Miriam Robbins Dexter (eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles, November 2–3, 2006, Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man, pp. 89–111. Viti, Carlotta (2009). ‘A quantitative analysis of the OSV word order in Vedic’. In Elisabeth Rieken and Paul Widmer (eds.), Pragmatische Kategorien: Form, Funktion und Diachronie. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 24. bis 26. September 2007 in Marburg, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 307–22. Viti, Carlotta (2010). ‘The information structure of OVS in Vedic’. In Gisella Ferraresi and Rosemarie Lühr (eds.), Diachronic Studies on Information Structure: Language Acquisition and Change, Berlin: De Gruyter, pp. 37–62. Völmin, Sascha, Azeb Amha, Christian J. Rapold, and Silvia Zaugg-Coretti (eds.) (2010). Converbs, Medial Verbs, Clause Chaining and Related Issues (vol. 19 (2007) of Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter). Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag. von Böhtlingk, Otto (1887). P¯an.ini’s Grammatik. Leipzig: H. Haessel. von Böhtlingk, Otto and Rudolph Roth (1855–1875). Sanskrit-Wörterbuch (7 vols.). St. Petersburg: Buchdruckerei der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. von Hinüber, Oskar (1968). Studien zur Kasussyntax des P¯ali, besonders Vinaya-Pit.aka. München: Kitzinger. von Prince, Kilu (2012). ‘Nominal possession in Daakaka: Transitivizing vs. linking’. In Lauren Eby Clemens, Gregory Scontras, and Maria Polinsky (eds.), Proceedings of AFLA 18, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 156–70. von Stechow, Arnim and Atle Grønn (2013a). ‘Tense in Adjuncts Part 1: Relative Clauses’. Language and Linguistics Compass 7(5): 295–310. von Stechow, Arnim and Atle Grønn (2013b). ‘Tense in Adjuncts Part 2: Temporal Adverbial Clauses’. Language and Linguistics Compass 7(5): 311–27. von Stutterheim, Christiane, Mary Carroll, and Wolfgang Klein (2009). ‘New perspectives in analyzing aspectual distinctions across languages’. In Wolfgang Klein and Ping Li (eds.), The Expression of Time, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 195–216. Voyles, Joseph B. (1974). West Germanic Inflection, Derivation and Compounding. The Hague: Mouton de Gruyter. Wachter, Rudolf (1998). ‘Griechisch χα˜ιρε: Vorgeschichte eines Grusswortes’. Museum Helveticum 55(2): 65–75. Wachter, Rudolf (2004). ‘Χα˜ιρε ϰαὶ πίει ε῏υ (AVI 2)’. In John W. H. Penney (ed.), Indo-European Perspectives: Studies in Honour of Anna Morpurgo Davies, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 300–22.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

References



Wackernagel, Jacob (1892). ‘Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung’. Indogermanische Forschungen 1, pp. 333–436. Wackernagel, Jacob (1897). ‘Vermischte Beiträge zur griechischen Sprachkunde’. Programm zur Rektoratsfeier der Universität Basel 1897: 3–62. (= Kleine Schriften, vol. 1: 764–823). Wackernagel, Jacob (1918). ‘Indoiranisches’. Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 1918: 380–411. (= Kleine Schriften vol. 1: 299–330). Wackernagel–Debrunner, AiG = Wackernagel, Jacob and Albert Debrunner (1896–1964). Altindische Grammatik (4 vols.). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Watkins, Calvert (1967). ‘Latin s¯ons’. In Walter W. Arndt (ed.), Studies in Historical Linguistics in Honor of George Sherman Lane, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, pp. 186–94. Watkins, Calvert (1969). Indogermanische Grammatik III/1: Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Winter. Watkins, Calvert (1971). ‘Hittite and Indo-European Studies: the Denominative Statives in -¯e-’. Transactions of the Philological Society 70(1): 51–93. Watkins, Calvert (1973). ‘Etyma Enniana’. Harvard Studies in Classical Philology 77: 195–206. Watkins, Calvert (1995). How to Kill a Dragon: Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Weiss, Daniel (1995). ‘Russian converbs: A typological outline’. In Martin Haspelmath and Ekkehard König (eds.), Converbs in Cross-Linguistic Perspective: Structure and Meaning of Adverbial Verb Forms: Adverbial Participles, Gerunds, Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 239–82. Weiss, Michael (2009). Outline of Comparative and Historical Grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press. Wescoat, Michael Thomas (2002). On lexical sharing. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University. Wescoat, Michael Thomas (2005). ‘English nonsyllabic auxiliary contractions: An analysis in LFG with lexical sharing’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG05 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 468–86. Wescoat, Michael Thomas (2007). ‘Preposition-Determiner contractions: An analysis in Optimality-Theoretic Lexical-Functional Grammar with lexical sharing’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG07 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 439–59. Wescoat, Michael Thomas (2009). ‘Udi person markers and lexical integrity’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 604–22. Wetter, Andreas (2010). ‘Converbs in Argobba’. In Sascha Völmin, Azeb Amha, Christian J. Rapold, and Silvia Zaugg-Coretti (eds.), Converbs, Medial Verbs, Clause Chaining and Related Issues (vol. 19 (2007) of Frankfurter Afrikanistische Blätter), Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag, pp. 99–113. Wetzer, Harrie (1992). ‘ “Nouny” and “verby” adjectivals: a typology of predicative adjectival constructions’. In Michel Kefer and Johan van der Auwera (eds.), Meaning and Grammar: Cross-Linguistic Perspectives, Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 223–62. Wetzer, Harrie (1996). The Typology of Adjectival Predication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



References

Whitney, William Dwight (1896). A Sanskrit Grammar: Including both the Classical Language, and the Older Dialects, of Veda and Brahmana. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, third edition. Widmer, Paul (2004). Das Korn des weiten Feldes: interne Derivation, Derivationskette und Flexionsklassenhierachie: Aspekte der nominalen Wortbildung im Urindogermanischen. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck. Willi, Andreas (2007). ‘Of aspects, augments, aorists - or how to say to have killed a dragon’. In Coulter H. George, Matthew McCullagh, Benedicte Nielsen, Antonia Ruppel, and Olga Tribulato (eds.), Greek and Latin from an Indo-European Perspective, Cambridge: Cambridge Philological Society, pp. 34–48. Witzel, Michael (1987). ‘On the localization of Vedic texts and schools’. In Gilbert Pollet (ed.), India and the Ancient World: History, Trade and Culture before ad 650, Leuven: Departement Oriëntalistiek, pp. 173–213. Witzel, Michael (1989). ‘Tracing the Vedic dialects’. In Colette Caillet (ed.), Dialectes dans les littératures indo-aryennes, Paris: College de France, Institut de civilisation indienne, pp. 97–265. Witzel, Michael (1990). ‘Notes on Vedic Dialects, (1)’. Zinbun 25: 31–70. Witzel, Michael and Toshifumi Got¯o (2007). Rig-Veda: das heilige Wissen. Erster und zweiter Liederkreis. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag der Weltreligionen. Witzel, Michael, Toshifumi Got¯o, and Salvatore Scarlata (2013). Rig-Veda: das heilige Wissen. Dritter bis fünfter Liederkreis. Frankfurt am Main: Verlag der Weltreligionen. Ylikoski, Jussi (2003). ‘Defining Non-finites: Action Nominals, Converbs and Infinitives’. SKY Journal of Linguistics 16: 185–237. Yuasa, Etsuyo and Jerry M. Sadock (2002). ‘Pseudo-subordination: A Mismatch between Syntax and Semantics’. Journal of Linguistics 38(1): 87–111. Zaenen, Annie and Dick Crouch (2009). ‘OBLs hobble computations’. In Miriam Butt and Tracy Holloway King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG09 Conference, Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications, pp. 644–54. Zaugg-Coretti, Sylvia (2008). ‘Converbs in Yemsa’. In Karen H. Ebert, Johanna Mattissen, and Rafael Suter (eds.), From Siberia to Ethiopia—Converbs in a Cross-Linguistic Perspective, Zürich: Universität Zürich, pp. 221–55. Ziegler, Sabine (2002). ‘Zur Entstehung des Locativus Absolutus im Altindischen’. In Heinrich Hettrich (ed.), Indogermanische Syntax: Fragen und Perspektiven, Wiesbaden: Reichert, pp. 79–86. Zwolanek, Renée (1987). Merkmale der Ergativkonstruktion und die Hypothese eines indogermanischen Ergativs. Bern: Peter Lang.

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Index of verse Asterisks indicate pages on which the verse appears as a numbered example. As..ta¯ dhy¯ay¯ı 1.1.1 330∗ 1.1.2 330∗ 1.1.70 330 2.3.37 101 2.3.69 332∗ 3.2.84 331, 337 3.2.102 332 3.2.104 309 3.2.105 339 3.2.106 331∗ , 339 3.2.107 331∗ , 339 3.2.108 332∗ 3.2.109 267, 332∗ 3.2.110 337∗ , 338 3.2.111 337∗ , 338 3.2.115 337, 338∗ , 339 3.2.118–122 337 3.2.123 336∗ , 337 3.2.124 330, 331∗ , 334 3.2.125 331, 334∗ 3.2.126 331, 334∗ , 335 3.2.127 331∗ , 337 3.2.128 332, 333∗ , 337 3.2.129 333∗ 3.2.130 333∗ 3.2.131 333∗ 3.2.132 333∗ 3.2.133 333∗ , 337 3.2.134 332 3.2.171 332 3.3.1 337 3.3.3 339 3.3.10 32, 339 3.3.13 32, 339∗ , 340 3.3.14 331∗ , 334 3.3.15 340∗ 3.3.131 337 3.3.135 338, 340 Avestan Yasna/Yašt Y.28.4 283 Y.28.8 283 Y.28.11 170

Y.29.3 283 Y.30.10 236 Y.31.11 288 Y.33.7 233 Y.33.9 269 Y.34.4 170 Y.34.12 170 Y.43.3 170 Y.43.8 288 Y.44.4 236 Y.45.8 283 Yt.13.105 269 Yt.17.10 269 Rigveda 1.1.6 218∗ 1.2.7 169 1.4.7 283∗ 1.6.5 149∗ 1.9.9b 263 1.17.8 106∗ 1.32.14b 278 1.35.10cd 169 1.50.13a 29∗ 1.52.2c 50∗ , 59∗ , 72∗ 1.61.10c 235∗ 1.61.14b 289 1.70.3 250∗ 1.73.7d 87∗ 1.79.3ab 212, 246∗ , 255 1.92.12cd 279, 280∗ 1.94.14b 261 1.95.8ab 209∗ 1.96.6cd 127∗ 1.105.18ab 111∗ 1.112.6a 212 1.113.10c 242 1.114.9c 261 1.116.14d 242 1.116.17ab 169 1.116.18ab 176∗ , 254 1.116.23 96∗ 1.117.13a 287 1.119.1c 270

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Index of verse

Rigveda (cont.) 1.119.8a 242 1.120.5 236 1.121.8b 253 1.122.1a 242 1.122.4b 242 1.122.11ab 185∗ , 205 1.124.2a 279 1.124.5d 264 1.125.4ab 220∗ 1.127.6 255 1.130.8fg 210∗ 1.131.3 243 1.134.2a-e 237∗ 1.140.2d 229 1.141.13b 237 1.142.7a 139 1.143.7cd 234∗ 1.146.1 259 1.150.3b 291 1.155.1a 242 1.158.3d 253 1.161.7b 287 1.164.28d 255 1.165.5a-c 209∗ 1.171.1c 276 1.174.4d 229∗ 1.179.4cd 169 1.182.3c 286∗ 1.184.1ab 105∗ 1.191.2 137∗ 2.1.4 272 2.2.6ab 234∗ 2.4.2ab 265∗ 2.4.4cd 132∗ 2.10.4 91∗ , 92, 239∗ 2.10.5c 271 2.11.7cd 221∗ 2.11.9c 173 2.11.11c 264 2.11.15b 282∗ 2.11.17cd 135∗ 2.12.3a 85∗ 2.12.6 122∗ 2.12.10ab 157∗ 2.12.11ab 199∗ 2.12.14a 262∗ 2.13.4a 118∗ 2.13.12c 178 2.14.1c 148∗ 2.14.2d 260∗ 2.15.7a 266∗ 2.16.5 262

2.17.4d 177∗ 2.18.3cd 262 2.19.1cd 87∗ , 90, 154∗ , 160∗ 2.19.5 201∗ , 310, 169 2.20.5 142∗ , 143, 184∗ 2.23.12b 173 2.23.15a 260 2.24.4d 282∗ 2.24.5cd 277, 278∗ 2.24.9d 291∗ 2.27.3 87∗ , 89, 160∗ 2.27.4a 259 2.28.7ab 93∗ 2.28.10c 45∗ 2.29.1d 266 2.30.6b 262 2.30.7b 46∗ 2.30.8b 289∗ 2.32.3ab 203∗ 2.32.5d 267 2.33.10 260∗ 2.34.5 271 2.34.10d 287 2.36.3cd 211, 215∗ 2.36.4b 183∗ 2.37.3b 279, 280∗ 2.40.5ab 117∗ 2.43.3a-c 188∗ 3.1.16c 253 3.1.18ab 191∗ 3.2.5d 273 3.2.6c 173 3.2.12ab 139∗ 3.3.4d 139 3.3.6c 273 3.3.10c 257∗ 3.4.6a 122∗ , 139∗ 3.4.7c 264∗ 3.4.9ab 267∗ 3.6.2a 257∗ 3.6.5c 257 3.8.9ab 239∗ 3.10.9 216∗ 3.17.4a 263 3.18.3 145∗ , 173 3.18.4d 229 3.27.15 282∗ 3.29.5a 251, 251∗ 3.29.16ab 106∗ 3.30.4 116 3.30.10ab 173∗ 3.31.1b 266 3.31.2d 123∗

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Index of verse 3.31.4a 247 3.31.4c 173 3.31.5a 178 3.31.9ab 156∗ 3.31.21cd 131∗ 3.32.12c 174∗ 3.32.16ab 131∗ , 178 3.33.1cd 145∗ 3.34.7 272 3.39.1c 122∗ 3.44.2ab 182∗ 3.46.2ab 175∗ 3.48.3 116 3.50.3cd 215∗ 3.53.21d 261∗ 3.53.23b 153∗ , 172∗ 3.54.7cd 179∗ 3.54.8 259, 180∗ 3.58.1 123, 124∗ 3.60.7ab 181∗ 3.61.1b 263 3.61.6d 169 4.1.11c 212 4.1.13b 173 4.1.16c 173 4.1.18a 215∗ 4.2.2 206∗ 4.2.3 206∗ 4.2.7a 253 4.2.7b 170, 241 4.2.14 205∗ 4.2.17 206∗ , 256 4.2.19 231 4.3.9cd 179∗ 4.3.12c 256 4.4.13d 179∗ 4.5.6 145∗ , 279 4.6.6b 178 4.7.9d 257 4.10.4b 263 4.12.1 210∗ , 243 4.12.2b 169 4.12.3c 265∗ 4.15.2 170∗ 4.15.3c 169 4.16.14 125∗ , 126, 255 4.17.3a 201∗ 4.17.10a 278∗ 4.17.14 256, 215∗ 4.17.18b 203∗ 4.18.3a 111∗ , 115∗ 4.18.5a 173 4.18.5c 95∗



4.18.11c 219∗ 4.19.4 256 4.19.7c 292∗ 4.19.9ab 232, 252∗ 4.21.6ab 171∗ , 254, 255∗ 4.21.8a 233, 235∗ 4.22.2 255 4.22.6cd 173∗ 4.23.1 138∗ , 241∗ 4.23.2b 45∗ 4.23.7ab 219∗ 4.24.6c 276 4.27.1a 178 4.29.2cd 158∗ 4.30.10 174∗ , 217∗ 4.36.3cd 179∗ 4.38.3ab 265∗ 4.42.8ab 106∗ 4.42.10a 174∗ , 215∗ 4.48.2a 256 4.53.2c 264 4.53.6b 259 4.55.7d 260 4.56.2b 279 5.6.7b 291 5.8.4b 263 5.11.4d 177∗ 5.11.6c 175∗ 5.12.5b 178 5.15.4cd 188∗ 5.29.3d 163∗ 5.29.5d 178 5.29.11cd 175∗ 5.30.2 116 5.31.12ab 169 5.32.2cd 185∗ , 215∗ 5.33.6a-c 250, 251∗ 5.37.3ab 169, 173∗ 5.41.18cd 265∗ 5.42.7cd 264∗ 5.42.14ab 200∗ 5.43.7ab 290∗ 5.43.11cd 210∗ 5.43.12c 271 5.44.2b 274 5.45.3d 95∗ , 173 5.45.4d 173 5.45.7c 201∗ 5.48.5b 277, 278∗ 5.51.15c 278 5.52.17d,e 229 5.54.3d 273 5.54.9ab 97∗

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Index of verse

Rigveda (cont.) 5.61.9ab 135∗ 5.73.9d 261 5.78.5ab 220∗ 5.78.9 98∗ 5.79.10b 260 5.80.1a 247 5.87.1d 139 6.1.2cd 142∗ 6.1.8d 129∗ 6.3.5a 221∗ 6.6.2a 293 6.9.7ab 173, 216∗ 6.11.6cd 217∗ 6.12.1ab 321∗ 6.13.3a 278∗ 6.15.17c 269 6.16.11 202 6.18.4a 110∗ , 111 6.18.4b 253 6.19.7cd 109∗ 6.19.10 250 6.20.2 208∗ 6.20.11ab 187∗ 6.21.10c 203∗ , 252, 253∗ 6.22.4c 30 6.23.3 6 6.24.7ab 286∗ 6.29.4cd 263∗ 6.29.5cd 216∗ 6.30.2a 112∗ , 113, 114 6.37.5c 148∗ 6.42.1ab 157∗ 6.47.6ab 288∗ 6.47.20b 179∗ 6.48.18 24 6.49.4c 247 6.50.8ab 143∗ 6.54.1 137∗ 6.59.5cd 94∗ , 98∗ , 99, 100, 163∗ , 166 6.59.8ab 291∗ 6.60.13a 122∗ 6.61.7 287∗ 6.61.8 117∗ 6.62.1a 132 6.62.2cd 181∗ 6.62.4 27 6.64.3ab 209∗ , 247 6.66.7d 169 6.66.11ab 138∗ , 244∗ 6.67.10b 173, 173∗ 6.68.8c 263

6.71.5d 157∗ 6.73.2cd 278∗ , 289 6.73.3cd 220∗ 6.75.3a 221∗ 6.75.4cd 177∗ 6.75.7cd 277∗ 7.1.18ab 182∗ 7.1.23cd 117∗ 7.4.7d 253 7.5.3ab 177∗ 7.7.5a 185∗ 7.8.1ab 234∗ 7.9.6ab 245∗ 7.14.3ab 212∗ 7.18.2c 293 7.18.4a 173 7.18.5ab 157∗ 7.18.22cd 260∗ 7.19.3ab 288∗ 7.20.8cd 279∗ 7.29.1a 234∗ 7.32.8d 264∗ 7.33.2b 242 7.33.5c 263, 263∗ 7.33.12cd 171∗ 7.35.10a 143∗ , 144, 303, 303∗ 7.35.12 272 7.36.2d 277, 278∗ 7.36.6cd 246∗ 7.38.2 186∗ 7.41.2d 42∗ 7.44.3ab 207∗ 7.52.1c 243 7.55.6b 45∗ 7.56.5 289∗ 7.57.3cd 132, 133∗ , 293 7.67.6c 268 7.67.7cd 169, 169∗ 7.68.1 211∗ 7.68.5c 174∗ 7.68.6ab 286∗ , 287 7.68.8a 212 7.68.9ab 207∗ 7.69.6ab 292∗ 7.69.7a-c 251∗ 7.72.3cd 173∗ 7.73.1ab 133∗ 7.75.3cd 264∗ 7.78.2cd 131∗ 7.79.5a-c 184∗ 7.81.1cd 277∗ 7.84.5b 268 7.85.5b 268

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Index of verse 7.88.7 125∗ 7.89.4ab 180∗ 7.91.5a 256 7.94.12b 266 7.98.1cd 169 7.100.1a 219∗ 7.103.2ab 203∗ 7.104.7a 253 7.104.8ab 162∗ 8.1.2a 253 8.2.29 138∗ , 244∗ 8.3.13cd 128, 128∗ , 129, 263 8.3.14a 263 8.6.29 292 8.23.16ab 134∗ 8.23.16c 245∗ 8.24.1a 170 8.24.23c 266 8.25.12a 278 8.27.13d 263 8.27.19ab 104∗ 8.32.10a 290 8.40.8cd 209∗ 8.45.13c 147 8.51.5 6 8.58.1c 267 8.60.18ab 24, 251, 252∗ 8.67.15 279∗ 8.73.11b 287 8.76.11b 253 8.81.7c 258, 276 8.92.1a 242 8.98.3a 289 8.99.3cd 254∗ 9.3.6c 169 9.5.1 134∗ 9.6.5 96∗ 9.12.8 235∗ 9.13.6 235∗ 9.15.5 178∗ 9.22.6a 237 9.27.1 131∗ 9.29.2b 263 9.41.1 169 9.42.3 158∗ 9.44.2 235∗ 9.45.5ab 162∗ 9.52.1b 281 9.58.1c 281 9.61.4 98∗ 9.61.20 148∗ 9.64.17 163∗ 9.65.28–30c 242



9.66.14b 173 9.68.10ab 187∗ 9.70.6cd 172∗ 9.72.8ab 169 9.73.9c 142∗ , 157∗ 9.74.5a 208∗ 9.80.2cd 170∗ 9.81.2 174∗ , 217∗ 9.82.2d 1∗ 9.86.14c 158∗ 9.86.19c 237∗ 9.87.7ab 234∗ 9.88.1a 234∗ 9.92.6d 169 9.94.1cd 208∗ 9.96.10b 229 9.96.19c 208 9.96.20a 229 9.97.11ab 208∗ 9.97.13d 128∗ 9.97.14cd 117∗ , 120∗ , 121 9.97.30cd 239 9.98.8b 242 9.101.11b 236 9.101.13ab 234∗ 9.107.20cd 200∗ , 291∗ 9.107.22a 229 9.108.12ab 291∗ 9.109.9ab 208∗ 9.109.17ab 229∗ 9.110.12 131∗ , 290∗ 9.112.2a 287 9.113.1a-d 171∗ 10.5.3 259 10.9.5 141∗ 10.10.8a 139∗ 10.14.2b 122∗ 10.16.12 287∗ 10.22.6 205∗ 10.27.3a 42∗ 10.28.3cd 189∗ 10.28.9c 285 10.31.6d 253 10.32.1a 205, 205∗ 10.34.3a 261∗ 10.34.3cd 286∗ , 287 10.45.8a 239∗ 10.46.2a 265 10.48.5c 263∗ 10.61.1cd 237∗ 10.61.5a 141 10.61.13ab 206∗ 10.61.26c 138∗

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Index of verse

Rigveda (cont.) 10.64.1 218∗ 10.68.1 253 10.69.11d 291∗ 10.71.11 116, 118 10.77.1b 25, 252∗ 10.79.6c 279, 280∗ 10.80.3a 287 10.85.3a 109∗ , 110 10.88.1a 242 10.88.13c 279 10.93.12b 247 10.99.2c 247 10.100.2b 272

10.102.6c 264 10.114.9d 45∗ 10.115.4cd 132, 170∗ 10.128.5d 261∗ 10.130.6cd 110∗ 10.137.1c 24 10.143.4a 232 10.155.2cd 169 10.164.5c 282 10.167.4b 229 10.169.4a-c 267∗ 10.170.4a 289 10.183.1c 267

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Index of authors Ackerman and Moore 64 Ackerman et al. 130 Aikhenvald 338 Aissen 41 Aitzetmüller 31 Al Sharifi and Sadler 147 Alexiadou and Anagnostopoulou 84 Alexiadou and Rathert 147 Alsina 64 Altshuler 35 Amith and Smith-Stark 147 Anderson 44 Andrews 52, 58 Anttila 274, 313 Arka 140, 324 Arnold 2, 88, 240 Arnold and Sadler 49, 88, 160 Asudeh 49, 59, 70, 71, 74, 222 Asudeh and Giorgolo 58, 64, 65, 70, 138 Asudeh and Toivonen 47 Asudeh et al. 52, 65, 66, 166 Attia 113 Austin and Bresnan 49 Bach 95 Badecker and Caramazza 21 Bader 284 Baker 5, 37, 321, 323 Baker and Vinokurova 147, 317, 321 Balles 284 Bammesberger 274 Banfield 41 Banti 38, 40, 320 Bartholomae 284 Bary and Egg 26 Bary and Haug 8, 59, 62, 67, 69, 168, 183, 187–9 Bauer, B. L. M. 310 Bauer, G. 34 Bauer, H. and Leander 320 Bauer, L. 21 Baum 9 Bavant 310 Beaver 69 Beekes 23 Beermann and Hellan 183

Behrens et al. 303, 304 Belyaev 183, 325 Belyaev and Vydrin 325 Benveniste 20 Bögel 71 Bögel and Butt 49 Bögel et al. 41, 49, 70, 71 Bopp, Franz 329 Börjars 32 Börjars et al. 49 Burrow 233, 262 Butt 45, 62, 64 Butt and King 38, 49, 64, 70, 71, 72, 78, 113, 119, 146 Bybee et al. 213 Caland 284 Callaway 10 Cantera 182 Cardona 329 Carr 269 Catt 291 Chantraine 284 Chierchia 222 Choi 38, 71, 72 Chomsky 47, 49, 118, 135 Christie 140 Clackson 311 Comrie 34, 95, 339 Cowgill 253, 303, 306 Croft 47 Crouch and de Paiva 58 Crouch and van Genabith 58 Crouch et al. 91 Culicover and Jackendoff 47, 183, 325 D¯oyama 204 Dahl, E. 2, 8, 9, 26, 29, 33, 35, 36, 136, 197–202, 200, 204, 222, 243, 337, 338 Dahl, Ö. 144, 337 Dalrymple and Mycock 71, 75 Dalrymple and Nikolaeva 71, 168 Dalrymple 39, 47, 58, 66, 71, 78, 97, 133 de Bernardo Stempel 24 de Groot 317

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Index of authors

de Lamberterie 6, 21 de Saussure, Ferdinand 329 Dehé et al. 130 Dekkers et al. 44 DeLancey 144 Delbrück 7, 10, 37, 109, 111, 116, 147, 182, 195, 204, 207, 208, 262, 276 Demirdache and Uribe-Etxebarria 33, 34 den Dikken 130 Dik 38 Dione 113, 307 Dixon 5, 284, 307 Dixon and Aikhenvald 5 Di Giovine 31 Dowty 64 Drinka 8 Duchesne-Guillemin 269 DwarikadasShastri and Shukla 101, 329 Dyvik 119 É. Kiss 37 Ebert 317–19, 321 Ebert et al. 317 Eichner 309 Eklund 8 Emonds 323 Evans 322, 324 Fabricius-Hansen and Haug 84 Falk 47, 91, 113, 119, 320 Flobert 8 Foley and Van Valin 47, 191 Forssman 24, 312 Fortson 311 Frank and Zaenen 71, 78, 91 Friedrich 311 Frisk 280 Fry 62 Gaedicke 147 Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 314 García Ramón 23, 26, 265, 287 Garrett 307 Gazdik 72 Geldner 2, 27, 134, 135, 141, 142, 185, 237, 242, 253, 254, 262, 272, 283, 310 Gillon and Shaer 37 Giorgolo and Asudeh 70, 71, 140, 160 Gippert 2, 308 Girard 59 Givón 325 Glasbey 62 Goldberg 47

Gonda 1, 38 Goodwin 168 Got¯o 9, 25, 27, 139, 145, 170, 208, 233, 242, 251, 253–5, 256, 262, 271, 276, 285–7, 289, 291, 292 Grassmann 242, 262, 267, 283, 310 Grestenberger 6, 21, 135, 147 Grimshaw 44 Guo et al. 49 Gusmani 6, 23 Hale 3, 37, 40, 44, 132 Halpern 41, 44 Halvorsen and Kaplan 57, 70 Haspelmath 21, 80, 101, 183, 213, 307, 308, 316, 317–19, 323 Haspelmath and König 317 Haug 8, 35, 39, 59, 62, 65, 67, 69, 129, 133, 156, 164, 166, 168, 183, 187, 188, 213 Haug and Nikitina 8, 90, 102 Haug et al. 35, 67, 86, 97, 154, 166, 180, 319 Heenen 9, 32, 220 Hertzenberg 119 Hettrich 88, 136, 190, 303 Hill 9 Himmelmann and Schultze-Berndt 86, 192 Hinge 274 Hintze 32, 281 Hirt 233 Hock 37, 38, 40, 88, 126, 190 Hoffmann 9, 18, 26, 219, 229, 265, 270, 275, 281, 312 Hoffner and Melchert 307 Holland 125 Hopper and Thompson 4, 149, 323 Hübschmann 284 Humbach 233, 269, 283 Iida 79, 147 Insler 25, 233, 241, 254, 265, 283, 293 It¯o 32 Jackendoff 49, 135 Jacobsson 10 Jaeger and Gerassimova 41 Jamison 3, 8, 9, 11, 23, 37, 42, 95, 124, 127, 130, 136, 138, 142, 181, 229, 241, 242, 243, 247, 253, 254, 259, 261, 283, 292 Jamison and Brereton 1, 2, 95, 134, 142, 205, 254, 260, 262, 271, 272 Jasanoff 27, 28, 29, 31, 232, 233, 245, 248, 249, 253, 237, 274, 292, 309, 313 Jaszczolt 33

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Index of authors Jeffers 20 Joachim 254, 270 Jones 8 Kalinina 323 Kammenhuber 306 Kamp and Reyle 33, 67 Kamp et al. 59 Kaplan 70, 74 Kaplan and Bresnan 47, 48, 64 Kaplan and Butt 78 Katre 329 Katz 34 Kaufmann et al. 222 Keenan and Comrie 97 Keith 124 Kellens 240, 241, 261 Kellens and Pirart 283 Keydana 2, 6, 9, 19, 20, 37, 40, 47, 79, 102, 103, 122, 125, 126, 135, 136, 137, 139, 142, 171, 260, 268, 269, 287, 321 Keydana and Luraghi 136 Kibort 64, 79, 307 Kielhorn 335 Killie 10, 11 King 41, 49, 71 King and de Paiva 64 King and Zaenen 72 Kiparsky 18, 26, 29, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39, 198, 222, 313, 338 Klein, J. S. 31, 38, 277 Klein, W. 33, 34, 67, 95, 156, 221, 323 Klingenschmitt 24, 285 Kloekhorst 275, 288, 307, 309, 313, 314 Knobl 25, 116, 169, 170, 178, 193, 196, 249, 256 Kobayashi 13, 14, 37 Kölligan 253, 289 König 168, 169, 175, 176, 178, 180, 192 König and van der Auwera 150, 151 Koptjevskaja-Tamm 319 Kortmann 97, 179, 183, 188, 191, 319 Kratzer 35, 222 Krifka 67 Krisch 37, 40, 139, 182, 238, 251, 267, 269 Kroeger 49 Kuhn 44, 58, 91 Kulikov 8, 9, 27, 29, 232, 233, 236, 238, 252, 269, 310 Kümmel 9, 18, 26, 27, 30, 31, 35, 134, 134, 170, 177, 208, 214, 216, 217, 229, 231–3, 235, 236, 238, 242, 243, 246–8, 252, 256–8, 266, 268, 271, 272, 286–8, 292, 309, 312 Kuryłowicz 24, 313, 323



Kuz’mina 2 Laczkó 79, 113, 130 Larsson 34, 120 Laudanna et al. 21 Laughton 8, 10 Legendre 44 Legendre et al. 44 Lehmann 280, 310 Lehmann and Moravcsik 324 Lehrman 306 Leumann 6, 293 Levin and Rappaport Hovav 138 Liao 168 Lowe 17, 23, 28, 37, 40, 41–4, 47, 48, 58, 60, 62, 65, 67, 71, 75, 79, 86, 113, 130, 131, 132, 133, 145, 147, 212, 242, 276, 277, 279, 280, 284, 285, 287, 288, 290, 291, 292 Lowe and Mycock 38, 71, 72 Lubotsky 22, 127, 170, 233, 241, 242, 254–6, 261, 267, 286, 288 Lühr 41, 112, 313 Luraghi 101, 136, 138, 141, 143 Lyons 323 Maiocco 102, 128 Maling 147 Manessy-Guitton 30 Manolessou 7 Matasović 313 Matić 38 Matsumoto 120 Mayrhofer 30, 32, 141, 175, 241, 254, 262, 270–2, 274–6, 282, 285, 290, 310 McCarthy and Prince 44 McCawley 34 McCone 312 McFadden and Alexiadou 34 Meid 306 Meier-Brügger 24, 27, 311, 313 Meillet 8, 274, 306 Melchert 24, 273, 306 Meyer-Viol and Jones 34 Miceli and Caramazza 21 Michaelis 34 Migron 211, 233 Mirambel 7 Mithun 321 Mittendorf and Sadler 147 Mittwoch 34 Mohanan 97 Morpurgo-Davies 313 Mottausch 27

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Index of authors

Müller 2, 47, 130 Mumm 18, 26, 31 Muskens 59 Mycock 38, 45, 70, 75 Mycock and Lowe 71, 75, 76 Nakhleh et al. 306 Narten 9, 175, 200, 224, 243, 247, 255, 259, 292, 312 Nedjalkov, I. V. 317–19, 323 Nedjalkov, V. P. 101, 317, 319 Nedjalkov, V. P. and Jaxontov 307 Needham and Toivonen 140 Nemati 49 Neu 307 Nikitina 79 Nikitina and Haug 102, 103 Nikolaev 274, 275, 285, 312 Nikolaeva 5, 323 Nishimura 281 Nishiyama and Koenig 34 Nordlinger 49, 58, 319 Nordlinger and Sadler 113, 324 Nussbaum 284–7, 290, 292 O’Connor 72 Oberlies 147 Oertel 124, 125 Oettinger 27 Oldenberg 170, 237, 242, 253, 276 Olsen 23, 274 Osthoff, Hermann 233 Payne et al. 49, 323 Perlmutter 41 Peters 313 Peterson 88 Petit 313 Piccoli 8 Pinault 2, 172, 281, 286, 287 Pinkster 86, 168 Pischel 262 Pischel and Geldner 262, 282 Platzack 147 Pollard and Sag 47 Potts 160 Prince and Smolensky 44 Probert 312 Puhvel 308 Radford 323 Rákosi 140

Ramstedt 317 Randall and Jones 27, 28, 315 Rapold 317, 319 Rappaport 79 Rasmussen 23 Rau 23, 253, 284–6, 290, 293, 314, 315 Raza and Ahmed 49, 147 Reichelt 233 Reichenbach 33 Renou 2, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 18, 25, 31, 32, 124, 134, 135, 170, 242, 243, 262, 270, 272, 277, 282, 293, 310 Reyle 222 Ringe et al. 306 Risch 284 Rix 27, 288 Rix et al. 30, 290, 293 Roesler 293 Rosén 113 Ross 4 Rumsey 310 Ruppel 102–6 Růžička 183 Sadler 50 Sadler and Arnold 49 Sadler and Spencer 78 Sag et al. 47 Savčenko 310 Schachter and Shopen 4 Schaefer 9, 30, 229, 232, 247, 285, 309 Schaffner 288, 312, 313 Schäufele 37, 45, 47, 140 Schindler 288, 312 Schlerath 310 Schmidt 232, 309, 310 Schultze-Berndt and Himmelmann 86 Seebold 30, 232, 313 Seiss 79 Sells 44 Sen 147 Senart 13 Sharma 336 Shatskov 284, 285 Sigurðsson 136 Sihler 285 Simpson 41, 49 Simpson and Withgott 41 Skjaervø 26 Sluiter 102 Smith 35 Smyth 168, 310 Snijders 129, 133

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Index of authors Sommer 10, 274 Spector 49 Speyer 7, 9, 10, 85, 147 Squartini and Bertinetto 213 Staal 37 Stassen 325, 326 Streitberg 233 Strunk 243, 275 Sturtevant 306 Subramania-Iyer 336 Sulger 113 Szemerényi 23, 273, 274 Talmy 180 Thieme 18, 272 Thim-Mabrey 10 Tichy 6, 9, 21, 26, 27, 32, 241 Tikkanen 84, 101, 201, 204, 207, 248, 300, 304, 317, 319 Toivonen 49, 130, 140 Tonhauser 35 Tremblay 30, 232 Tronskij 310 Tucker 6, 21, 22, 147, 230, 248, 286 Uhlenbeck 310 Ultan 32, 33 Vaillant 310 van der Wurff 138 van Kemenade 147 van Nooten and Holland 2 van Riemsdijk 147 Van Valin 47 Vester 86 Villar 310



Vincent and Börjars 147 Vine 253, 292 Viti 37, 38, 192, 303 Völmin et al. 317 von Böhtlingk 101, 329 von Böhtlingk and Roth 262, 284 von Hinüber 147 von Prince 147 von Stechow and Grønn 158 von Stutterheim et al. 34 Voyles 269 Wachter 182 Wackernagel 40, 281, 282, 284 Wackernagel and Debrunner 21, 30, 243, 251, 270, 272, 275, 281, 286, 287 Watkins 3, 24, 181, 284, 292, 293, 309, 313 Weiss 24, 317 Wescoat 49, 75 Wetter 320 Wetzer 4, 5, 323 Whitney 7, 116, 147 Widmer 288, 313 Willi 31, 259, 311, 313, 315 Witzel 2 Witzel and Got¯o 1, 2, 262 Witzel et al. 2 Ylikoski 320 Yuasa and Sadock 183, 325 Zaenen and Crouch 140 Zaugg-Coretti 319 Ziegler 103 Zwolanek 310

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

Index of languages and words For each language, words are arranged according to the order of the native script and/or philological tradition. Agul gada-ji(-n) 198 Armenian atamn 312 barjr 285 Avestan ajiiamna- 279 aŋhaiθiia- 281 an.ku.pәsәmna- 269 aˇs.a- 281 aˇs.aoxšaiiant- 269 išarә 282 -u- 290 usan.t- 288 ust¯ana- 241 ust¯ana.zast¯o 241 xšaiian.t- 274 g¯aθ (r)¯o.raiiant- 269 taršu- 292 daidiian.t- 249 daibišiian.t- 261 darәšat 288 darši- ˜288 D¯arayat.raθa- 270 tbišiian.˜t- 261 ˜pait¯ı.mrauua t 283 paršat- 290 ˜ paršat.gauu- 290 paršu-˜ 290 + pis- 293 √ bar 310 barәn.t- 310 bәrәzan.t- 285 bәrәzi- 285 b¯ušiian.t- 31 n¯a ŋhaiθiia- 274 yaogәt 236 ˜ t¯e 236 yaojan . vasasә.xšaθ ra- 288 vasah- 288 vas¯a 288 vas¯o 288

vazәn.t- 310 v¯aunuš 283 v¯ata- 275 v¯ıuuaŋhuša- 24 V¯ √ıuuahuuan.t- 24 v¯˘ı d 241 v¯ıdan.t- 241 v¯ıduš 283 raocah- 293 scan.t¯u 247 sruii¯e 233 -h- 288 haiθiia- 280 hanan.t- 241, 243 Balto-Slavic ∗ ¯ed- 312 Classical Luwian d Tarhuuant- 309, 314 walant(i)-/ulant(i)- 309 Danish vil 32 English cause 172 could 198 eat 138 -ing 1, 79, 319 must 199 participle 3 see 112 should 198 walk 78 will 32 would 198 Germanic ∗ Burgund- 285 ∗ w¯ıgand- 312 Gothic allwaldands 269 berusjos 274 bruþfaþs 272

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

Index of languages and words hundafaþs 272 mitaþs 274 sunja 280 tunþus 312 þaursus 292 uswakjan 181 winds 275 Greek áeis 275 á¯esi 275 a(n)- 280 báll¯o 245 bárbaros 290 bebl¯eménos 245 biduioi 273 bl¯e´menos 245 gér¯on 286 despót¯es 272 édontes 312 eipo¯´n 183 hék¯elos 288 heko¯´n 287, 288, 312, 314 épeimi 273 epiónt- 273 epioúsios 273 héspeto 247 ékh¯o 310 ékh¯on 310 é¯on 178 tharsé¯o 293 thrasús 288, 292 idu˜ıoi 273 kré¯on 315 mainás 274 mártures 273 megálos 285 metékhein 4 metokh¯e´ 3, 4 m¯e´ 280 odoús 312 hósios 274 ou(k/kh) 280 pent¯e´konta 30 spésthai 247 ste˜utai 236 stugé¯o 253 stúgos 289 terpikéraunos 282 terpnós 282 -to- 8 pheré-oikos 270 phér¯o 310



phér¯on 310 khaír¯o 182 Hittite adant- 307 ašant307, 309 √ ed/ad 307 √ eš/aš 307 huuant275 √ kuen 307 kunant- 307 mekki 285 -nt- 24, 307, 314 parku- 285 šarku- 311 šarninkant- 311 tukkanzi273 √ uekk 288 Hieroglyphic Luwian Tarhunt- 309 Irish Brigit 285 Latin abs¯ens 273 absentia 273 absum 273 aegr¯otus 292 aegrum 292 alumnus 24 calumnia 24 d¯ens 312 ¯est 312 ¯evid¯ens 310 f¯emina 24 impati¯ens 280 ing¯ens 285 l¯uc¯ere 293 n¯on 280 particeps 3 participium 3 pati¯ens 280 satis 276 sci¯ens 273 scientia 273 sci¯o 273 seges 274 teges 274 torr¯ens 293 vege¯o 181 veh¯ens 310 veh¯o 310

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



Index of languages and words

Latin (cont.) ventus 275 Vertumnus 24 vide¯o 310 Lezgian kˆxiz(waj) 308 Lithuanian bu¯´siant- 31 dantìs 312 dúosiant- 31 Luwian/Lycian lãta- 309 -mma/i- 24 Trqqñt- 309 Middle Persian spihr 293 Mycenean Greek Wi-du-wo-jo 273 Old Church Slavonic byšo˛št- 31 pro-svьtě sę 293 jasь 313 Old English duÇuþ 274 sweord-berende 269 t¯oþ 312 w¯ıgend 312 Old High German alawaltenti 269 dorr¯en 293 tugund 274 wîgant 312 zant 312 Old Irish d¯et 312 ith- 312 lóchet 285 Old Norse sverð-berandi 269 to˛nn 312 Old Persian xš¯ayaθ iya- 274 jiyamna- 279 D¯arayavauš 270 d(a)ršam 288

Ossetic zärond 286 Pali -ana- 147 -ka- 147 -tar- 147 Proto-Indo-European ∗ bh rgh ónt- 285 ∗ déms-poti- 272 ∗ √d h eh 265 1 ∗ √d h ers 293 ∗ d h i-d h éh -ti 308 1 ∗ d h i-d h h -ónt- 308 1 ∗ d h i-d h h -ónt-s 309 1 ∗ -eh - 27, 292, 293 1 ∗ -eh -no- 292 1 ∗ -eh -nt- 292 1 ∗ -eh -ti- 292 1 ∗ -eh -tó- 292 1 ∗ -ét-/-ot- 274 ∗ gérh -ont-/grh -nt- 312   ´ ∗ g u m-ské-nt- 308 ∗ g u m-ské-ti- 308 ∗ h d-ont-/h d-nt- 312   ´ ∗ √h ed 312, 313 1 √ ∗ h e-h uk- 30 1 1 ∗ √h ei 270  √ ∗ h es, 280, 313 1 ∗ h s-ónt-/h s-nt- 313   ´ ∗ h ént- 313 2 √ ∗ h ueh 275, 313   ∗ h uéh -nt-o- 275   ∗ -i- 285, 292 ∗ -io- 274 ∗ √kueit 293 ∗ -lo- 288 ∗ -men- 24 ∗ -mh no- 24, 291, 311, 315, 316 1 ∗ -mn-o- 24 ∗ -mo- 24 ∗n ´ -h s-ont- 280 ∗ -no- 292 ∗ -nt- 273, 284, 285, 288, 307–12, 314, 315 ∗ -nt-i- 273 ∗ -o- 292 ∗ póti- 272 ∗ √pres 290 ∗ -r-/-n- 282 ∗ -ro- 274, 285 ∗ -s- 288

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

Index of languages and words ∗ -s-/-t- 23 ∗ -se- 32 ∗ √seh 276 2 ∗ √ters 293 ∗ -tó- 8, 292, 307, 308 ∗ -u- 23, 285, 292 ∗ √ueg h 310

∗ uék-ont-/uk-nt- 288, 312 ´ ∗ -uent- 314 ∗ uid-us-io- 274 ∗ -uos- 23, 28, 249, 307, 309, 315

Proto-Indo-Iranian ∗ ut s -tn¯ aná- 241 ∗ -dhy¯ ai 308 Prakrit agamam¯ın.a- 24 palakam¯am¯ına- 24 sam¯an.a- 25 Russian Church Slavonic mogutь 273 teplъ 290 Sanskrit -a- 19, 28 -aka- 147, 337 ákr¯ı.lant- 276, 279 áks.¯ıyam¯an.a- 279 ághnant- 278 ∗ a˙ nku- 269 a˙nk¯uyánt- 269 a˙nkte 237 ácikitvam . s- 277 ácet¯ana- 242, 253 acodát- 274 acodánt- 274 áchidyam¯ana- 279 ájaghanvam . s- 277, 278 añj¯aná- 237 -át- 223, 249, 274 átapyam¯ana- 279 ∗ átarsi 292 . -(a)tí- 274 átr.pam 282 átti 313 -atnu- 147 átsi 188 -atha147 √ ad 232, 252, 255 adánt- 252 ad¯aná- 232, 242, 252, 255 ád¯aś¯us..tara- 258, 275



ád¯aśvam . s- 258, 277 ádeva- 17 adyatana 338 ádvayant- 251, 276 ádvayas- 251 ádvayu- 251 ádhi 130 adh¯ıyánt- 332 adhr.s.as 293 á(n)- 281 -ana- 19, 147, 337 ánapavyayant- 277 an¯aśvám . s- 331, 332 -áni- 147, 149 ánr.ta- 280, 281 an¯uc¯aná- 266, 267, 296, 331, 332 ánes.ata 21 -anta 127 ánna- 238, 253 ánniyant- 238, 253 ápa 130 apasédhant- 169 apiśa¯´ 293 ápr.n.ánt- 264 ápros.ivam . s- 277 ábibh¯ıvam . s- 277 ámarta- 250 ámardhant- 278 aminá- 20 áminant- 145, 279 amŕ.ta- 250 -áya- 22, 28, 127, 249, 261 áyatant- 277 árarivam . s- 266, 277 áris √ . an.yant- 279 arh 146, 260, 333 árhant- 146, 260, 333 avakraks.ín- 253, 254 ávadh¯ıt 55, 56, 58, 78 ávidus..tara- 275 ávidvam . s- 277 avyayat 176 √ aś 331, 332 ∗ aśaya 293 áśayat 293 aśnánt- 169 aśvahayá- 254  √as 25, 113, 116, 118, 131, 132, 172, 173, 178, 269, 270, 274, 280, 307  √as 220 asatyá- 281 ásant- 281 asaścát- 274

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



Index of languages and words

Sanskrit (cont.) ásaścivam . s- 277 -as¯ana- 6, 293 ás¯avi 233 asinvá- 276 ásinvant- 276 asis.yánt- 220 ásridh- 251 ásridh¯ana- 242, 251 ahám 124 áhim . syam¯ana- 279 áhray¯an.a- 243 a¯´ 130, 147, 148 -¯a- 293 a¯ gáccham¯ana- 24 a¯ tta- 20 a¯ d¯arín.- 147 a¯ dhŕ.s.- 292, 293 -¯ana- 238, 255, 291–4, 301, 331, 337 a¯ rujatnú- 148, 275 a¯ rujánt- 275 a¯√vív¯asant- 95 a¯ s 116, 118 a¯´√ sant- 280, 281  i 116–18, 120, 130, 269, 270, 331–3  √i 20, 238 -i- 21, 147–9, 284, 302, 332 ichánt- 169 íti √ 41, 42 idh 233, 234, 242 idh¯aná- 233, 234, 240–2, 244, 245, 247, 252, 255, 299 -ín- 147, 337 inóti 20, 238 índh¯ana- 234, 238 indhé 233, 234 √ inv 238 ínvati 238 ínvant- 238 íyant- 23 iy¯aná- 229, 237  √is 141, 201 .  √is 141 . √  is 141 . -is.- 28 -is..tha- 147, 149 is.n.ánt- 141, 201 -is.n.u- 337 ¯´ı mahe 229, 237 -(¯ı)yam . s- 147–9 yase 206 ¯ı√ ¯ır 183

ráyant- 183 ¯ı√ ¯ıś 31, 231, 265 ¯´ı ś¯ana-/¯ıś¯aná- 31, 231, 265 ¯ıś¯ana-k´r.t- 31, 266, 272 ¯´ı śe 231, 265 ¯ıs.át 281, 282 ¯´ı s.ate 282 -u- 147, 302 -uka147 √ uc 30 utt¯aná- 241 utpátant- 188 ud¯´ı rat 241 udr.s.ánt- 169 udvát- 282 upahatnú- 275 upeyivám . s- 331, 332 ur¯an.á- 208, 243 uśánt- 182, 287, 288, 312, 314 uśám¯ana- 256 uś¯aná- 241 -ús.- 24 us.ám¯an.a- 255 us.ás- 104 us.a¯ n.á- 255 us.ivám . s- 331 úh¯ a na209, 243 √ r. 233, 241 ∗ rji- 270 . r.jú- 270 ŕjyant- 270 r.ñjas¯aná- 6 r.n.vé 233 r.tá- 205 r.√ ta¯´van- 30 r.dh 242 r.dhánt- 242 r.hánt- 285 edham¯ana-dvís.- 272 okivám √ . s- 30 kam 148 kará- 19 karan.á- 19 karis.yánt- 227 karis.yási 218 kártave 19 kártr.- 337 kavatnú- 275 k¯amín- 148 kíyant- 23 kurvánt337 √ kr. 18–20, 25, 28, 29, 80, 147, 205, 218, 222, 232, 236, 242, 269, 270

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

Index of languages and words kr.n.óti 228 kr.n.vánt- 228 kr.tát- 242 ´ kr √. tv¯ı 19 kr.p 240–2 kr.pate 242 k´r.pam¯an.a- 240–2 ? √kraks 254 . kráks.am¯an.a- 253, 254 kránt- 205, 242 krandád-is . .ti- 272 √ krap 242 kr¯an.á- 236, 237, 242 kriyáte 228 kriyám¯an.a- 228 kriy¯ √ aprabandha 338 kr¯ıd. 276 kr¯ı.lant- 276 ∗ kré 237 ks.áyant- 274 ks √. árant- 262 ks.a¯ 274 ks √. iyánt- 199 √ks.¯ı 279 kh¯a 30 khidvah. 30 gáchati 308 gáchant308 √ gam 30, 130, 204, 242 gáv- 17, 22 gavyánt- 21  √g¯ a 259, 275 gun √ . a 330 guh 212, 232, 240, 242 guhát- 242 guhám¯ ana- 212, 232, 240, 242 √ gr. 281 gr.n.ánt- 261–3, 296 gr.n.a¯ ná- 203, 232, 240 gr.n.¯´ı te 20 gr √. n.¯ıs.áni 20 g¯r. 232 gó-mant- 17 gmánt185, 204, 205, 242 √ ghas 20, 252 ghnánt- 169, 275, 278, 307 cakr.ma¯´ 205 cákri- 6, 147, 148, 302, 332 cakrús . 24 √ . am caks. 111 cakhvám . s- 30 √ car 116–18, 120, 259 carátha- 250



cárant- 259 cikitvám . s- 214, 227 cikitván¯ a 24, 251 √ cit 24, 130, 142, 232, 236, 240, 253, 277 citánt- 240, 242, 289 citáyant- 142 cít¯ana- 232, 236, 238 cité 232, 236 citrá289 √ cud 183, 274 cetáyant- 130 códant- 274 codáyant183 √ chid 279 jaks.uh. 20 jágat- 259 jaganvám . s- 30 ∗ jág¯ ati 259 jagdhá- 20 jagmús.- 30 jaghanvám . s- 214, 278 jághni- 148 jajñ¯ √ aná- 214, 227 jan 254, 257 jánam¯ana- 254 janit´r.- 257 jánitr¯ı- 257 Jamád-agni- 271 jáyant- 169 járati 286, 309 járant-/jurat´- 286–8, 309, 311, 312, 314, 315 jarás286 √ jas/das 212, 240, 242 jásam¯ana- 212, 240, 242 jáhat- 177 jáh¯ati 20 jahitá- 20 ja¯´gr.vi- 122 j¯agrat- 281 j¯agrat-svapná- 272, 282 j¯agrad-dus.vapnyá- 283 j¯atá- 257 j¯ana¯´ti 25 ja¯´yam¯ana- 257 jígat- 275 jigatnú- 275 jíg¯ati 259 jighatnú- 275 jígh¯am . sant- 219 jírvi- 286 jívri- 286 j¯ırn.á- 309 jujus.a¯ n.á- 210, 211, 214, 245

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



Index of languages and words

Sanskrit (cont.) juránt242, 286–8, 311, 314 √ jus. 26, 210, 211, 232, 240–2, 245 jus.ám¯an.a- 26, 212, 240, 241 jus √. a¯ n.á- 170, 210–13, 232, 241, 242, 245 √j¯r. 286, 309 jñ¯a 25, 252, 257 -tá- 8, 20, 150, 257, 301, 302, 307, 309, 320, √ 337 taks. 243 táks √ . at- 243 tan 241 tanuté 237 tanv¯ √ aná- 237 tap 200, 279, 290 tápant- 199, 200, 203, 290, 315 tápu- 290 -tama- 147, 275 -tara- 275 -tavaí 319 -tavyà- 192 tasthivám . s- 214, 259 -ti- 147 -tu- 319 túgra289 √ tuj 216, 253, 268 tujánt- 289 tujáyant- 253 túji- 289 túñjam¯ana- 253 túñj¯ana-/tuñj¯aná- 253 -tum 319 turánt- 253 tu¯´tuj¯ana-/t¯utuj¯aná- 216, 268 t¯utod 141, 184 tu¯´rvant- 309 -tr √. - 6, 8, 21, 147, 148, 257, 302, 317, 339, 340 tr.p 281 tr . pát 242, 281, 282 √ tr.s. 292 tr.s.at 293 tr.s.a¯ n.á- 242, 292, 293 tr.s.itá- 292 tr.s.ú- 292 tr.s.n.áj- 292 tr.s.ya¯´vant- 292 ∗ ttá- 20 -(t)ya¯˘ 8, 317 Trasá-dasyu270 √ tr¯a 142 tra¯´yam¯an.a- 142, 303 -tva√ 192 tvar 253

´ -tv √ a¯ 8, 84, 85, 317, 319 tv¯ay 22 -tva¯´ya 317, 319 tv¯ayánt- 22 -tv¯´ı 317, 319 dám . -pati- 272 d(h)áks.at- 240, 242, 243 dattá- 20 datté 20 dad¯aśvám . s- 258, 259 dadivám . s- 266 dadr.ś¯aná-pavi- 272 dadvám . s- 266 dádhat- 169, 308 dadhanvátah. 24 dádh¯ati 308 dádh¯ana- 227, 237 dánt312, 313 √ dabh 257 daśasyánt- 169, 201 dásam¯ ana- 240, 242 √ √dah 240, 242, 243 d¯a 17, 20, 32, 266 d√a¯´ti- 17 d¯aś 30, 258, 277 d¯aśvám . s- 30, 258, 259, 266, 296 d¯asyánt- 31 didyut¯aná- 247 dípsant- 257 dipsú- 257  √d¯ı 224 d¯ıdivám . s- 214, 224 d¯´ı dyat- 224 d¯´ı dhyat- 249 d¯´ı dhy¯ana- 238 dúgh¯ana- 231, 232, 238, 240 dúdhi- 285 dudhrá- 285 dúrvidvam . s- 266 √ duh 203, 231, 232, 274 duhánt- 27, 274 dúh¯ana-/duh¯aná- 28, 203, 231, 232, 235 duhé 27, 203, 231, 235 √ dr.ś 111, 232, 238 d´r.ś¯ana-/dr.ś¯aná- 232, 238 dr √. s.a¯ n.á- 293 √dr.h 281, 282 d¯r. 147 devá- 17 dógdhi 27, 231 dódha(n)t285 √ dyut 238, 242, 247 dyutád-dyu- 247

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

Index of languages and words dyutád-y¯aman- 247, 272 dyutánt- 242, 243, 247, 271 dyút¯ana-/dyut¯aná- 238, 242, 247, 248 dravác-cakra- 272 dravát 281, 282 dravát-p¯an.i- 272 dravád-aśva- 272 drávant- 264, 272, 282 drahyát 281, 282 √ dru 264, 281, 282 dvá- 251 dvayú251 √ dvis. 260, 333 dvis.ánt- 260, 261, 296, 332 d(h)áks.at- 240, 242, 243 dháks.i 243 dhatté 237 √ √dhan 24 √dh¯a 20, 265, 269 dh¯aray 333 dh¯arayát-kavi- 270 dh¯aráyant- 332 dhis.an.yánt- 254 ´ dhis √ . a¯ - 254 dh¯ √ ı 238, 249 dhr.s. 240, 242, 281, 288, 292 dhr.s.át 281, 282 dhr.s.ata¯´ 288 dhr.s.ánt- 28, 242, 282, 288, 292, 315 dhr.s.ám¯an.a- 240, 242 dhr.s.a¯ n.á- 28, 292, 293 dh´r.s.i- 288, 292 -dhyai 20 -n- 285 -na√ 8, 241 naks. 243, 272 naks.ad-d¯abhá- 272 náks.ant- 243, 272 nad¯ √ ı-v´r.tam 88 nas 274 ∗ násant- 274 Na¯´satya- 274 nighn¯ √ ana- 333 √nij 243 nid 243, 257 nid¯aná- 243 nínitsa- 257 ∗ nínitsant- 257 ninitsú- 257 nimrúc- 104 niyuv¯aná- 256 nirn.ij¯aná- 243 niryuv¯an.á- 256



niśís √ . an 170 n¯ı 21 -nú√ 25, 149, 275, 337 nu¯˘ 253 nuvánt- 253 n´ √r.- 158 nr.t 250 n´r.tama- 250 nr.tám¯ana- 242, 250 nr.tú- 250 nr.mn.a¯´ni 251 nétr.- 21 nés..tr.- 21 -nt- 23, 25, 223, 224, 255, 271, 282, 284, 285, √ 290, 291, 294, 299, 307, 310, 315, 330, 337 pac 146, 175 pácant- 146, 175, 261 pañc¯aśát- 30  √pat 281 patayát 281, 283 patáyant- 283 páyate 255 páyas¯a 255 páyobhih. 255 parakramam¯ana- 24 paroks.e 337 par¯avát- 282 pávam¯ana- 226, 227, 262, 332 paspr.dh¯aná- 247  √p¯ a 136, 242  √p¯ a 262 pa¯´nt- 242 pa¯´nta- 242, 275 píbati 20, 136 píbadhyai 20 píbant- 241 píy¯ √ ana- 212, 245, 247, 255, 293 piś 133, 293, 309 piś¯aná- 132, 133, 242, 293, 294 ∗ piślá- 293  √p¯ı 212, 245, 255, 275, 293 p¯´ı pivám . s- 214 p¯´ı py¯ana-/p¯ı˘py¯aná- 245 p¯´ı yatnú- 275 p¯´ı yant- 275 p¯´ı van- 293 p¯´ı vara- 293 p¯´ı vas- 293 punar-manyá- 20 pun¯ √ aná- 226, 227 p¯u 333 p¯uyám¯ana- 262

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



Index of languages and words

Sanskrit (cont.) √ pr.c 208, 243 pr.c¯aná- 208, 243 pr.n.ánt- 264 pr.thú- 293 p´ √r.s.ant- 290, 309 p¯r./pr¯a 264 pépiśat- 309 péśas- 293 prá 130, 132, 240, 282 pracetáyant- 130 prajajñivám . s- 257 √ prath 209, 243, 247, 253, 293 práthas- 293 prath¯aná- 209, 243, 247, 293 prabúdh- 104 pravát 281, 282 praśís.- 170 prasáks.at- 240, 242, 243 prasánt¯a 132 prasah¯aná- 243, 247, 293 prastubh¯ aná- 243, 256 √ pr¯ı 134 pr¯ın.ánt- 134 pr¯ ın.a¯ ná- 134 ∗ √pru 282 badbadh¯aná- 229 badbadhé 229 babhr¯an.á- 229 babhré 229 bárhis..tha- 147 bahú282 √ b¯adh 229 bíbharti 26 bib¯ıvám . s- 174, 216 bíbhram¯an.a- 253 bibhr¯ √ an.a- 333 budh 207, 232, 243 budh¯aná- 207, 211, 243, 245 bubudh¯aná- 207, 211 br.bád-uktha- 290 br √. bú- 290 br.h 285 br hánt23, 113, 148, 282, 285, 312, 314, 315 . √ brahman.y 154 brahman.yánt- 154 bruv¯ √ an.á- 232, 236 √br¯u 232, 236 bhand 139, 271 bhandate 139 bhandád-is..ti- 139, 271 ∗ bhándant- 271 bhándam¯ana- 139, 271

bháyate 247 ∗ bháyant- 247 bháyam¯ana- 173 bhárati 26 bharádv¯aja- 17, 276 bháribhrat- 132 bhávant- 179 bhavis.yant- 339 bha¯´radv¯aja- 17, 276 bhíks √ . am¯an.a- 169 bhid 242 bhidánt- 242 bhiyás¯ana- 293 bhiy¯ √ aná- 173, 243, 247 bh¯ı 6, 173, 174, 216, 232, 243, 247, 277, 327 bh¯ √ ımá- 6, 327 bh¯u 116, 118, 179, 269, 270, 337, 339 bh¯ √ uta- 337 √bhr. 26, 229, 253, 310 bhr¯aj 289 bhra¯´jaj-janman- 272, 273, 289 bhra¯´jad-r.s..ti- 272, 273, 289 bhra¯´jant- 272, 273, 289 bhra¯´jas- 289 -ma6, 24, 284, 327 √ math 175 mathyám¯ ana- 175 √ mad 242 madhyám . dina- 104 √ man 20, 109–12, 114, 153, 173, 243 man¯ √ aná- 173, 243 √manth 175 mand 135, 242 mand¯aná- 242 mányate 20 mányam¯ana- 153, 173 mamandvám . s- 135 √ mardh 278 márdhant- 278 marmr.j¯aná- 229 máhas- 285 maha¯´nt- 284, 285 máhi- 284  √m¯ a 181 -(m)¯ana- 23, 25, 291, 330 mina¯´ti 21 mím¯ √ ana- 181 mis. 139 mis √ . ánt- 139 √mih 275 m¯ı 21, 145, 279 m¯ıd.hvám . s- 30 m¯ı.lhús..tama- 275

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

Index of languages and words m¯ √ı.lhús.mant- 30 mr.j 229 mr . √ j¯aná- 229, 237 mr.d. 261 mr..layáttama- 261, 275, 276 mr..láyant-/mr..layánt- 261 mr.s..té 237 mehatnu¯´- 275 -ya- 192, 274, 279 ˘ -(t)y √ a¯ 8, 317 yaks. 243 yáks.ant- 243 yaks √ . yám¯an.a- 220 yaj 220, 333 yájam¯ ana- 261, 262, 332 √ yat 239, 241, 277 yatati 277 yátant- 277 yát¯ana-/yat¯aná- 239, 241, 247 yád 188, 189 yánt- 226, 227, 269, 270, 274  √y¯ a 181  √y¯ a 229 ya¯´nt- 261 y¯avayatsakhá- 272 -yú- 21  √yu 243, 256  √yu 256 √ yuj 95, 139, 140, 206, 210, 232, 243, 311 yuj¯aná- 206, 209, 236, 241, 243, 245, 247, 299 yujmahe 209 ∗ yujé 236 yuñjánt311 √ yudh 243, 253 yuyuj¯aná- 27, 95, 206, 209 yuyuj¯aná-sapti- 27, 272 yuv¯aná- 243 yem¯aná- 229 yemé 229 yodh¯aná- 243, 253 -ra√ 284 raks. 243 ráks.ant- 243 ráks √ . am¯an.a- 253 rapś 271 rapśád-¯udhan- 271, 272 ∗ rapśánt- 271 √ ram 273 rámati- 273 rámant- 273 rayi-páti- 272



rár¯an.a-/rar¯an.á- 266, 267, 276 rar¯an.át¯a- 276 rarivám . s- 266  √r¯ a 266, 277 rin.a¯ ná- 237 rin √. ¯ıté 237 ris. 240, 259 ris.at 259 rís √. ant- 242, 259, 296 rih 145 rih¯an.á- 145 r√ ¯´ı s.ant- 240, 242, 259, 296 ruc 232, 243, 247, 293 rúc- 293 ruc¯ √ aná- 243, 293 √ruj 148, 275 rudh 242 rudhánt- 242 ruvánt- 253 rúśat-paśu- 273, 285 rúśant273, 285 √ r¯u 253 res.at 259 rocís √ . - 293 laks. 334 laks.an.a 334, 335 -vám . s- 23, 24, 30, 223, 224, 249, 291, 299, √ 307, 310, 331 √vac 267, 331, 332 vaj 181 vádasi 188 -ván24, 30 √ van 95 vana-kraks.á- 253, 254 -vant24, 30 √ vand 145 vándam¯ana- 145 varivasyánt- 187, 203 vartam¯ana- 336, 337, 339 várdhati 246 vavárdha 246 vavr √ . dhánt- 256 vaś 256, 287  √vas 183  √vas 1, 95, 231, 255  √vas 277, 331, 332 vás¯ana- 1, 95, 231, 255 vásu-pati- 272 váste 231 √ vah 209, 232, 243, 310 vahát- 274 v¯aghát- 274

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



Index of languages and words

Sanskrit (cont.) v√a¯´ja 181 v¯ajay 181 v¯ajáya- 181 v¯ajáyati 181 v¯ajáyant- 181 va¯´ta- 275 va¯´nt- 275 v¯arttika 335, 336 v¯avaś¯aná- 214 v¯avr.dháti 256 v¯avr.dh¯aná- 214, 227 v¯avr.dhé 246 ví 25, 289 vij¯anánt- 252 vij¯anvám . s- 25, 252  √vid 30, 232  √vid 30, 174, 216, 231, 232, 277 vidát- 242 víd¯ana-/vid¯aná- 30, 231, 232 vidús..tara- 266, 275 vidvám √ . s- 137, 174, 214, 216,227, 266, 274 vidh 241, 242, 265 vidhánt241–3, 265 √ vip 292 víp- 293 vipanyú- 292 vipa¯´ 293 vip¯aná- 242, 292, 293 vípra- 292 vibhra¯´jant- 289, 315 Vivasvant- 24 viś-páti- 272 viśva-píś- 293 viśvam-invá- 20 vis √. phuránt- 177 v¯ı 268  √vr 232, 233, 235 .  √vr˘¯ 176, 208, 243 . vr.n.a¯ ná- 176, 208 vr √. n.vé 233, 235 vr.t 336 vr ddhi 330 . √ vr.dh 138, 242–4, 246, 256 vr.dhánt- 28, 242, 244 vr.dh¯aná- 28, 243, 246–8 vr.s.ad-añji- 271 véda 266 vehát- 274 vaídadaśvi276 √ vyadh 177 vyánt- 268

vyuchánt183 √ vye 176, 277 vr¯ √an.á- 233, 235 vr¯adh 291 vra¯´dhant- 291 vr¯adhanta 291 vra¯´dhantama- 276, 291 ∗ vré 235 √ śam . s 263 śám . sant- 263, 296 śatád-vasu270 √ śam 268 śáy¯ana- 203, 231, 238 śáye 27 śaśam¯ aná- 214, 227, 268 √ √ś¯a 170 ś¯as 132, 170, 242 śíks.ant- 169 śiti-pád- 293 śiti-pr.s..thá- 293 śilpá- 293 śis √. ánt- 132, 170, 242 ś¯ı 27, 231 śukrá289 √ śuc 17, 232, 240, 243 śucád-ratha- 272 śucánt- 242, 256, 272, 289 śucám¯ana- 232, 240, 243 śúci√ 17, 289 śubh 232, 236, 243, 293 śúbh- 293 śubh¯aná- 236, 243, 293 śubhrá- 293 śuśruvám . s- 331 śus.ánt- 241 śr.n.vé 233 śéte 27 śóbhas- 293 śóbhe 236 śrád269 √ √śru 331, 332 śvas 241 śvasánt- 169, 241 śvásiti 241 √ śvit 292 śvit¯aná- 242, 292, 293 śvítna- 293 śvitrá- 293 śvetá- 293 -s- 28, 289, 293 -sa- 28, 32 sam . yát- 274 sam . vid¯aná- 177

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i

Index of languages and words sáks.at- 243 sáks.anta 243 sáks.i 243  √sac 208, 243, 247, 274  √sac 277 sácam¯ana- 208 sac¯aná- 208, 243, 247 sát-pati- 272 satyá274, 280 √ sad 136, 206, 242, 272, 331, 332 sádant- 170, 206, 242 sádas-pati272 √ san 148, 219, 241–3, 268 sánant- 241–3 -sáni 20 sanis.yánt- 219, 220, 227 sanóti 243 sánt- 25, 131, 132, 173, 178, 179, 226, 227, 272, 274, 280, 281, 307, 309 santya- 281 saparyánt- 169 sám 274 samar¯an.á- 233 sampr.ñc¯aná- 208 saran.yá- 254 saris.yánt- 221 sarvá- 17 sarvát¯at- 17 sáścat-/saścát- 274 saścima 247 sasavám . s- 174, 268 sasr.m¯an.á- 25, 215, 256 sásni- 148 sasr¯ √ an.á- 25, 256 sah 30, 174, 240, 242, 243, 247, 289, 293 sáh- 293 sáhant- 289 sáhantama- 276 sáham¯ana- 289 sáhas- 289, 293 sahas¯aná- 293 sah¯aná- 247 s¯ adád-yoni- 138, 271 √ s¯adh 190 sa¯´dhad-is..ti- 273 sa¯´dhant- 169, 190 s¯am¯ıpya 338 s¯asah¯aná- 247 sa¯´hant- 289 s¯ahvám . s- 30, 247 -si √ 298 sic 230, 288



sicyáte 230, 299 siñcáti 230 siñcánt- 230, 299 ∗ sinóti 276 -sis.- 28 sís.a¯ sant- 219 s¯´ı dati 136 s√ ¯´ı dhant- 169 s¯ıv 176 s¯ıvyánt- 176 -sú√ 21, 257 su 81, 146, 232, 233, 241, 262, 333 sunvánt- 81, 93, 146, 261–3, 296, 297, 333 sunv¯aná- 234 sunvé 233 suv¯aná- 186, 233, 236, 240, 241, 255 súvidvam . s- 266  √s¯ u 220 su¯´rya- 104 s¯urya-śvít- 293 su¯´s.yant- 220  √sr 25, 221, 256 √ . sr.j 232, 243, 246 sr.j¯aná- 186, 236, 241, 243, 246 ∗ srjé 236 . sedivám . s- 13, 331 seh¯aná- 30 sóma262 √ stan 200 stanáyad-ama- 272, 273 stanáyant- 200 stava¯´n 309, 310 stáv¯ana-/stav¯aná- 232, 236, 238 st¯ayát 281 st¯ √ayú- 281 √stubh 243, 256 stu 232, 263, 309 stuvánt- 261, 263, 296 stuv¯ √ aná- 236, 256 sth¯a 116, 118, 250, 259 stha¯´- 259 sth¯atŕ- 250, 259 ∗ stha ¯´nt- 242, 250 -snu149, 337 √ spr.dh 243, 247 spr.dh¯aná- 243, 247 spr.hayád-varn.a- 271, 272 ∗ sprháyant- 271 √ . sph¯r./sphur 177 sma 337 -sya- 339, 340 sravát- 274

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 27/3/2015, SPi i

i



Index of languages and words

Sanskrit (cont.) √ sridh 251, 277 srídh251 √ svan 242 svanát- 242 svanád-ratha- 272 svapne-dus.vapnyá- 282 svàrn.ara- 172 hatnú- 275 ´ hatv √ a¯ 84, 85 han 84, 148, 219, 241, 275, 277, 278, 307, 333 hánis..tha- 148 hanis.yánt- 219 háyant- 175, 242, 254 haryánt- 181 hárs √ . ant- 255 √h¯a 20, 32, 177 √hi 233, 243, 254, 334 him . s 279 hitá- 20 hinv¯aná- 235 hinvé 233, 235

hiy¯aná- 233, 235, 240, 243 huvánt- 242, 252 huv¯ √ aná- 203, 236 h¯u 203, 252 hetu √ 172, 334 hr¯ı 243, 277 Swedish vil 33 Tocharian A kom . -pärk¯ant 285 pärk-är 285 wänt 275 Tocharian B kaum . -pirko 285 pärs¯ate 290 park-re 285 yente 275 Umbrian vufru 274

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Index of subjects ablaut acrostatic 23, 243, 249, 288, 312 amphikinetic 287–8, 311–15 hysterokinetic 312–15 absolute constructions 100–9 genitive absolute 102, 103, 126 typology 101 absolutive 7, 84, 126, 186, 223, 305, 317 accent 270 in compounding 273, 289 stative 238–9 accusative alignment 307 accusative of goal 271 ‘accusativus-cum-participio’ 112 acrostatic ablaut 23, 243, 249, 288, 312 action nouns 317, 319, 322 adjectival verbs 5–6, 301, 302, 327–8 adjectives transitive adjectives 135, 147, 302 with converbal functionality 182 with copular participle, 179 vs. participles, 301 adjunct (adj) 101, 303 adjunction 49 adnominal functionality 85, 87–94 meaning constructor 155 phrase-structure rule 91 semantics 154–61 adverbs 281–3, 288 in Avestan 283 Aeolic Greek 249 agent noun 6, 8, 19, 20, 147, 257, 317, 337, 339 Agul 198 amphikinetic ablaut 287–8, 311–15 Anabasis 320 anacoluthon 124, 185 analogy 18, 232 aorist participles 245–7 compound accent 273 morphosyntactic alignment 310 root accentuation 238 Anatolian 306–11, 314 split from PIE 305 Ancient Greek 143, 178, 183, 189, 197, 200, 222, 247, 284, 289, 299, 301, 303, 305, 306, 315, 319

aorist participle 207 chaining 187 constituent structure tree 39 ‘framing’ participle 188–9 genitive absolute 126 infinitive 320 linguistic influence 305 negated participle 280 object omission 141 purposive participle 171 perfect participle 249 word order 38 anterior aspect 29, 31, 34–7, 67–8, 158, 163, 180, 185–6, 207, 213, 214, 217, 223, 339 aorist 240–8 active participles 243–4 analogy 245 causal participles 173 lexicalized participles 265 mediopassive participles 244–7 obsolescence 223, 248, 298–9 participial semantics 204–13 participles as converbs 318 participles in Greek 207 participles in PIE 311 participles vs. perfect 204 passive aorist 29, 232–3, 236, 238, 252, 292 purposive participles 170 reduplicated 259 s-aorist participles 243 stem 28 tense-aspect properties 204–13 thematic vs. root aorist 243 Arabic 147 converb 317 Aramaic 320 argument/adjunct distinction 139 argument structure 64, 70 Aristarchus 4 Armenian 24, 285, 305 aspect 33–6, 67 Ast¯adhy¯ay¯ı 101, 329–40 Atharvaveda 283, 292 attendant circumstance 180–3 attribute-value matrix 52 auxiliary verbs 117

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Index of subjects

Avestan 2, 112, 147, 247, 280, 284, 288, 290, 292 adverbs 283 locative absolute 103 participles 240 Transitive nominals 147 backward control 133 bahuvr¯ıhis 272 Balto-Slavic 6, 290, 312–13 Bhart.rhari 336 Br¯ahman.as 147 c-structure 48 Caland system 282–94 amphikinetic ablaut 311–15 case distribution 261, 266, 268 cause 153, 172–4, 195, 196 Cayuga 321–2 Celtic 306 chaining 183–7 aorist participles 185 in Ancient Greek 183 perfect participles 185 chain verb 183 Chinese 324 cline of argumenthood 140 cline of verbality 4, 296, 301, 323 clitic 40, 42–4 complementary functionality 86, 109–16 complementizer phrase 41 completive participles 109–16 diachronic development 114 f-structure 110 completive participles 324 complex categories 91 compounding 269–73, 282 accent 273 bahuvr¯ıhis 272 determinative compounds 272 development of 271 governing compounds 242, 270–3 preverbs with sánt- 131 split compound 283 conative imperfective 201 concession 178–80, 195 conjunction 188 constraining equation 57 contingency 187–9 converb 317, 318, 321 functions 85 typological definition 316 converbal functionality 85, 94–100

case distribution 96 meaning constructor 161 modification of adjuncts 97 modification of arguments 96 semantics 161–96 coordination 183 corpus-based languages 3 correspondence function 53, 60, 70 Dargwa 318 defining equation 57 demonstrative pronouns 42 denominal participles 21–2, 154, 253, 269 derivational morphology 21 derivation from participial stems 273–81 desententialization 304 desiderative 32 vs. future 218 Dh¯atup¯a.tha 309 diathesis 25, 315 Dionysius Thrax 4 discourse configurationality 37, 47, 49–50, 193 Discourse Representation Theory 59 ellipsis 137, 140, 144–6 English 1, 3, 47, 147 modals 198 participles 1, 79, 97, 319 perfect tense 34 Epic Sanskrit 147 epithets 87 equivalence 176–7 equi verbs 222 ergative alignment 307 eventuality 95 event semantics 62–71 event time (E) 33 evidentiality 26, 36, 213, 223, 338 exocentricity 40, 126–7 f-structure 48–58 finiteness 5 functionality relations 150–2, 190–6, 230, 279 functional control 98 future converb 318 participial semantics 217–22 purposive participles 171 stem 31 tense-aspect properties 217–22 vs. desiderative 218 vs. subjunctive 218

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Index of subjects G¯ath¯as 2 genitive absolute 102, 103, 126 genre 11 German 147, 319 Germanic 10, 11, 27, 269, 285, 306, 312, 313 gerund 7–8, 10, 19, 204, 317, 319–20 glue semantics 58–71 Gothic 125, 183, 280, 292, 305 nominative absolutes 125 governing compounds 242, 270–2 gradient of informativeness 179, 191–4 Greek Ancient see Ancient Greek Homeric 306 Modern 7 Mycenaean 306 New Testament 133 Hebrew 320, 322 Hel¯ar¯aja 336 Hindi/Urdu 45, 49 Hitopadeśa 116, 119 Hittite 112, 288, 307, 309 verbal stems 311 Homer 2 Homeric Greek 306 Hungarian 317, 322 hypotaxis 192 Iliad 2 immediative tense 33, 68, 207, 221, 338 imperfect 26, 222 lack of participles 299 imperfective aspect 26, 156, 200, 222 conative interpretation 201 with telic verbs 200 inclusion relation 35 ‘independent’ participles 121–7 Indian grammatical tradition 329–40 future tense 339–40 participial functions 334 participial semantics 334–40 past tenses 337–9 present tense 336–7 Indo-Aryan 2–3, 224 Indo-Hittite 306 Indo-Iranian 200, 305, 306 linguistic influence 305 infinitives 320 purposive 193 to tense aspect stems 20 inflection 21, 23, 80, 134–5, 316 information structure 37, 71–4



inside-out functional uncertainty 57 intentional converb 318 Iranian 200, 288 isolating languages 324 iteration 200 Jaimin¯ıyabr¯ahman.a 262 Japanese 120, 147 K¯alasamuddeśa 336 Kalmyk 318 K¯aśik¯avr.tti 101, 338 Kath¯asam . hit¯a 247 K¯aty¯ayana 335, 336 Kiranti 321 Korean 324 Lachmann’s Law 313 language acquisition 192 Latin 112, 126, 168, 305, 306, 319 ‘dominant’ participle 102 negated participles 280 Lexical-Functional Grammar, 47–83 lexicalized participles 93, 257–69, 295, 297, 300 aorist 265 case distribution 261, 266 derivatives from 275 intransitivity 146 perfect 266 stative 265 lexicon 78–83 Lezgian 308 linear logic 59 locative absolute 100–9 Avestan 103 continuity of VP 128 f-structure 101–2 origin 103 Luwian 6, 24, 309, 314 Lycian 24, 309 Mah¯abh¯as.ya 335 manner 180–3 Mark (Gothic gospel) 125 masdar 317, 321 meaning constructor 58–71 adnominal 155 chaining 186 contingency 189 converbal 161 ‘independent’ participles 197 means 174–6, 195, 196

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Index of subjects

migration of Indo-Aryans 2 mixed category 79 modification 160 Mohawk 321–2 morphological structure 71 morphology 14–33, 78–83, 302 aorist stem 28–9 finite verb 17–19 future stem 31 inflectional 21, 23 morphemes 298 nominal morphology 14–17 non-finite 19–22 participles 22–5, 78–83 perfect stem 29–31, 33 present stem 25–6 recategorization 298 stative stem 27–8 morphosyntactic alignment 307–11 Mycenaean Greek 306 Nahuatl 147 Narten present 312 nasal statives 233–6 negated participle 264, 276–81, 296 neutral aspect 26, 35, 201–2 Nighan..tu 262 nominal predication 123 nominative absolute 124 non-finite typology 316–27 non-restrictive modification 160 non-taxis functions 318 nonce-formations 24, 175, 232, 249–56, 296 nonconfigurationality 37, 49 -nt- suffix 23 null-copula clauses 113 null object 136 null pronoun 143 objects 230 oblique-case 136 obsolescence aorist participles 212, 298–9 aorist tense 223, 248 perfect tense 223, 248 stative 240 Odyssey 2 Old Persian 270, 288 Old Avestan 2, 103, 147, 170, 233, 236, 247 Old Church Slavonic 31, 183, 293, 306, 313 Old English 147, 269 Old Saxon 112 open adjunct (xadj) 98

open complement (xcomp) 110 Optimality Theory 44 P¯an.ini 172, 260, 309, 329–40 P¯ali 147 participial functionality 85, 150–2, 166–96, 230 ambiguity 190 case distribution 190 tense-aspect relations 190, 200 participle aorist 240–8 Aramaic 320 as a term 3–6 as inflectional verb form 21, 23 as reduced relative clause 89 Avestan 240 case distribution 96 coherence as a category 295–7 completive participles 324 derivatives from 273–81 English 1, 79, 97, 319 expressing tense 202, 223, 299 frequency in Rigveda 226 functionality 85, 150–2, 166–96, 230 Germanic 10 ‘independent’ 121–7 Latin 10 lacking objects 230 lexicalized 93, 257–69 morphology 22–33, 78–83 negated 276–81 periphrastic 324 productive categories 248–9 Proto-Indo-European 10 stative 231–40 subcategorization 134–49 tense and aspect 222–4 typological definition 316 unexpected patientivity 229 verb phrase 127–33 within nominal system 301–2 within verbal system 8 passive aorist 29, 232–3 past perfect 31 semantics 214–15 Patañjali 335 patientive alignment 27, 229, 232–6, 308–9 perfect causal participles 174 English 34 lexicalized participles 266 loss of participle 298

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

Index of subjects mediopassive 229 obsolescence 223, 248 participial semantics 213–17 participles as converbs 318 participle frequency 214 productivity 248 semantic development 246 stem 29 tense-aspect properties 213–17 periphrasis 116–21, 324 perspective time (P) 33 phonology 13–14 phrasal categories 44 phrase-structure 37–44, 48, 91 Plato 8 poetic tradition 3 posterior aspect 36, 67, 221, 223, 339 Prak¯ırn.akaprak¯aśa 336 precedence relation 34 present acrostatic 249 participial semantics 199–202 participles, position of 193 participle as general converb 318 stem 25 tense-aspect properties 199–202 presupposition (∂) 69 preterite present 27 preverb 42, 130–3, 282, 289 productivity 248–9 acrostatic presents 249 in derivation 20 mediopassive aorist 247 perfect mediopassive 248 projection architecture 70 pronoun 42 prosodic inversion 43 prosodic structure 70, 74–8 Proto-Indo-European 222, 284, 309 ablaut 313 constituent structure 39 morphosyntactic alignment 307–11 participial syntax 305–6 participle negation, 280 participles 305–16 post-Anatolian 305 verbal system 315 Proto-Indo-Iranian 8, 29, 241, 270, 280, 311 PS-rules adnominal participles 91 completive participles 110, 111 converbal participles 99 discontinuity 129 left-dislocation 127



locative absolute 102 Rigvedic clause 40, 42 pseudo-absolutive 186 purpose 169–72 195, 196 Quechua 324 quotative 41 reduced subordinate clause 187, 303, 304 reduplicated aorist 259 reference time (R) 33 Reichenbachian tense-aspect 33–5, 67–9 relative clause 303 relativepronoun 42 restrictive modification 160 result 177–8, 196 Rigveda 1–3 Rigvedic syntax 37–46 phrasal categories 44 word order 37 Romance infinitives 320 Russian 212, 324 converbs 317 participles 317 s-aorist 210, 243 s-stem nouns 289 Salish 324 ‘second position’ clitics 127 secondary predication 94 semantic form 52 semantic structure 58–71 semantic weakening 117 semi-auxiliary 269, 270 Semitic 324 Śivas¯utras 330 Slavic 24, 305, 306, 324 participles 320 Sophist¯e´s 8 speech time (S) 33 split compound 283 stative lexicalized participles 265 nasal statives 233–6 participial accent 238–9 participial semantics 202–4 participles 231–40 participles as converbs 318 stem 27 tense-aspect properties 202–4 stative perfect 31 reanalysis as present 217 semantics 216–17 subcategorization 134–49

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i



Index of subjects

subjunctive vs. future 218 subordinate clause 303 participles as 304 reduced 303 semantics of 202 Swedish 120, 147 syntactic string 44, 74–8 Tagalog 324 Taittir¯ıyasam . hit¯a 254, 262 Tamil 7 taxis functions 318 Tékhn¯e Grammatiké 4 template 66 tense in participial system 223 participles expressing 202 tense-aspect 33–5, 67–9 future 221 in participial system 222–4 irregular formations 20 loss of aspect in Indo-Aryan 224 participial stems 298–300 semantics of 197–224 stem 36, 197, 297–8 Tibetan 322 tmesis 130–3 Tocharian 305 transitivity 271 lexicalized participles 146

negated participles 277 nominals 146, 302 null objects 136 object case 136 typology 316–27 Urdu 49, 147 V¯akyapad¯ıya 336 V¯arttika 336 verbal adjective 5, 79, 150, 269, 301–2, 314–15, 317, 327 verbal nouns 8, 19, 302, 317, 322 verb phrase cohesion 304 discontinuity 127 participles 127–33 Vietnamese 324 Warlpiri 49 well-formedness conditions 56 Welsh 50, 147 Winter’s Law 313 word-class-changing inflection 316 word order participial functionality 194 relation to semantics 193–6 xadj (open adjunct) 98 xcomp (open complement) 110 Xenophon 320

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

OX F O R D S T U D I E S I N D IAC H R O N IC A N D H I S T O R IC A L L I N G U I S T IC S general editors Adam Ledgeway and Ian Roberts, University of Cambridge advisory editors Cynthia Allen, Australian National University; Ricardo Bermúdez-Otero, University of Manchester; Theresa Biberauer, University of Cambridge; Charlotte Galves, University of Campinas; Geoff Horrocks, University of Cambridge; Paul Kiparsky, Stanford University; Anthony Kroch, University of Pennsylvania; David Lightfoot, Georgetown University; Giuseppe Longobardi, University of York; David Willis, University of Cambridge published 1 From Latin to Romance Morphosyntactic Typology and Change Adam Ledgeway 2 Parameter Theory and Linguistic Change Edited by Charlotte Galves, Sonia Cyrino, Ruth Lopes, Filomena Sandalo, and Juanito Avelar 3 Case in Semitic Roles, Relations, and Reconstruction Rebecca Hasselbach 4 The Boundaries of Pure Morphology Diachronic and Synchronic Perspectives Edited by Silvio Cruschina, Martin Maiden, and John Charles Smith 5 The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume I: Case Studies Edited by David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth 6 Constructionalization and Constructional Changes Elizabeth Traugott and Graeme Trousdale 7 Word Order in Old Italian Cecilia Poletto 8 Diachrony and Dialects Grammatical Change in the Dialects of Italy Edited by Paola Benincà, Adam Ledgeway, and Nigel Vincent 9 Discourse and Pragmatic Markers from Latin to the Romance Languages Edited by Chiara Ghezzi and Piera Molinelli 10 Vowel Length from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro 11 The Evolution of Functional Left Peripheries in Hungarian Syntax Edited by Katalin É. Kiss

i

i i

i

i

i

OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 25/3/2015, SPi i

i

12 Syntactic Reconstruction and Proto-Germanic George Walkden 13 The History of Low German Negation Anne Breitbarth 14 Arabic Indefinites, Interrogatives, and Negators A Linguistic History of Western Dialects David Wilmsen 15 Syntax over Time Lexical, Morphological, and Information-Structural Interactions Edited by Theresa Biberauer and George Walkden 16 Syllable and Segment in Latin Ranjan Sen 17 Participles in Rigvedic Sanskrit The Syntax and Semantics of Adjectival Verb Forms John J. Lowe in preparation Variation and Change in the Syntax of Portuguese Relative Clauses Adriana Cardoso Negation and Nonveridicality in the History of Greek Katerina Chatzopoulou The Syntax of Old Romanian Edited by Gabriela Pană Dindelegan Nominal Expressions and Language Change From Early Latin to Modern Romance Giuliana Giusti The Historical Dialectology of Arabic: Linguistic and Sociolinguistic Approaches Edited by Clive Holes A Study in Grammatical Change The Modern Greek Weak Subject Pronoun τ oς and its Implications for Language Change and Structure Brian D. Joseph Gender from Latin to Romance Michele Loporcaro Quantitative Historical Linguistics Barbara McGillivray and Gard Jenset Syntactic Change and Stability Joel Wallenberg The History of Negation in the Languages of Europe and the Mediterranean Volume II: Patterns and Processes Edited by David Willis, Christopher Lucas, and Anne Breitbarth

i

i i

i