pri-pretonic rireduplication

It has been proposed that the alternation of *i/*e in the reduplication is maybe the result of two different reflexes of the same vowel. Beekes (1995: 227) suggests it has to do with the accent where *é is the accented form and *i the unaccented reflex. The basis for this hypothesis is Skt. dádāmi (< *de-deh₃mi) and Greek δίδωμι (< *di-deh₃mi)

Beekes proposes that the accent fount in Sanskrit is original and reflects forms where the accent isn't on the suffix, while Greek form originally represents forms where the accent was on the suffix.

As a result Beekes proposes that the paradigm of reduplicated presents looked something like this:

*dé-deh₃-mi,-si,-ti

*di-dh₃-més,-th₁é

*dé-dh₃-nti

I don't feel that this is the most elegant explanation, as it becomes quite hard to understand why the singular has a full-grade in the root while the accent isn't on it.

Personally I think that the accent will have been the same as it was in the non-reduplicated present that is, accent on the root for the singular, and accent on the suffix in the plural. The one exception being that the reduplicated present quite clearly has *-nti for the 3pl based on Sanskrit reduplicated present 3pl suffix -ati which has a ø-grade in the root in Sanskrit. If you adhere the 'accent has to be on a full-grade' rule, the only full-grade left is the vowel *e that we find in the reduplication. I honestly have no idea how the accent ended up all the way over there.

Nevertheless, we do also find the *e in reduplication unaccented in, for example, the perfect so at least the *e/*i alternation cannot be fully explained by an accented/unaccented situation. And as it is definitely possible, at least in a later stage of PIE to have unaccented *e I would like to propose a slightly different interpretation to the accent theory.

Rather than posing the the *e is accented and the *i the unaccented form. I want to suggest that the *e is the pretonic form and the *i is the pro-pretonic form.

*de-déh₃-mi,-si,-ti

*di-dh₃-més,-th₁é

*(?)dé-dh₃-nti

Pro-pretonic reflexes of vowels may sound a bit strange to some, but anyone familiar with Hebrew will be able to tell you that there is indeed an abundance of reflexes of vowels that are different in pro-pretonic position than in pre-tonic position.

take the word qāṭál `he killed' from Pre-Hebrew *qaṭál the accent is on the second syllable, and in the tonic position *a remains a. In pre-tonic position the *a is lengthened to ā (if in an open syllable), while in pro-pretonic position as can be seen in the  2pl. masc. qəṭalten the *a is reflected as ə.

Maybe this pro-pretonic explantion can give us some insight in seemingly related roots where one of the variants has a *i infix.

For example gʰrebʰ- 'to grab, dig' besides gʰreibʰ- 'id.' Which may have split into two roots due to a formation somewhat like this:

*gʰrebʰ-néh₂-mi,-si,-ti

*gʰribʰ-nh₂-més,-th₁é,-énti

It's worth mentioning that indeed the Sanskrit root gṛbh- is found with this present formation, although LIV reconstructs *gʰrebh₂- for that reason it seems a lot nice to reconstruct one root *gʰrbʰ- with the meaning `to grab' which has a *-neh₂ present formation, which caused the root to split up into 2 roots. And the third root *gʰrebh₂- is simply an understandable mistake in LIV by assuming all *-nh₂ formations originally come from roots ending in *h₂ with an *n-infix. While this is undoubtedly the origin, it is clear that the suffix became productive especially in Indo-Iranian.

A quicky look at Pokorny yielded me a few more root pairs that may go together *ned- `to roar' *neid- 'to scold, put to shame' or *neid- `to flow, stream' (roaring of a stream).

*steb(ʰ)- `post, pillar, stump' besides *steib(ʰ)- `pole, stick; stiff'

*uek- `to bend' besides *ueik-  `to curve, bend'

But for these such a nice clear paradigmatic explanation isn't as easy to find.

Comments

[Hans]

Hi, I found your blog via Paleoglot.

I must say I'm not very convinced by all the attempts to force the reduplicated stem formations on the procrustean bed of PIE accentology. My hunch is that these are relatively young - younger than the period when the position of the accent influenced ablaut grades. So formations like *dé-deH3-m(i) / *de-dH3-ént(i) are just built based on an already existing paradigm *déH3-m(i) / *dH3-ént(i), just with the accent being placed on the reduplicating syllable in the forms where the stem would be accented in the unreduplicated paradigms.

The reduplication vowel /i/ one finds in reduplicated "presential" stems is not the result of a regular sound law, but a specific use of the "hic and nunc" particle *i that came into use when PIE shifted from root-defined aspect to morphology-defined aspect and it became necessary to distinguish "aorist" reduplicated formations from "presential" reduplicated formations; *Ce- was replaced by *C-i-. Indo-Iranian conserves a state when that replacement was not yet complete.

[PhoeniX]

First: welcome!

I think it is absolutely correct to question the age of Reduplication. That the ablaut pattern would then be taken from a non-reduplicated form makes sense.

But: This does not explain why PIE would have the accent on the reduplicated syllable, and it definitely doesn't explain why we find *de-déH3-nti (NOT **de-dH3-énti) for the 3pl.

So something weird is going on with the reduplicated present and their ablaut.

I also want to point out that my idea of pro-pretonic reduction probably works better after the productive ablaut period rather than during. Because why would a *e/*i reduplication survive at all outside of the accent?

Assuming the *i is a hic et nunc marker really isn't useful. It morphologically makes very little sense to come up with a new morpheme and infix it in between two consonants of a reduplication. Morphology introduced in languages generally takes on an affixed form, either prefixed or suffix. Only later due to metathesis can these morphemes end up in a different place. Besides that, I take it this hic et nunc particle is also the *-i we find in the personal endings? Then why would we the Proto-Indo-Europeans even consider to add another one?

Lastly: It really is problematic when you want to get to reconstructing the desiderative. which reduplicates with *i as well.

See Sanskrit: pā- > pipāsati 'wish to drink'. To me a desiderative is very much un-hic et nunc. In fact it's mostly like a future. And if you look at the morphology it actually is a future with reduplication.

[Hans]

On the desiderative - to me, it's obviously just a "presential" formation, like all PIE -s(y)e/o- formations that later became desideratives or future tenses in individual languages.

Semantically, it has two parts - the "desired action" and the "desire/wish". While the "desired action" (in your example: "drinking") is not ongoing at the moment of speaking, the "wish/desire" is, and that explains both the presential reduplication class and the use of primary endings.

On the accent in the reduplicated paradigm - I see that I haven't made myself clear. I see two possible paths:
déH3-m(i) / *dH3-mé(s) > *dé-deH3-m(i) / *de-dH3-més, with the accent originally on the reduplication syllable in cases where the stem is accented in the unreduplicated paradigm or
the reduplication syllable was always accented originally and the paradigm was later influenced by the accent pattern of the unreduplicated paradigms into stressing the endings in the plural etc.
That leaves de-déH3-nt(i). My Vedic grammar is in a different country right now, so if you could help me out here - where do you find forms like dadá(:)n(ti)? All I can get out of Lubotskys Rgvedic concordance is 3pl dadati (unfortunately no accented occurrences) and, from dádhāmi, 3 pl. dádhati (i.e. *dhé-dhH1-n.ti) , which actually corresponds neither to your scheme *Ce-CéC-nt(i), nor to my 1st scheme Ce-CeC-ént(i), but would be compatible with an original scheme where the reduplication syllable is always accented.

[PhoeniX]

I see I made a mistake in my reply. Obviously for the 3pl I'm reconstructing *Cé-CC-nti as in the rest of the post. And I agree that that a strange form, but probably the form that we should reconstruct.

It is an interesting thought to think that this would be a retention of the reduplicated paradigm with initial accent. But this would mean that reduplication came to be when the accent still had some influence on ablaut.

It's just puzzling that the whole paradigm was fixed except for one form.

Still am unconvinced about the hic et nunc marker. Why would it need a second one if the *-i was already there in a far more natural place (suffixed at the end of the word rather than infixed ater the first or second consonant in a word).

[Hans]

"It is an interesting thought to think that this would be a retention of the reduplicated paradigm with initial accent. But this would mean that reduplication came to be when the accent still had some influence on ablaut."

Not necessarily. It may just be that (during PIE, IIr. or in Vedic itself) the status was that there were two ending variants
(a)*-énti vs.
(b)*-n.ti

With (a) used when the ending was stressed and (b) when unstressed, so the expected form *dé-dH3-ent(i) would have violated this distribution and the "regular" ending for unstressed positions was substituted, giving the attested dádati from *dé-dH3-n.ti.
On the need for a second "hic et nunc" marker - I used that designation more as a convenient label than as an exact description of the function of *i. Obviously, it's not a hic-and-nunc marker in the reconstructable grammar of PIE - it may have started off like that, or maybe it was more of a "progressive" marker as Glen Gordon puts it - that's not so important here. In the opposition of primary vs. secondary endings it came to mark the non-past, while in the reduplication syllable it came to mark non-perfectiveness when PIE developed the aspectual distinction between aorist and non-aorist (that is, when PIE shifted from differentiating aspect based on root meanings to differentiating aspects based on stem formations), and it became necessary to differentiate reduplicated aorist from reduplicated non-aorist, especially in the forms with secondary endings, where there otherwise wouldn't have been any formal difference.

[me.yahoo.com/a/kBM.M4Fyn.nzyx5FtGr_.y6m7VWd_2Mnxs28nYc-]

So why would *de-déh₃-mi end up with initial accent? If you're trying to go with a distinction in the treatment of pro-pretonic and pretonic vowels, couldn't you just as well use a distinction in the treatment of pretonic and post-tonic vowels?

-Tropylium

[Hans]

giving the attested dádati from *dé-dH3-n.ti.
Noted the mistake in my previous comment only now - the attested form is dádhati from *dhé-dhH1-n.ti.

[PhoeniX]

In reply to Tropylium.

Good job at finding that hole in my reasoning. I actually, without much thought, dismissed the possibility of the original accent being original due to my conception about Accent and its relation to syncope. From that point of view accent on the reduplicated syllable is rather unlikely.

And as a whole the formation is not that likely. I mean to draw an analogy with the noun:

It would mean that *ph2têr's paradigm looked like this:
*peh2-tr
*peh2-tr-m
*ph2-tr-ós

While this situation may be possible, I'm not sure how to explain it from a Pre-PIE situation.

But yeah it should be considered/explained because ignoring facts to so your theory still works is bad science of course ;-)

[Hans]

I do not get the sense for your *peh2-tr/
*peh2-tr-m example. While this formation is not attested for this particular word, what makes it impossible / unexplainable for PIE for other stems?
Isn't that the pattern that is normally reconstructed for root nouns (disregarding the lengthened grade in the nom. sg., which surely is a secondary development)? Something like this could be the reason for the attested gradation of the i- and u-stems, i.e., some of them started off with an always unaccented suffix and later where influenced by the suffix-acented stems in certain forms.

[PhoeniX]

Well, in general you have two types of inflections. Proterodynamic (PD) and Hysterodynamic (HD).

Proterodynamic words have an accent alternating between the root and the stem suffix (these are the *u and *i stems you're describing, that actually have a genitive in *éu/i-s)

Hysterodynamic words have an accent alternative between the stem and the inflectional suffix.

The example I gave for *ph2-ter alternates between the root and the inflectional suffix.

Then there's the holodynamic words that have a nominative with a full grade in the root, accusative with a full grade in the stem suffix and genitive with a full grade in the inflectional suffix.

The most convincing of that type is the word for earth.

nom. *dʰéǵʰ-om-
acc. *dʰǵʰ-ém-m
gen. *dʰǵʰ-m-ós

It would be great if the reconstructed paradigm of the verb was like this, it'd still be weird (in my theory about Pre-PIE I can't currently explain holodynamic words, but they're definitely reconstructible) but it would have a precedent.

Now you have an accent on the antepenultimate syllable and the ultimate syllable, while nowhere in the paradigm it passes the the penultimate syllable.

If anything it looks like it was originally hysterodynamic (like all verbs are) and that the accent was somehow retracted if it was placed on the penultimate syllable. But what triggers this? I don't know.
Why is the accent also retracted in the 3pl. while actually the accent there is on ultimate syllable, and not on the penultimate syllable at all.

I cannot explain it. And as long as I can't the theory presented above about pro-pretonic reduction is probably not incredibly convincing. ;-)

Moor food for thought.

[Hans]

Well, I'm repeating myself, but this dicussion makes me even more convinced that 1) the reduplicated present classes are young (at least younger than the stages in PIE when accent caused zero-grade or o-grade) and 2) that the accent originally always was on the reduplication element, which would make sense anyway, as reduplication is a kind of emphasis. The attested accentuations are the result of influence by the non-reduplicated classes. Perhaps due to the more frequent usage of the 3pl., it didn't move the accent to the ending like the 1pl and 2pl.