Diachronic Perspectives on Suppletion

SON

DE

RD

RU

CK

/OF

FP

RIN

T

Studien

zur historisch-vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft

Herausgegeben von Harald Bichlmeier und Velizar Sadovski

Band 13

Diachronic Perspectives on Suppletion

edited by Ronald I. Kim

baar

Hamburg 2019

Baar-Verlag

Hamburg

URL: http://baar-verlag.com

E-Mail: info@baar-verlag.com

Bibliographische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbiblio-graphie; detaillierte bibliographische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar.

© The authors, the editors and Baar-Verlag 2019

Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außer-halb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Das gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. Druck und Verarbeitung: SOWA, Piaseczno. Umschlagsgestaltung: Linda Sophie Gableske (5°sued), Dresden.

All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or trans-mitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Printed and bound in Poland.

ISBN 978-3-935536-81-3

ISSN 2192-0133

CONTENTS Foreword 7 PART 1: DEFINING SUPPLETION AND ITS CAUSES Lucie PULTROVÁ Suppletion in the Latin perfect system 13 Britta IRSLINGER More tales of two copulas: the copula systems of Western European 27 languages from a typological and diachronic perspective

PART 2: SUPPLETION IN PROTO-INDO-EUROPEAN NOMINAL MORPHOLOGY Jan BIČOVSKÝ Suppletion and the limits of derivational morphology: 79 the case of secondary PIE heteroclitic stems Reiner LIPP The Proto-Indo-European *-r/n- stem suppletion 97 and the locative of heteroclitic neuters

PART 3: SUPPLETION IN INDIVIDUAL INDO-EUROPEAN LANGUAGES Dita FRANTÍKOVÁ The fate of Indo-European suppletive verbs in Hittite 145 Martin Joachim KÜMMEL Suppletive phenomena in older Indo-Iranian noun inflection 155

6 CONTENTS

Ronald I. KIM Adjectival suppletion in Tocharian 173 Svetlana KLEYNER How suppletion in the past tense may have helped to eliminate 193 the synthetic passive in Germanic languages Jiří JANČÍK Komplexe ILLE-Netze in den romanischen Sprachen 213 Ľubomír NOVÁK Verbal suppletion in Yaghnōbī 227 PART 4: SUPPLETION IN AFROASIATIC Václav BLAŽEK The Afroasiatic personal pronouns: 239 a textbook example of a suppletive paradigm Petr ZEMÁNEK Minimal word constraints and possible triggers for suppletion: 271 the “short” imperatives in Arabic Addresses of contributors 287

Verbal suppletion in Yaghnōbī Ľubomír NOVÁK, Prague Abstract: The Eastern Iranian language Yaghnōbī famously preserves several archaic features, including some not found in the closely related Sogdian. Among the approxi-mately three dozen verbs with irregular present and past stems, six (excluding ‘to be’) may be considered suppletive. This study examines their prehistory, comparing equiva-lent forms in Sogdian and other Eastern Iranian languages. The Yaghnōbī suppletive verbs are all formed from inherited verbs of motion; interestingly, they appear to be re-stricted to verbal stems combined with preverbs, except for the present stem of šau - ‘to go’. The Yaghnōbī data furthermore point to the survival of both *gam- ‘to come’ and *gaʜ- ‘to go, move’, with the latter underlying past stems in several Modern Eastern Iranian languages. Keywords: suppletion; verbal inflection; Iranian languages; Eastern Iranian languages; Sogdian; Yaghnōbī; Pamir languages The Yaghnōbī language (yaγnōbī zivṓk) has received attention among Iranists mainly due to its striking similarities with Sogdian, once the lingua franca on the Central Asian routes of the Silk Road. Yaghnōbī-Sogdian similarities have even led to the label Neo-Sogdian for Yaghnōbī (cf. BOGOLJUBOV 1956), and some of the Yaghnōbīs today label their language suγdī zivṓk ‘Sogdian lan-guage’ (cf. Sogd. B sγwδyˀw zβˀk /səγwδyāu əzβāk/), which is rather a present-day phenomenon based on a “national mythology/legend” that the Yaghnōbīs are true descendants of the ancient Sogdians. Aľbert Leonidovič HROMOV was the first scholar who pointed out that Yaghnōbī is not the same language as literary Sogdian, and he proposed that the language continues an unattested dialect of Ustrōshana (HROMOV 1987: 645). Pavel Borisovič LURJE (2008), Yutaka YOSHIDA (2009: 327) and Nicholas SIMS-WILLIAMS (2012) showed that it is the differ-ence in operation of the Sogdian Rhythmic Law which appears to be the main difference between the two languages (cf. NOVÁK 2014). There are also many differences in phonological developments (NOVÁK 2013: 68–131). Yaghnōbī appears in many aspects rather archaic when compared to Sogdian, both in phonology and morphology.

228 ĽUBOMÍR NOVÁK

One of the morphological differences between Yaghnōbī and Sogdian may be observed in different inflected forms of several verbs. Modern Yaghnōbī has three dozen “irregular” verbs that differ mainly in forms of the present and past stem (cf. NOVÁK 2010: 240; HROMOV 1972: 13). The differences may be grouped as follows: 1) paradigm-suppletive stems; 2) suppletive inchoative and passive stems; and 3) conditioned phonological changes of inflected verb forms. Yaghnōbī verbs mostly originate in inherited thematic stems: var- ‘to carry, bear’ < *bar-a- < PIE *bhér-e- (LIV2 76); vant- ‘to bind’ < *band-a- < PIE *bhéndh-e- (LIV2 75). Less frequent are inchoative stems formed from zero grade of the root and the PIE suffix *-ske-: suxs- ‘to burn’ < *ʦux-ʦa- < *ʦuk-sʦa- < PIE *kuk-ské- (root *keuk-; LIV2 331); yuxs- ‘to get used to’ < *iux-ʦa- < *iuk-sʦa- < PIE *h1uk-ské- (root *h1eu k-; LIV2 244); passive stems, formed from zero-grade root and the PIE suffix *-ie- (cf. GERSHEVITCH 1954: §540): mir- ‘to die’ < *m-ia- < PIE *m-ié- (root *mer-; LIV2 439); tir- ‘to go, leave, depart’ < *tʜ-ia-1 < PIE *th2-ié- (root *terh2-; LIV2 633); and causative stems, with o-grade of the root and the suffix *-eie-: sεn- ‖ sa‿in-2 ‘to raise, lift up’ < *ʦān-aia- < PIE *kon-éie- (root *ken-; LIV2 324); sinṓy- ‘to wash’ < *snāʜ-aia- < PIE *snoh2-éie- (root (s)neh2-; LIV2 572). Except for the causative stems, all other verbal stems usually appear with zero-grade vocalism when the PIE past participle ending *-to- is added: var- : vúrta < *bar- : *b-ta-ka-; vant- : vásta < *band- : *bąs-ta-ka-/**b(h)ądz(h)-ta-(ka-); in the case of inchoa-tive and passive stems, the endings *-ʦa- and *-ia- (< PIE *-ske-, *-ie-) are dropped. This feature explains the different present stems and past participles of the Yaghnōbī verbs given above, i.e. suxs- : súxta < *ʦux-ʦa- : *ʦux-ta-ka-; yuxs- : yúxta < *iux-ʦa- : *iux-ta-ka-; mir- : múrta < *m-ia- : *m-ta-ka- or tir- : tṓrta3 < *tʜ-ia- : *tʜ-ta-ka-. Causative verbs add the past participle end-ing after the causative ending *-aia-: sεn- ‖ sa‿in- : sεta ‖ sá‿ita < *ʦān-aia- : *ʦān-aia-ta-ka-; sinṓy- : sinṓyta < *snāʜ-aia- : *snāʜ-aia-ta-ka-. All inherited verbal stems can be modified with preverbs, which in many cases also change their meaning; preverbs can be added to all the stem patterns described above. 1 In the following, I will note the Proto-Iranian continuant *ʜ of PIE laryngeals only in verbal stems (i.e. as in CHEUNG 2007), to better mark the differences between full and zero grades in ver-bal derivation; in preverbs and other reconstructed forms, the laryngeal will be omitted. Vocalic continuants of PIE laryngeals will be indexed to mark their further development in Iranian lan-guages: *ʜI > *i and *ʜII > v (cf. SCHMIDT 1973: 47). For the same reason, the continuant of PIE *m and *n (> Proto-Iranian *a) will be written as *ą. 2 The double bar symbol ‖ separates different forms in the two principal Yaghnōbī dialects, i.e. Eastern ‖ Western Yaghnōbī. 3 This past participle also shows a phonologically conditioned change of the inflected verb form: *tʜ-ta-ka- > *ta r(ʜ)-ta-ka- > *tārta’ə- > *tārtā(-) > tṓrta, i.e. with the regular Yaghnōbī change *-ar- > -ōr- prior to verbal endings in -t(°), *-ϑ(°) > -s(°) ‖ -t(°) and -či (cf. HROMOV 1972: 13).

VERBAL SUPPLETION IN YAGHNŌBĪ 229

Suppletive verbal paradigms, which will be examined in detail in this paper, are few in Yaghnōbī: they are attested only for seven verbs, all of which have historically distinct present and past stems. The verb ‘to be’ with its suppletive stems *ʜah- : *bauʜ- will not be discussed here, as it is suppletive in all Indo-European languages. Except for one case, all the suppletive verbs show differ-ent stems only in prefixed forms. The six paradigm-suppletive verbs in Yagh-nōbī are based on four Iranian stems in the present; the forms of the past parti-ciple come from just three stems.

Yaghnōbī Proto-Iranian etymology Proto-Iranian roots

present past ptcp. present past ptcp. present past ptcp. to go šau- ḗta *či au- *ā-ʜi-ta-ka- *či au- *ʜai - to bring ūr- ūxta *au a-ʜar- *au a-gʜII-ta-ka- *ʜar-

*gaʜ- to go down, descend

wēs- ūxta *au a-ʜi- ʦa-

*au a-gʜII-ta-ka- *ʜai -

to enter tīs- táxta *ati-ʜi-ʦa- *ati-gʜII-ta-ka- to insert, introduce

davár- ‖ divár-

daγáta ‖ diγáta

*ati-bar- *ati-gą-ta-ka-

*bar- *gam- to bring, produce, in-vent, drag, pull out

žavár- ‖ živár-

žaγáta ‖ žiγáta

*niš-bar- *niš-gą-ta-ka-

As mentioned above, all attested Yaghnōbī suppletive verbs are formed with a preverb. The only exception is the present stem of the verb šau- ‘to go’, which corresponds to the nonprefixed thematic verb *čiau-; but the past participle of this verb, ḗta, has a preverb as well as all the other Yaghnōbī suppletive verbs: tīs- : táxta ‘to enter’; wēs- : ūxta ‘to go down, descend’; ūr- : ūxta ‘to bring’; davár- ‖ divár- : daγáta ‖ diγáta ‘to insert, introduce’ and žavár- ‖ živár- : žaγáta ‖ žiγáta ‘to bring, produce, invent, drag, pull out’. The verbs davár- ‖ divár- and žavár- ‖ živár- are formed from the same present stem *bar- ‘to bring, carry’ (< PIE *bher-; CHEUNG 2007: 6) and the verbal prefixes *ati- ‘up to’ and *niš- ‘out, away, separate, beyond’ respectively: *ati-bar- > *ətə-βár- > *tβar- > *dβar- > davár- ‖ divár-; *niš-bar- > *nəš-βár- > *šβar- > *žβar- > žavár- ‖ živár-. The past participle of both verbs is formed from the stem *gam- ‘to come’ (< PIE *guem-; CHEUNG 2007: 98), which usu-ally appears in zero grade before the past participle suffix *-ta- (< PIE *-tó-), i.e. *gą-ta-; the preverbs are the same as for the present stem: *ati-gą-ta-ka- > *ətəγátaʼə- > *tγátā(-) > *dγáta > daγáta ‖ diγáta; *niš-gą-ta-ka- > *nəšγátaʼə- > *šγátā(-) > *žγáta > žaγáta ‖ žiγáta (cf. CHEUNG 2007: 6–10, 98–101). A com-parable suppletion may be observed in Sogdian and Bactrian, e.g. Sogd. SBM ˀˀβr C ˀbr /āβər/ : SBM ˀˀγt /āγət/ ‘to carry’ < *ā-bar- : *ā-gą-ta-; Bactr. αζαβαρ-/

230 ĽUBOMÍR NOVÁK

αζοβαρ-/εζβαρ- : αζγαδο ‘to bring forth, produce’ < *udz-bar- : *udz-gą-ta- (cf. CHEUNG op. cit.). The verbs tīs- and wēs- originate from the inchoative stem *ʜi-ʦa- (< *ʜi-sʦa- < PIE *h1i-ske-), which is formed from the zero grade of the verb *ʜai- ‘to go’ (< PIE *h1ei-), and the preverbs *ati- ‘up to’ and *au a- ‘in front, downwards’ respectively: *ati-ʜi-ʦa- > ati-(i)-sa- > ətīsə- > tīs-; *aua-ʜi-ʦa- > *aua-(i)-sa- > *əuáisə- > wēs-. For the past participle stem of these two verbs, it is often stated that the forms táxta and ūxta originate in the abovementioned Proto-Iranian verb *gam- ‘to come’ (cf. CHEUNG 2007: 98–101; RASTORGUJEVA – ĖDEĽMAN 2007: 122; ANDREJEV – LIVŠIC – PISARČIK 1957: 336, 352); however, when compared to the reflex °γáta of the past participle *(°)gą-ta-(ka-) from the stem *gam-, it is rather difficult to explain the Yaghnōbī outcome in °xta. CHEUNG states that “[m]any Iranian languages have a suppletive paradigm with present stem *Hai and past *gam¹” (CHEUNG 2007: 157). The past participle *gą-ta-(ka-) would thus be reflected as *°γáta in Yaghnōbī as in the forms daγáta ‖ diγáta and žaγáta ‖ žiγáta given above; but the attested forms of these verbs are táxta and ūxta instead (i.e. not †daγáta ‖ †diγáta and †ūγáta). So for the supple-tive forms of these two verbs, another verbal stem has to be considered. The solution lies at hand after a careful study of Proto-Iranian verbs: “‘In many Ir. languages, the root *gam¹ is part of a suppletive paradigm with *Hai. On the relationship between *gam¹ and *gaH¹ see also Klingenschmitt 1989, 81” (CHEUNG 2007: 101). Similarly, RASTORGUJEVA and ĖDEĽMAN state that “*¹gā- ‘to go; to step, walk’ is semantically and phonetically linked with the stem *gam- : ga- < *gm- ‘to move, to walk, to come’” (RASTORGUJEVA – ĖDEĽMAN 2007: 267); “[i]n Proto-Iranian and in succeeding Iranian languages reflexes of this stem [i.e. *¹gam- : gm- : ga- : ǰam- ‘to move, to go; to come, to leave’] in many forms coincide with reflexes of *¹gā- ‘to go; to step, walk, tread’” (op. cit. 117–118). Moreover, they mention that the stem *gaʜ- instead of *gam- appears especially with preverbs (op. cit. 118). Both *gam- and *gaʜ- /gā-/ (< PIE *gueh2-) have a similar meaning: ‘to come’ or ‘to go, move’ respectively (CHEUNG 2007: 93, 98). The zero-grade past participle is then *gʜII-ta-(ka-)4 which accords well with Yaghnōbī °xta: *°gʜII-ta-ka- > *°g-ta-ka- > *°γtaʼə- > *°γtā(-) > °xta. The stem *gaʜ- perfectly fits the past participle corresponding to the present stem wēs-: *aua-gʜII-ta-ka- > *aua-g-ta-ka- > *ṓγtaʼə- > *ṓγtā(-) > ūxta. On the other hand, the past participle táxta differs slightly from the ex-pected outcome of Proto-Iranian *ati-gʜII-ta-(ka-), or even from the previously reconstructed form *ati-gą-ta-(ka-): *ati-gʜII-ta-ka- > *ati-g-ta-ka- > *ətíγtaʼə- > *tíγtā(-) > †tíxta, i.e. with an otherwise unattested change *-í- > -á- (cf. 4 The zero grade of *gaʜ- further develops to *gv- in Iranian languages, i.e. with loss of the laryn-geal. Continuants of zero-grade past participles do not show the development *gʜI-ta- > †gi-ta-.

VERBAL SUPPLETION IN YAGHNŌBĪ 231

CHEUNG 2007: 101; RASTORGUJEVA – ĖDEĽMAN 2000: 112; ANDREJEV – LIVŠIC – PISARČIK 1957: 336; but RASTORGUJEVA – ĖDEĽMAN 2007: 122 give *ati-g(a)ta-). Comparable suppletive forms of the Yaghnōbī verb tīs- : táxta are also quite well attested in neighbouring Eastern Iranian languages, e.g. Sogd. SBMC tys /tīs/ : BMC tγt- /təγd-/; Yazgh. dis- : daγd; from *ati-ʜai- or *ati-ʜi-ia- : *ati-gʜII-ta- come Chor. cȳ- : cγd- or cγdyk ‘to enter, go, come in’, and Ishk. atiy- : atůγd, Sangl. atīy- : atōγd- ‘to enter; to shrink’. The past participles in Yazghulāmī, Ishkāshmī and Sanglēchī show that the suppletive past participle stem was rather *gaʜ- and not *gam-. Another interesting feature is that all these examples point to a shared protoform with the change *-⁽í⁾- > -⁽á⁾- (a-umlauted *i does not develop into ů/ō in Ishkāshmī/Sanglēchī, but *a does; for Yazgh. daγd, both *i and *a may be considered). Unfortunately, neither Sogdi-an tγt- nor Chorasmian cγd- can solve the question of the stem shape: the Sog-dian spelling tγt- may indicate a pronunciation *[təγət-] as well as *[təγd-], and for Chorasmian cγd- both pronunciations *[cVγVd-] and *[cVγd-] may be considered, as HγtI in Sogdian orthography cannot distinguish between *[γVt] and *[γd], and similarly Chorasmian HγdI may reflect both *[γVd] (with voicing of intervocalic voiceless stops) and *[γd]. Moreover, Chorasmian HcI reflects palatalization of *t by a following original *i, which must be older than the at-tested Yaghnōbī, Ishkāshmī and Sanglēchī (and most likely also Yazghulāmī) development *ati-g-ta- > *ata-γ-ta-. (The Sogdian form is indeterminate due to a later merger of unstressed short vowels to schwa; cf. NOVÁK 2013: 90–94.) See also Old Khotanese hīs- : ā(ta)- ‘to come, go’ < *ā-ʜi-ʦa- : ā-gą-ta- or *ā-gʜII-ta- (cf. CHEUNG 2007: 99, 155; BAILEY 1979: 15, 488). The past participle of the verb ūr- – ūxta shows the same suppletive stem as the abovementioned verb wēs-, i.e. *aua-gʜII-ta-ka-. The past participles of both verbs wēs- and ūr- show the same form, but they are grammatically clear-ly differentiated, as wēs- : ūxta is intransitive and ūr- : ūxta transitive. The pres-ent stem comes from Proto-Iranian *ʜar- ‘to set in motion’ (< PIE *h3er-; CHEUNG 2007: 165)5 and preverb *au a-: *aua-ʜar- > *áua-ər- > *ṓr- > ūr-. The last suppletive verb in Yaghnōbī is šau- : ḗta ‘to go’. Its suppletive forms appear to be specific to Yaghnōbī and are not attested in other Iranian lan-guages. The present stem is formed from the stem *čiau- ‘to move, go’ (< PIE *k(u)ieu -; CHEUNG 2007: 40–42) without any preverb: *čiau- > šau-. The past stem comes from the past participle of the verb *ʜai- ‘to go’ and the preverb *ā- ‘towards’: *ā-ʜi-ta-ka- > *ā-(i)-ta-ka- > *ḗtaʼə- > *ḗtā(-) > ḗta. There are 5 More likely not from the similar stem *ʜar- ‘to go to, to go towards, to reach’ (< PIE *h1er-; CHEUNG 2007: 163), as this stem appears not to have suppletive forms in Yaghnōbī, e.g. *abi-ʜar- : *abi-ʜ-ta-ka- > *abi-(ʜ)ar- : *abi-(ʜ)a ⁀r-ta-ka- > *əβíiar- : *əβəi a rtaʼə- > *βīr- : *βyārtā(-) > vīr- : viyṓrta- ‘to find’; cf. Sogd. SBM βyr C byr /βīr/ : S (ˀ)βyˀrt, βy(ˀ)rt B βy(ˀ)rt M βyrt /βyaṙt/.

232 ĽUBOMÍR NOVÁK

also attested nonsuppletive forms šáu ta and šūta (newly formed from the pres-ent stem),6 but they occur very rarely (ANDREJEV – LIVŠIC – PISARČIK 1957: 326). The Sogdian verb SBMC šw- /šəw-, šōC-/ has two past stems: the newly built šwt /šōt/ (instead of expected †/šət-/ < *čiu-ta-) and suppletive SB γrt SM xrt MC xrṯ /xaṙt/ < *xar-ta- (*x-ta-?) ‘to walk, go’ (Proto-Iranian *xar- ‘to go, pass’, CHEUNG 2007: 443; cf. TEDESCO 1923: 294¹; QARĪB 1965: 139). The verb *čiau- appears not to have formed suppletive past participles in most other Iranian languages, but there are a few exceptions: Khvānsārī (Khūnsārī) č- : ēi-/ūm ‘to (be)come’ (CHEUNG 2007: 41); Wakhī čaw- : taγd- ‘to leave, de-part’ (STEBLIN-KAMENSKIJ 1999: 139, 353); questionable is Pashto ʒ- : t(l)əlay (cf. MORGENSTIERNE 1927: 80–81, 2003: 81; CHEUNG 2007: 373). Interesting-ly, Munjī and Yidghā show the same verbs in suppletion as does Yaghnōbī, but in the reverse order: Munj. åy-/ay-/oy- : š əy-/š iy-, Yidgh. oy- : šūi ‘to go, be-come’ < *ā-ʜai- : *čiu-ta-ka-. Yazghulāmī and Balōchī have a different present stem: Yazghulāmī bad- : šod- ‘to go’ < *upa-hat-/*ā-pat- : *čiu-ta-, Balōchī raw- : šut- ‘to go’ < *ʜrab-/*ʜraf- : *čiu-ta- (CHEUNG 2007: 41, 184; cf. MOR-GENSTIERNE 1938: 195, 1974: 18, GRJUNBERG 1972: 277–278). Paradigm-suppletive verbs in Yaghnōbī thus show similarities in the develop-ment of this grammatical feature within the Eastern Iranian area; however, in-dividual Eastern Iranian languages have slightly different suppletive verbs. Yaghnōbī suppletive verbs are few in number and so cannot be fully compared with Sogdian. There is only one suppletive pair attested for both languages, Yagh. tīs- : táxta and Sogd. /tīs/ : /təγd-/ ~ /təγəd-/ to the verbs *ʜai- ‘to go’ : *gaʜ- ‘to go, move’; a similar suppletion pattern may also be observed for the verbs *bar- ‘to bring, carry’ : *gam- ‘to come’, but the Yaghnōbī, Sogdian and Bactrian forms differ in the choice of preverb (cf. CHEUNG 2007: 8). An inter-esting feature of the verb *bar- is that there are attested suppletive forms with the preverbs *ati- ‘up to’, *niš- ‘out, away, separate, beyond’, *ā- ‘towards’ and *udz- ‘up, out’; but the new verb ‘to give’ formed with the preverb *fra- ‘forward, forth’ is not suppletive either in Yaghnōbī tafár- ‖ tifár- : saráfta ‖ tiráfta7 or in Sogdian SBM δβr- B δβr- C ϑbr- /ϑβər-/ : SB δβ(ˀ)rt M δβrt C ϑbrṯ /ϑβáṙt/ < *fra-bar- : *fra-b-ta-(ka-). The Yaghnōbī suppletive verbs *ʜai- : *gaʜ- show an analogous development in other Eastern Iranian languages, especially for verbs with the preverb *ati- 6 If such forms were of old origin, we should expect the form †šúta < *šútā(-) < *šútaʼə- < *čiu-ta-ka-. 7 With an early metathesis saráfta ‖ tiráfta < *ϑráftā(-) < *ϑəráβt aʼə- < *ϑa-βa ⁀r-ta-ka- < *fra-b-ta-ka-. Another, less probable explanation may be a suppletive past participle saráfta ‖ tiráfta < *ϑráftā(-) < *ϑəráβt aʼə- < *ϑa-raf-ta-ka- < *fra-ʜraf-ta-ka- (stem *ʜrab-/ʜraf- ‘to touch, affect, grab’; CHEUNG 2007: 185); cf. Sogd. SBM δβr- B δβr- C ϑbr- : SB δβ(ˀ)rt M δβrt C ϑbrṯ, Khot. haur-, hūr-, hor- : hauḍa-, hūḍa-, hoḍa-, Tumsh. ror- : rorda- < *fra-bar- : *fra-b-ta- ‘to give’, which do not show a suppletive paradigm.

VERBAL SUPPLETION IN YAGHNŌBĪ 233

(Sogdian, Chorasmian, Ishkāshmī-Sanglēchī, Yazghulāmī). Past participles based on suppletive *ati-gʜII-ta- do not appear only with the verb *(ati-)ʜai- (i.e. as in Yaghnōbī, Sogdian, Chorasmian, Ishkāshmī-Sanglēchī and Yazghulāmī); in the Pāmīr languages they also occur with other verbs, such as *(ati-)gam- and *tač- ‘to flow, run, walk’ and *čiau- (cf. RASTORGUJEVA – ĖDEĽMAN 2007: 122). Suppletive past participles based on *ati-gʜII-ta- (or even *ham-ati-gʜII-ta-) also appear in the languages of the Shughnī-Rōshānī group: Shugh., Baj. dēd, Sarīq. dɛyd, Rōsh. indayd, Khūf. indīd ‘to enter’, Yazgh. daγd ‘to enter, come in’, Wakh. taγd ‘to leave, depart’, Ishk. atůγd, Sangl. atōγd- ‘to enter; to shrink’ (op. cit. 123). RASTORGUJEVA – ĖDEĽMAN state that the Pāmīr suppletive past participle *ati-ga-ta- (i.e. *ati-gʜII-ta-) was contaminated with the past participle of the verb *tač- ‘to flow, run, walk’ : *tak-ta- > *tax-ta- (op. cit. 123). Such an explanation may clarify Yaghnōbī táxta and perhaps also Sogdian */təγd-/; by analogy, we may therefore suppose a vocalization *[cVγud-] of Chorasmian cγd-. The Yaghnōbī suppletive verbs discussed above may be summarized in the fol-lowing scheme:

{preverb+} *ʜai - ‘to go’

: {preverb+} *gaʜ- ‘to go, move’

*ʜar- ‘to set in motion’ *bar- ‘to bring, carry’ *gam- ‘to come’

v *či au- ‘to move, go’ *ʜai - ‘to go’

As observed above, the suppletive verbs in Yaghnōbī appear to be restricted to verbal stems combined with preverbs, the only exceptions being the verb ‘to be’ (left aside here) and the present stem of the verb šau- ‘to go’. In past parti-ciples, it appears to be a rule that suppletive forms always contain a preverb. In the case of the prefixed stem *bar-, there are two different suppletive forms with preverbs, davár- ‖ divár- : daγáta ‖ diγáta ‘to insert, introduce’ and žavár- ‖ živár- : žaγáta ‖ žiγáta ‘to bring, produce, invent, drag, pull out’; in contrast, neither the plain stem var- : vúrta (< *bar- : *b-ta-ka-) ‘to carry, bear’ nor the prefixed form tafár- ‖ tifár- : saráfta ‖ tiráfta ‘to give’ show suppletion. For the other suppletive verbs, their plain/nonprefixed stems are not attested. The Yaghnōbī suppletive verbs share one common feature: all are formed from in-herited verbs of motion, but the original meaning of the verb changed when a preverb was added to the stem. Special attention should be paid to the stems *gam- and *gaʜ-, which compete in various suppletive forms. Originally it was supposed that the only suppletive verb was *gam-, but analysis of past participles in several Modern Eastern Ira-nian languages shows that they cannot continue only *gą-ta-, as they attest forms from a different zero grade. I suggest that the past participle *gʜII-ta-

234 ĽUBOMÍR NOVÁK

should be considered as well, on the basis of two pieces of evidences: 1) the Yaghnōbī forms daγáta ‖ diγáta × táxta are both supposed to originate from *ati-gą-ta-ka- (cf. CHEUNG 2007: 98–101; RASTORGUJEVA – ĖDEĽMAN 2007: 122; ANDREJEV – LIVŠIC – PISARČIK 1957: 336, 352), but these two different forms (leaving aside the Yaghnōbī change *i > a) cannot be explained as out-comes of the same source; and 2) through both phonetic and semantic similari-ty of the past participle *ati-gʜII-ta- > *(a)tiγt(a)- ‘to enter, come (in)’ with the past participle *taγt(a)- < *taxta- < *tak-ta- (stem *tač-) ‘to flow, run, walk’, the root vowel of the past participle of the stem *tač- influenced the change of the root vowel in *ati-gʜII-ta- > *(a)ta-γ-ta- (cf. RASTORGUJEVA – ĖDEĽMAN 2007: 123). Such observations show that even the study of the Modern (Eastern) Iranian languages may uncover developments dating from Proto-Iranian, as Avestan may not preserve all the relevant lexical and phonetic features, Old Persian and other Middle Iranian languages cannot solve issues connected with vowel de-velopment as they are recorded in a rather imperfect graphic representation (the only exception being Bactrian, as the Bactrian Greek alphabet properly indicates vowel quality), and the Saka languages underwent extensive changes both in vocalism and in consonantism. As is obvious from the suppletive past participles of the verbs *gam- and *gaʜ-, the issue of these suppletive stems must be revisited on the basis of verbal forms attested in the Modern Eastern Iranian vernaculars, including Yaghnōbī. ABBREVIATIONS Bactr. Bactrian Baj. Bajūvī Chor. Chorasmian Ishk. Ishkāshmī Khot. Khotanese Khūf. Khūfī Munj. Munjī PIE Proto-Indo-European Rōsh. Rōshānī Sangl. Sanglēchī.

Sarīq. Sarīqōlī Shugh. Shughnī Sogd. Sogdian (S – Sogdian in Sogdian script;

B – Buddhist Sogdian; M – Manichaean Sogdian; C – Christian Sogdian)

Tumsh. Tumshuqese Wakh. Wakhī Yagh. Yaghnōbī Yazgh. Yazghulāmī Yidgh. Yidghā

REFERENCES ANDREJEV – LIVŠIC – PISARČIK 1957: Андреев, Михаил Степанович – Лившиц, Владимир Аронович – Писарчик, Антония Константиновна. 1957. Словарь. In: Андреев, Михаил Степанович – Пещерева, Елена Михайловна, eds. Ягнобские тексты с приложением ягнобско-русского словаря составленного М. С. Андреевым, В. А. Лившицем и А. К. Писарчик. Москва – Ленинград: Издательство Академии Наук СССР. 215–391.

BAILEY, H. W. 1979. Dictionary of Khotan Saka. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BOGOLJUBOV 1956: Боголюбов, Михаил Николаевич. 1956. Ягнобский (новосогдийский) язык. Исследование и материалы. Ленинград

CHEUNG, Johnny. 2007. Etymological Dictionary of the Iranian Verb. Leiden – Boston: Brill

VERBAL SUPPLETION IN YAGHNŌBĪ 235

GERSHEVITCH, Ilya. 1954. A Grammar of Manichean Sogdian. Oxford: Oxford University Press. GRJUNBERG 1972: Грюнберг, Александр Леонович. 1972. Языки Восточного Гиндукуша: Мунджанский язык. Тексты, словарь, грамматический очерк. Ленинград: Наука, Ленин-градское отделение.

HROMOV 1972: Хромов, Альберт Леонидович. 1972. Ягнобский язык. Москва: Наука. HROMOV 1987: Хромов, Альберт Леонидович. 1987. Ягнобский язык. In: Расторгуева, Вера Сергеевна, ed. Основы иранского языкознания. Новоиранские языки II. Восточная группа. Москва: Наука. 644–701.

KLINGENSCHMITT, Gert. 1989. Altlateinisch exprētus (Plaut. Bacch. 446). In: HELLER, Karin et al., eds. Indogermania Europaea. Festschrift für Wolfgang Meid zum 60. Geburtstag am 12. 11. 1989. Graz: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft. 79–100.

LIV2: Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Unter Leitung von Helmut RIX und der Mitarbeit vieler anderer, bearbeitet von Martin KÜMMEL, Thomas ZEHNDER, Reiner LIPP, Brigitte SCHIRMER. Zweite, erweiterte und verbesserte Auflage bearbeitet von Martin KÜMMEL und Helmut RIX. Wiesbaden: Reichert. 2001.

LURJE, Pavel Borisovič. 2008. Sogdian and Yaghnobi: some reflections. Handout presented at the Yaghnobi Summer School, Ravenna, 15.09.2012.

MAYRHOFER, Manfred. 1981. Laryngalreflexe im Indo-Iranischen. Zeitschrift für Phonetik. Sprach-wissenschaft und Kommunikationsforschung 34. 427–438.

MORGENSTIERNE, Georg. 1927. An Etymological Vocabulary of Pashto. Oslo: Dybwad. —. 1938. Indo-Iranian Frontier Languages. Volume II. Iranian Pamir Languages (Yidgha-Munji.

Sanglechi-Ishkashmi and Wakhi). Oslo: Aschehoug & Co. (W. Nygaard). —. 1974. Etymological Vocabulary of the Shughni Group. Wiesbaden: Reichert. —. 2003. A New Etymological Vocabulary of Pashto. Wiesbaden: Reichert. NOVÁK, Ľubomír. 2010. Jaghnóbsko-český slovník s přehledem jaghnóbské gramatiky. Praha:

Filozofická fakulta Univerzity Karlovy v Praze. —. 2013. Archaism and Innovation in the Eastern Iranian Languages. Dissertation, Charles Uni-

versity in Prague. —. 2014. Historical phonology of Yaghnōbī and Sogdian. <https://www.academia.edu/10294948/

Historical_Phonology_of_Yaghnōbī_and_Sogdian>. QARĪB, Badresaman. 1965. Analysis of the Verbal System in the Sogdian Language. Dissertation,

University of Pennsylvania. —. 2004. Sogdian Dictionary (Sogdian – Persian – English). Tehran: Farhangan Publications. RASTORGUJEVA – ĖDEĽMAN 2000: Расторгуева, Вера Сергеевна – Эдельман, Джой Иосифовна.

2000. Этимологический словарь иранских языков. Том 1: а-ā. Москва: Восточная Литература. RASTORGUJEVA – ĖDEĽMAN 2003: Расторгуева, Вера Сергеевна – Эдельман, Джой Иосифовна.

2003. Этимологический словарь иранских языков. Том 2: b-d. Москва: Восточная Литература. RASTORGUJEVA – ĖDEĽMAN 2007: Расторгуева, Вера Сергеевна – Эдельман, Джой Иосифовна.

2007. Этимологический словарь иранских языков. Том 3: f-h. Москва: Восточная Литература. SCHMIDT, Gernot. 1973. Die iranischen Wörter für „Tochter“ und „Vater“ und die Reflexe des in-

terkonsonantischen H (ə) in den idg. Sprachen. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung. 87/1. 36–83.

SIMS-WILLIAMS, Nicholas. 2012. Yaghnobi as a Sogdian dialect. Handout presented on 11.5.2012 at the “Symposium in Memory of Manfred Mayrhofer (1929–2011): Iranian and Indo-European Onomastics and Linguistics”, Vienna, 10–12 May 2012.

STEBLIN-KAMENSKIJ 1999: Стеблин-Каменский, Иван Михайлович. 1999. Этимологический словарь ваханского языка – Etymological Dictionary of the Wakhi Language. Санкт-Петербург: Петербургское Востоковедение.

TEDESCO, Paul. 1923. a-Stämme und aya-Stämme im Iranischen. Zeitschrift für Indologie und Iranistik 2. 281–315.

YOSHIDA, Yutaka. 2009. Sogdian. In: WINDFUHR, Gernot, ed. Iranian Languages. London – New York: Routledge. 295–335.