Topics in Anatolian Historical Grammar Prof. Dr. H. Craig Melchert

3
As to Grk. γέγωνε ‘shouts’, compelling comparison with TochA ken- ‘call’ points decisively to
an atelic root: “Beide teilen die Eigenschaft der Defektivität und bilden nur imperfektive
Stämme: im Osttocharischen den Präsensstamm, im Griechischen den Perfektstamm; perfektive
Stämme fehlen” (Hackstein 2002: 188). For differing attempts to account for long vowel in root
compare Hackstein (2002: 189-91) and Vine (2007: 352-4).
Evidence for original telic sense of Skt. kan- ‘rejoice’ (Kümmel 2000: 130-33, LIV 2 : 352) and
jav i - ‘hasten’ (Kümmel 2000: 198-9, LIV 2 : 166) is also very weak (see Di Giovine 1990: 281 on
the latter).
3. Case of *leloígh- ‘licks’ more dubious: based on supposed equation of respectively isolated
Vedic ririhvāṃsaṃ ‘the licking one’ (RV 10,79,3d) and Greek λελιχμότες (for *λελιχϝότες)
‘licking’ (Hesiod, Theogony 826). Thus LIV 2 : 404, after de Lamberterie (1998: 375-9) and
Kümmel (2000: 429). If correct, contra de Lamberterie (1998: 379) the perfect does not express
“un état du corps”. Rather with Kümmel, loc. cit., one must concede: “Der vom Perfekt
bezeichnete Zustand ist folglich hier auch nicht naktostatisch, sondern eher durch andauernde
Iteration hervorgerufen bzw. habituell, d.h. es handelt sich um ein zeitlos-kontinuatives
Perfekt.” (emphasis mine—HCM). Note further with Kümmel that this root forms a PIE root
present, has iterative-durative Aktionsart, and the action results in no change in the state of the
subject. However, de Lamberterie’s analysis of Greek questionable: for alternative inner-Greek
analysis see Hackstein 2002: 195-6. Thus ririhvāṃsaṃ may be Vedic creation, merely modeled
on other cases cited.
IV. Compatibility of ‘achieved state’ and ‘iteration’
A. Realization of Aktionsarten dependent on “Verbalcharakter”/lexical semantics: see e.g.
García Ramón (2002).
B. System of Dowty-Vendler (see Dowty 1979) distinguishes states (‘shine’, ‘be’), activities
(‘weep’, ‘walk’)—from which one should distinguish semelfactives (‘blink’, ‘hit’)—, accomplishments
(‘paint’, ‘bind’), and achievements (‘win’, ‘die’). For present purposes the crucial
distinction is statives and atelics (activities and semelfactives) versus telics (accomplishments
and achievements).
As per Di Giovine (1990), Kümmel (2000: 67), et al., stative verbs (e.g. *bheh 2 - ‘shine’) did not
form perfects in PIE. Verbs forming the perfect had to be processual. However, as noted by Meid
(1983: 330), it cannot be accidental that all well established examples of perfects expressing an
attained state are in fact telic, since only telic verbs lead to a result (‘bind’ > ‘hold bound’; ‘die’
> ‘be dead’). However, atelic verbs (‘turn=revolve’; ‘shiver’; ‘hasten’) cannot lead to a result
and an achieved state.
C. Hypothesis 1: the PIE perfect expressed a durative Aktionsart (cf. already in nuce Hirt 1928:
280 and Meid 1983: 330). In telic verbs duration could only be realized in the state resulting
from the action. For atelic verbs the effect was durative or iterative. That reduplication with
*CV- marked duration is not surprising (pace Di Giovine 1996: 117). Special value of durative
Aktionsart in the perfect (vs. varieties of the “present”) surely due to the other defining formal
characteristics: o-grade of root and special endings. For o-grade see Di Giovine (2012).