ITALO-CELTIC Frederik Kortlandt (2006) ITALO-CELTIC “Da das altirische Verbum in vielen Fällen einen italo-keltischen Zustand besser repräsentiert als das Lateinische, liefert es nicht selten Vorstufen lateinischer Verhältnisse.” (Wagner 1956: 171) The analysis presented above has important consequences for the reconstruction of Italo-Celtic. The latter must be based on the combined evidence of Insular Celtic (especially Old Irish) and Continental Celtic (especially Celtiberian, cf. Villar 1997) on the one hand and on the reconstruction of Proto-Italic and Venetic (for which see Euler 1993 and van der Staaij 1995) on the other. Thanks to Meiser’s thorough and detailed analysis of the Italic languages (cf. 2003: 27-166) we have now reached the stage where a reconstruction of Italo-Celtic becomes feasible. In the following I shall not give a full account of Italo-Celtic as the westernmost branch of Indo-European and its differentiation from the central languages (Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Albanian, Armenian, Greek and Indo-Iranian) and from the other peripheral branches (Tocharian, Anatolian) but limit myself to an identification of its principal features. It is clear from Lachmann’s law that the sounds which are usually reconstructed as *b, *d, *g, *gw differed from both *p, *t, *k, *kw and *bh, *dh, *gh, *gwh in the presence of a feature which in some positions merged with the reflex of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals in Latin but was lost in Celtic. I presume that this feature was glottalization because it is reflected as glottalization in Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Armenian and Indo-Iranian (cf. Kortlandt 1985). It follows that *bh, *dh, *gh, *gwh may have been plain voiced stops, in agreement with their reflexes in Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Albanian, Armenian, Phrygian and Iranian, and that the voiced aspirates in Indic and the voiceless aspirates in Greek originated from local developments under the influence of substratum languages (cf. Kortlandt 150 Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language 2003a: 259). The plain voiced stops developed into voiced fricatives under certain conditions in Celtic, Germanic, Albanian and Iranian, and the same can be assumed for Venetic and the Italic languages. This scenario is supported by the dissimilation of *m- to *bh- in Latin formīca ‘ant’, which shows that *bh- was a voiced bilabial fricative at the time of dissimilation (cf. Meillet 1918, Kortlandt 1978a: 109). The latter argument is not duly appreciated by Stuart-Smith (2004: 158), who reconstructs voiced aspirates of the Indic type for Proto-Indo-European, in spite of the comparative evidence. She proposes that in Italic the voiced aspirates became voiceless aspirated stops in word-initial position when they became voiced fricatives in word-internal position. This is highly improbable because, contrary to her own analysis (2004: 198), it implies a phonemic split into distinctively aspirated voiceless stops, differing in a single feature from the unaspirated voiceless stops, and voiced fricatives, which were minimally opposed to the voiced stops by a different feature. Her loose reference to the wide variation of English /t/ is quite out of place here because this reflects an entirely different situation (cf. Kortlandt 2003b). The apparent phonemic split was subsequently eliminated by the development of the alleged voiceless aspirates into fricatives, which restored the possibility of their phonemic identification with the word-internal voiced fricatives, until the late ProtoItalic development of the voiceless fricatives into f- and h- destroyed the system and left the voiced fricatives without word-initial phonemic counterparts (cf. Stuart-Smith 2004: 223). This peculiar unbalanced system allegedly survived until after the split between Latin and Faliscan (cf. StuartSmith 2004: 63f.). In my view, the original plain voiced stops *bh, *dh, *gh, *gwh became fricatives when *b, *d, *g, *gw lost their glottalization after Lachmann’s law in early Proto-Italic. The resulting typologically rare system was regularized by devoicing the fricatives in word-initial position. The system was simplified in the Sabellic languages (but not in Latino-Faliscan) by the merger of *bh, *dh and *gwh both word-initially and word-internally, maintaining the variation between initial voicelessness and internal voicedness. The Faliscan merger of *bh and *dh may have been a recent development under Sabellic influence while the preservation of word-internal *gh as an obstruent in this language shows that the Latin reflex -h- is recent. Italo-Celtic 151 The Latin merger of initial voiceless fricatives into f- may have taken place at any stage, but probably not before the internal voiced fricatives merged with -b-, -d- and -w- after the separation from Faliscan. Note that earlier -band -d- may already have been fricatives at this time, which explains why the Latin orthography of the voiced labial fricative <b> differs from that in the other Italic languages <f>. There is no reason to assume that the voiced fricatives became stops which in their turn became fricatives in the first century BC, as Stuart-Smith thinks (2004: 49). In fact, a fricative pronunciation is more easily reconciled with the usual Latin orthography of plēbs, trabs, urbs and ab-, ad-, ob-, sub- before voiceless obstruents (cf. Allen 1970: 21f.) and with the derivation of au- ‘away’ < ab- in auferō and aufugiō (cf. de Vaan 2003). Though I shall not discuss the Italo-Celtic nominal and pronominal systems, it may be appropriate to mention the gen.sg. ending of the o-stems *-ī for PIE *-os beside *kweso and *tosio (cf. Beekes 1995: 192), the substitution of *-bhos for PIE dat.pl. *-mus and abl.pl. *-ios (cf. Kortlandt 2003c: 49f.) beside inst.pl. *-bhi, and the inflexion of the ē-stems (cf. Schrijver 1991a: 366-389) and the anaphoric pronoun *e/i- (cf. Beekes 1983: 209ff.). In the following I shall concentrate on the verbal system: thematic and athematic paradigms, sigmatic and reduplicated formations, voice and diathesis. Renou has demonstrated that the thematic indicative and the thematic subjunctive are not strictly distinct categories in Vedic Sanskrit (1925, 1932, cf. also Meillet 1931). It follows that the long vowel subjunctives of Greek and Indo-Iranian originated at a comparatively recent stage, when the temporal and modal variants of the thematic flexion had become sufficiently differentiated so that they could be separately coded in a single verb form. The same holds for the thematic optative and for the thematic middle voice. Moreover, the actual forms of these categories depend crucially on the language-specific development of the resonants and the laryngeals (cf. Kortlandt 1981c), so that they can only have arisen in the separate branches of Indo-European. I have argued that the thematic flexion originated as a diathetic category, the thematic vowel referring to a definite object (1983a). This system reflects an earlier stage where the thematic vowel was coreferent with the subject of an intransitive sentence while the endings referred to an 152 Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language experiencer in the dative, as may have been the case in the perfect (cf. also Kortlandt 2002). While these issues are beyond the scope of the present discussion, the point which is relevant to the problem of Italo-Celtic is that there is no reason to assume the previous existence of a long vowel subjunctive or a thematic optative in this branch of Indo-European. Pedersen has given a detailed chronological account of the sigmatic forms of the Latin verb (1921: 12ff.). He has shown that the Italic future was an athematic s-present, e.g. *emesmi, -si, -ti, which is preserved in Oscan pertemest ‘will prevent’, and that the preterit of this formation *emesm is represented in the Latin imperfect subjunctive emerem, 3rd pl. emerent, with secondary lengthening from the ē-subjunctive as in Oscan fusíd (cf. also Meiser 1993). The Latin future perfect ēmerō continues the newly created form *ēmesmi, cf. Oscan fefacust ‘will have done’, with -us- for -es- from the participle, as in sipus ‘knowing’, or from the alternating stem *fues-, *fus-, as in fust ‘will be, will have been’, Umbrian fust ‘will be’, 3rd pl. furent, future perfect fefure. The suffix *-es- was reanalysed as the thematic vowel -e- plus the suffix -s-, as is clear from Oscan didest ‘will give’, cf. Vestinian didet ‘gives’, and Umbrian ferest ‘will bring’. These formations are independent of such forms as Latin faxō and faxim, which represent the thematic subjunctive and the optative of the sigmatic aorist. The difference between the geminate of -ass- in amassō ‘I will have loved’ and its absence from *-es- in monerint ‘they will have reminded’ is not the result of a shortening rule (thus Meiser 2003: 40) but of a different origin: the former reflects the extension of the sigmatic aorist to vocalic stems and the latter represents the full grade suffix of the original s-present. As I have argued earlier (e.g. 1984, 1997a), all sigmatic formations can ultimately be derived from an Italo-Celtic athematic s-subjunctive with secondary endings which can be identified with the Vedic s-aorist injunctive and the East Baltic future tense or from the corresponding athematic s-present with zero grade in the root and accentual mobility between the suffix and the endings. Old Irish sigmatic futures could be reduplicated or unreduplicated, and the same can be assumed for Proto-Italo-Celtic. The reduplication vowel was evidently *-i- in the future and *-e- in the preterit, as in Old Irish -didsiter ‘they will be oppressed’ versus -dedaig ‘he oppressed’, Oscan didest ‘will give’ but deded ‘has given’, Umbrian dirsust ‘will have given’ but dede ‘has Italo-Celtic 153 given’, also Oscan fifikus ‘you will have decided’. The original distribution was obscured in the Italic languages by generalization of -e- in the future perfect and later by assimilation to the root vowel in Latin, e.g. momordī for memordī ‘I have bitten’. The reduplicated future cannot be derived from the Indo-Iranian desiderative, which must be a thematicization of the Italo-Celtic formation, as is also clear from its initial accentuation. Meiser differentiates between a “Präventiv”, a “Präteritum” and a “Konjunktiv” in -ā- (2003: 41-43, 50-52). In my view, all of these formations must be derived from an injunctive in -ā- of verbs denoting determinate movement found in other Indo-European languages, e.g. Vedic yā- ‘go’, gā‘go’, drā- ‘run’, trā- ‘rescue’, Greek βᾱ- ‘go’, δρᾱ- ‘run’, πτᾱ- ‘fly’, Slavic bĭra ‘gathered’, Lith. sùko ‘turned’, Old Latin advenat ‘come’, attulat ‘bring’, Old Irish -aga ‘drive’, -rega ‘will go’ (cf. Kortlandt 1984: 184, 2005b: 168). The bhā-preterit and the ā-subjunctive of thematic presents are evidently ProtoItalic innovations. The ē-subjunctive is a variant of the ī-subjunctive, which continues the original optative after consonant stems. After the loss of intervocalic *i in early Proto-Italic, the ē-subjunctive became a separate morphological category and was probably generalized after vocalic present stems, cf. Oscan deiuaid ‘swear’ < *-āē-. It then replaced the thematic subjunctive of athematic present stems except for Latin erō. The coexistence of faxō and faxim shows that the distinction between subjunctive and optative had not yet been lost in Proto-Italic. I therefore assume that the ā-subjunctive of thematic presents was still an injunctive at the time when the ē-subjunctive, which was a variant of the optative, replaced the thematic subjunctive. There is a trace of the ē-subjunctive in Umbrian heriiei ‘will want’, which belongs to the athematic i-flexion discussed earlier. The ē-subjunctive eventually ousted the sigmatic future in Latin, but not in the Sabellic languages. The peculiar 1st sg. ending -am in the Latin ē-future suggests that the ā-subjunctive was still an injunctive when the ē-subjunctive became a future tense (cf. Kortlandt 2004a: 8). Meiser’s suggestion that this -am replaced earlier *-ō (2003: 54) does not explain the irregularity of the resulting paradigm. The generalization of the ā-subjunctive in both Latin and the Sabellic languages was probably a consequence of the thematicization of the athematic present flexion. It did not reach the first conjugation in Latin and Oscan, which by now had little in common with the thematic flexion. 154 Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language The account given here differs from Meiser’s (2003: 55) in the following respects. There is no reason to assume a long vowel subjunctive or thematic optative in Italo-Celtic. The Indo-European ā-injunctive of verbs of motion supplied an ā-subjunctive to thematic presents in the Italic languages. The ē-subjunctive was a variant of the optative after vocalic stems and replaced the thematic subjunctive of athematic presents. The subjunctive and the optative never merged in Proto-Italic, which had an ā-subjunctive for thematic presents and an ē-subjunctive for athematic presents beside an ē-optative after vocalic stems and an iē/ī-optative after consonantal stems. In Latino-Faliscan, the ē-subjunctive of athematic presents became a future tense (“Prospektiv”), adopting the 1st sg. ending -am from the evidently still extant injunctive, while the ē-optative replaced the subjunctive in the first conjugation and the ā-subjunctive was generalized with the thematicization of the athematic presents. The ā-injunctive was preserved as a preterit in Latin erā-, -bā-, Oscan fufans ‘they were’. This chronology solves Meiser’s big problem, viz. that “der Konjunktiv musste im Uritalischen also unbeschadet der Existenz zweier Futurkategorien und über den Synkretismus von uridg. Konjunktiv und Optativ hinaus mindestens in manchen Domänen seine ererbte prospektive Funktion bewahrt haben” (2003: 41). I claim that there was no other than a sigmatic future, no syncretism of subjunctive and optative, and no prospective function in Proto-Italic. The rise of the ē-future can be identified with the substitution of Latin erō for *fuesmi. Thus, I assume a present indicative, injunctive, thematic subjunctive, athematic optative, and imperative for Proto-Italo-Celtic. Thematic presents probably had no moods at an early stage. Apart from the sigmatic aorist and the reduplicated perfect, the Italic languages have a long vowel preterit which I, unlike Meiser (2003: 151-158), consider to be a variant of the root aorist. Note that the Latin type of ēdī, ēgī, ēmī, ēpī must not be compared with Greek ἄνωγα ‘I order’, which like the Old Irish ā-preterit reflects an original perfect (cf. Kortlandt 1986b: 254), but with the Greek aorist ἦ ‘said he’, Old Irish -í (cf. Kortlandt 1996b: 144). The comparison with Lith. ėmė ‘took’ is most probably correct, but the circumflex tone of the latter form is incompatible with a reconstruction *H1eH1m- and points to its identity with the root aorist found in Slavic and Celtic. There is no trace of a reduplicated perfect in Balto-Slavic outside the Slavic imperfect in -ax-, which continues the perfect *ōs- of the root *es- ‘to Italo-Celtic 155 be’. Similarly, Latin lēgī, rēgī, frēgī, sēdī, vēnī, fēcī, iēcī, cēpī and Oscan hipid ‘will hold’ < *hēp- and sipus ‘knowing’ < *sēp- represent root aorists, not perfects. As in the sigmatic aorist, the long vowel is phonetically regular in the monosyllabic 2nd and 3rd sg. forms (cf. Wackernagel 1896: 66-68, Kortlandt 2004a) and spread to the other forms of the paradigm. This spread was recent, as is clear from the short vowel in Oscan kúmbened ‘it has been agreed’ and Paelignian lexe ‘you have read’. The derivation of the long vowel preterit from a root aorist is strongly supported by the Tocharian B cognate 3rd sg. śem ‘came’ < *gwēmt, other persons käm- with e- or zero grade, of Latin vēnit ‘has come’, Umbrian benus, benust, benurent ‘will have come’ with e-grade, 2nd sg. menes ‘will come’ reflecting *gwmes- with zero grade before the future suffix, and by the Tocharian A imperfect lyāk, B preterit lyāka ‘saw’ < *lēg-, which is cognate with Latin lēgit ‘has read’. These forms are evidently original imperfects which became root aorists by a differentiation between present and aorist stems. The same can be assumed for Latin ēdī, ēgī, ēmī, ēpī, sēdī, rēgī (later rēxī), and frēgī (which like Gothic brikan ‘break’ represents an Indo-European root *bhreg-, cf. Schrijver 1991a: 478). Since fēcī, iēcī, fūgī, fūdī, rūpī, vīdī, -līquī, vīcī can also be derived from root aorists, there is no evidence for long vowel preterits continuing perfects in Latin. Note that the Balto-Slavic cognates of edō ‘eat’, sedeō ‘sit’ and videō ‘see’ have an acute long root vowel from Winter’s law. It has been impossible to establish an original meaning for the alleged velar suffix in the root aorists fēcī and iēcī (cf. Untermann 1993). I therefore think that we have to look for a phonetic explanation. Since the -k- is limited to the singular in the Greek active aorist indicative, I am inclined to regard fēc- as the phonetic reflex of monosyllabic *dhēk < *dheH1t, where *-k- may have been either an intrusive consonant after the laryngeal before the final *-t, like -p- in Latin emptus ‘bought’ or *-s- in Hittite ezta ‘he ate’ < *edto, or a remnant of the Indo-Uralic velar consonant from which the laryngeal developed, as in Finnish teke- ‘make’ (cf. Kortlandt 2002: 220). The present stems of faciō and iaciō support the former possibility. This would also account for Tocharian A tāk, B tāka ‘became’, which reflect *steH2t. In a similar vein I reconstruct *hēp < *gheH1bht and *sēp < *seH1pt for Oscan hipid, hipust ‘will hold’, sipus ‘knowing’. While Oscan hafiest ‘will hold’ is in accordance with the Latin, Celtic and Germanic evidence, Umbrian habsuggests that *gheH1bh- yielded *gheb- with preglottalized *-b- at an early 156 Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language stage and that this root-final consonant was generalized in Italic. It appears that Latin capiō ‘take’ < *kH2p- adopted the -ē- of cēpī from its synonym apiō, ēpī, and that scabō, scābī ‘scratch’ reflects original *skebh- (cf. Schrijver 1991a: 431). Following Insler’s demonstration (1968: 327) that the Vedic middle endings 3rd sg. -e, -a(t) and 3rd pl. -re, -ra(n) are limited to deponents and passives whereas 3rd sg. -te, -ta and 3rd pl. -ate, -ata are found with both deponent and transitive roots but not in passives, I have proposed to reconstruct for Proto-Indo-European a distinction between transitive and intransitive middle endings, the former containing an extra person marker in comparison with the latter (1979a: 67, 1981a: 16, 1981c: 128, 2002: 218). This resulted in the following system of Italo-Celtic endings: 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg. 1st pl. 2nd pl. 3rd pl. trans. middle -ma -sto -to -mosdha -sdhue -nto passive -toro -ntoro intrans. middle -a, -ōro -to, -toro -o, -oro, -tro -modha, -moro -dhue -ntro There was no inherited distinction between primary and secondary middle endings. The transitive middle endings have been preserved in Venetic vhagsto ‘made’, doto ‘gave’, donasto ‘donated’, and in Celtic, while the passive endings were generalized in Latin mediopassive -tur, -ntur. The distinction between impersonal *-oro and passive *-ntoro may have been preserved in the Umbrian subjunctive: 6b 50 pone esonome ferar ‘when there is carried [fire] to the ceremony’, 6b 54 nosue ier ‘unless be gone’, but 5a 8,10 (eru) emantu(r) herte ‘if (any of them) are to be accepted’, 3a 9 puntes terkantur ‘the five be favored’, 7b 2 ponne iuengar tursiandu hertei ‘when the heifers are to be pursued’. The indicative ending -te(r), -ti appears to reflect *-tiro, which was evidently created as a primary ending on the basis of *-tro (cf. Meiser 1986: 112f.). Oscan seems to have preserved the original 3rd person endings -ter < *-tro and -nter < *-ntro; the subjunctive ending -tir < *-tēr Italo-Celtic 157 was apparently created on the analogy of the ē-subjunctive (rather than the other way round, as proposed by Meiser 1992: 295). Thus, I reconstruct the following system for Proto-Italic: 1st sg. 2nd sg. 3rd sg. 1st pl. 2nd pl. 3rd pl. passive impersonal -toro -oro -ntoro deponent -ōro -so -tro -moro -ðue -ntro The coexistence of impersonal *-oro and passive *-ntoro in Umbrian suggests that Proto-Italic had not yet developed a regular passive voice. This explains the absence of a mediopassive perfect in Latin. I conclude that Italo-Celtic represents an archaic branch of IndoEuropean which did not take part in major innovations of the central dialects such as the creation of an elaborate middle voice. Though specific Italo-Celtic innovations are few, the languages of this branch developed along parallel lines and preserved important traces of an original linguistic system which contained a wide variety of different formations with a considerable time depth. The material has too often been interpreted in terms of other languages. As a result, our view of Proto-Indo-European has a bias toward the languages on which it is primarily based. The history of linguistic reconstruction shows a gradual shift away from the principal languages. APPENDIX: OLD IRISH VERBAL PARADIGMS <...> = lost by analogy; [...] = substituted or added by analogy. This is to be understood in the sense that the reflex of the indicated segment (not necessarily the segment itself) was lost or added at some stage in the development from Proto-Celtic to Old Irish. I have left out the delenition of *m in the 1st sg. and pl. endings and more often than not the restoration of lost segments (or their reflexes) in the reconstructions. The suffix of the ffuture is given as *-bwas- for *-bw<i>as- (cf. Kortlandt 1984: 185). Following the order and classification of Thurneysen 1946, I have adopted the format of Strachan 1949, with the absolute forms on the left hand side and the conjunct forms on the right hand side, followed by a formal reconstruction of the respective Insular Celtic endings: absolute < PIC * conjunct < PIC * Examples: marbaid ‘kills’, léicid ‘leaves’, berid ‘carries’, gaibid ‘takes’, benaid ‘strikes’, labrithir ‘speaks’, suidigidir ‘places’, midithir ‘judges’, -cuirethar ‘puts’, téit ‘goes’, guidid ‘prays’, ro-fitir ‘knows’, canaid ‘sings’, -gainethar ‘is born’, do-moinethar ‘thinks’. PRESENT STEM present indicative active AI 1 sg. 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. marbu marbaim marbai marbaid marbas -āiōs -ā[mi]s -āieis -ā[ti]s -ā[s]so -marbu -marbaim -marbai -marba -āiō -ā[mi] -āiei -āie 160 Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. marbmai marbmae marbthae marbait marb(a)te -āiomos[i]s -āiomoses -āieteses -āiontes -āionteso 1 sg. 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. léiciu léicim léici léicid léices léicmi léicme léicthe léicit léc(i)te -īōs -ī[mi]s -īeis -ī[ti]s -ī[s]so -īomos[i]s -īomoses -īeteses -īontes -īonteso 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. biru biri berid beres bermai bermae beirthe berait bertae -ōs -eis -e[ti]s -e[s]so -omos[i]s -omoses -eteses -ontes -onteso 1 sg. 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. gaibiu gaibim gaibi gaibid gaibes -i[ō]s -imis -isis -itis -i[s]so -marbam -āiomos -marbaid -marbat -āietes -āiont[o] -léiciu -léicim -léici -léici -īō -ī[mi] -īei -īe -léicem -īomos -léicid -léicet -īetes -īont[o] -biur -bir -beir -ō -ei -e -beram -omos -berid -berat -etes -ont[o] -gaibiu -gaibim -gaibi -gaib -i[ō] -imi -isi -i<ti> AII BI BII Old Irish verbal paradigms 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. gaibmi gaibme gaibthe gaibit gaibte 161 -imos[i]s -imoses -iteses -intes -inteso -gaibem -imos -gaibid -gaibet -ites -int[o] -benaim -benai -ben -ami -asi -a<ti> -benam -amos -benaid -benat -ates -ant[o] BIV 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. benaim benai benaid benas benmai benmae bentae benait bentae -amis -asis -atis -a[s]so -amos[i]s -amoses -ateses -antes -anteso present indicative deponent AI 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. labrur labrither labrithir labrathar labrimmir labrammar labrithe labritir labratar suidigim suidigther suidigidir suidigedar -āi[ō]ros -āietoros -āietr[e]s -āietroso -āi[e]mor[e]s -āiomoros -āie[tes]es -āi[e]ntr[e]s -āiontroso -i[mi]s -itoros -itr[e]s -itroso -labrur -labrither -labrathar -āi[ō]ro -āietoro -āietro -labrammar -āiomoro -labraid -labratar -āiedwe -āiontro AII/BII -suidigur -suidigther -suidigedar -i[ō]ro -itoro -itro 162 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language suidigmir suidigmer suidigthe suidigitir suidigetar midiur mitter midithir midethar midimmir midemmar mitte miditir midetar -imor[e]s -imoros -i[tes]es -intr[e]s -introso -i[ō]ros -itoros -itr[e]s -itroso -imor[e]s -imoros -i[tes]es -intr[e]s -introso -suidigmer -imoro -suidigid -suidigetar -idwe -intro BII/AII -cuiriur -cuirther -cuirethar -ei[ō]ro -eietoro -eietro -cuiremmar -eiomoro -cuirid -cuiretar -eiedwe -eiontro present indicative passive AI 3 sg. rel. 3 pl. rel. marbthair marbthar marb(a)tir marb(a)tar -āietor[e]s -āietoroso -āi[e]ntor[e]s -āiontoroso 3 sg. rel. 3 pl. rel. léicthir léicther léc(i)tir léicter -īetor[e]s -īetoroso -īontor[e]s -īontoroso 3 sg. rel. suidigthir suidigther -itor[e]s -itoroso -marbthar -āietoro -marb(a)tar -āiontoro -léicther -īetoro -léc(e)tar -īontoro AII AII/BII -suidigther -itoro Old Irish verbal paradigms 3 pl. rel. suidigtir suidigter 163 -intor[e]s -intoroso -suidigter -intoro -berar -oro -bertar -ontoro -gaibther -itoro -gaib(e)tar -intoro BI 3 sg. rel. 3 pl. rel. berair berar bertair bertar -or[e]s -oroso -ontor[e]s -ontoroso 3 sg. rel. 3 pl. rel. gaibthir gaibther gaibtir gaibter -itor[e]s -itoroso -intor[e]s -intoroso 3 sg. 3 pl. mittir miditir -itor[e]s -intor[e]s 3 sg. rel. 3 pl. rel. benair benar bentair bentar -ar[e]s -aroso -antor[e]s -antoroso BII BII/AII -cuirther -eietoro BIV -benar -aro -bentar -antoro imperfect indicative active AI 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. 1 pl. 2 pl. 3 pl. -marbainn -marbtha -marbad -marbmais -marbthae -marbtais -āiema[m] -āieto-āieto -āiemos[te] -āie[t]e-āiento[ste] 164 Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language BI 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. -berinn -bertha -bered -ema[m] -eto-eto 1 pl. 2 pl. 3 pl. -bermis -berthe -bertis -emos[te] -e[t]e-ento[ste] imperfect indicative deponent 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. 1 pl. 2 pl. 3 pl. AII/BII -suidiginn -suidigthea -suidiged -suidigmis -suidigthe -suidigtis -ima[m] -ito-ito -imos[te] -i[t]e-into[ste] imperfect indicative passive AI 3 sg. 3 pl. -marbthae -marbtais -āieto-āiento[ste] -berthe -bertis -eto-ento[ste] BI 3 sg. 3 pl. 3 sg. 3 pl. AII/BII -suidigthe -suidigtis -ito-into[ste] Old Irish verbal paradigms 165 imperative active AI 2 sg. 3 sg. 1 pl. 2 pl. 3 pl. marb marbad marbam marbaid marbat -ā<ie> -āieto -āiomo -āiete -āionto AII 2 sg. 3 sg. 1 pl. 2 pl. 3 pl. léic léiced léicem léicid léicet -ī<e> -īeto -īomo -īete -īonto 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. 1 pl. 2 pl. 3 pl. biur beir bered beram berid berat -ō -e -eto -omo -ete -onto BI imperative deponent AI 2 sg. 3 sg. 2 pl. 3 pl. labrithe labrad labraid labratar -āieto[es] -āieto -āiedwe -āiontro 2 sg. 3 sg. 2 pl. 3 pl. suidigthe suidiged suidigid suidigetar -ito[es] -ito -idwe -intro AII/BII 166 Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language BII/AII 2 sg. 3 sg. 2 pl. 3 pl. cuirthe cuired cuirid cuiretar -eieto[es] -eieto -eiedwe -eiontro imperative passive AI 3 sg. 3 pl. marbthar marbtar -āietoro -āiontoro 3 sg. 3 pl. léicther léicter -īetoro -īontoro AII AII/BII 3 sg. 3 pl. suidigther suidigter -itoro -intoro 3 sg. 3 pl. berar bertar -oro -ontoro 3 sg. 3 pl. cuirther cuirter -eietoro -eiontoro BI BII/AII Old Irish verbal paradigms 167 SUBJUNCTIVE present a-subjunctive active AI 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. marba marbae marbaid marbas marbmai marbmae marbthae marbait marbaite -asoms -aseses -a[ti]s -asso -asomos[i]s -asomoses -aseteses -asontes -asonteso 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. léicea léice léicid léices léicmi léicme léicthe léicit léc(i)te -īsoms -īseses -ī[ti]s -īsso -īsomos[i]s -īsomoses -īseteses -īsontes -īsonteso -marb -marbae -marba -asom -ases -[ā] -marbam -asomos -marbaid -marbat -asetes -asont[o] -léic -léice -léicea -ī<som> -īses -īs[ā] -léicem -īsomos -léicid -léicet -īsetes -īsont[o] -ber -berae -bera -asom -ases -[ā] AII BI 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. bera berae beraid beras -asoms -aseses -a[ti]s -asso 168 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language bermai bermae berthae berait bertae -asomos[i]s -asomoses -aseteses -asontes -asonteso -beram -asomos -beraid -berat -asetes -asont[o] present a-subjunctive deponent 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. AII/BII -suidiger -suidigther -suidigedar suidiger suidigther suidigidir suidigedar suidigmir suidigmer suidigthe suidigitir suidigetar -isōros -isetoros -isetr[e]s -isetroso -isomor[e]s -isomoros -ise[tes]es -isontr[e]s -isontroso labrar labrither labrithir labrathar labrimmir labrammar labrithe labritir labratar AI/BII/AII -asōros -corar -asetoros -coirther -asetr[e]s -corathar -asetroso -as[e]mor[e]s -corammar -asomoros -ase[tes]es -coraid -as[e]ntr[e]s -coratar -asontroso -isōro -isetoro -isetro -suidigmer -isomoro -suidigid -suidigetar -isedwe -isontro -asōro -asetoro -asetro -asomoro -asedwe -asontro present a-subjunctive passive AI 3 sg. rel. marbthair marbthar -asetor[e]s -asetoroso -marbthar -asetoro Old Irish verbal paradigms 3 pl. rel. marb(a)tir marb(a)tar 169 -as[e]ntor[e]s -asontoroso -marb(a)tar -asontoro -berthar -asetoro -bertar -asontoro BI 3 sg. rel. 3 pl. rel. berthair berthar bertair bertar -asetor[e]s -asetoroso -asontor[e]s -asontoroso 3 sg. rel. 3 pl. rel. suidigthir suidigther suidigtir suidigter -isetor[e]s -isetoroso -isontor[e]s -isontoroso AII/BII -suidigther -suidigter -isetoro -isontoro past a-subjunctive active AI 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. 1 pl. 2 pl. 3 pl. -marbainn -marbtha -marbad -marbmais -marbthae -marbtais -asema[m] -aseto-aseto -asemos[te] -ase[t]e-asento[ste] -berainn -bertha -berad -bermais -berthae -bertais -asema[m] -aseto-aseto -asemos[te] -ase[t]e-asento[ste] BI 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. 1 pl. 2 pl. 3 pl. 170 Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language past a-subjunctive deponent AII/BII -suidiginn -suidigthea -suidiged -suidigmis -suidigthe -suidigtis 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. 1 pl. 2 pl. 3 pl. -isema[m] -iseto-iseto -isemos[te] -ise[t]e-isento[ste] past a-subjunctive passive AI 3 sg. 3 pl. -marbthae -marbtais -aseto-asento[ste] -berthae -bertais -aseto-asento[ste] BI 3 sg. 3 pl. AII/BII -suidigthe -suidigtis 3 sg. 3 pl. -iseto-isento[ste] present s-subjunctive active 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. tíasu tési téis tías tíasmai tíasmae téiste tíasait tíastae -s[ō]s -s[ei]s -ses -sso -somos[i]s -somoses -seteses -sontes -sonteso -gess -geiss -gé -som -ses -s -gessam -somos -gessid -gessat -setes -sont[o] Old Irish verbal paradigms 171 present s-subjunctive deponent 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. 1 pl. 2 pl. 3 pl. messur messer mestir messimir meste messitir -s[ō]ros -[i]storos -str[e]s -s[e]mor[e]s -se[tes]es -s[e]ntr[e]s -fessur -fesser -festar -fessamar -fessid -fessatar -s[ō]ro -[i]storo -stro -somoro -sedwe -sontro present s-subjunctive passive 3 sg. rel. 3 pl. rel. gessair gessar gessitir gessatar -stor[e]s -storoso -s[e]ntor[e]s -sontoroso -gessar -storo -gessatar -sontoro past s-subjunctive active/deponent 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. 1 pl. 2 pl. 3 pl. -gessinn -gesta -gessed -gesmais -gestae -gestais -sema[m] -seto-seto -semos[te] -se[t]e-sento[ste] past s-subjunctive passive 3 sg. 3 pl. -gestae -gestais -seto-sento[ste] 172 Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language FUTURE f-future active 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. léicfea léicfe léicfid léicfes léicfimmi léicfimme léicfide léicfit léicfite -ībwasoms -ībwaseses -ībwa[ti]s -ībwasso -ībwasomos[i]s -ībwasomoses -ībwaseteses -ībwasontes -ībwasonteso -léiciub -léicfe -léicfea -ībwasom -ībwases -ībw[ā] -léicfem -ībwasomos -léicfid -léicfet -ībwasetes -ībwasont[o] f-future deponent 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. 1 pl. 2 pl. 3 pl. suidigfer suidigfider suidigfidir suidigfimmir suidigfide suidigfitir -ibwasōros -ibwasetoros -ibwasetr[e]s -ibwas[e]mor[e]s -ibwase[tes]es -ibwas[e]ntr[e]s -suidigfer -suidigfider -suidigfedar -suidigfemmar -suidigfid -suidigfetar -ibwasōro -ibwasetoro -ibwasetro -ibwasomoro -ibwasedwe -ibwasontro f-future passive 3 sg. rel. 3 pl. rel. léicfidir léicfider léicfitir léicfiter -ībwasetor[e]s -léicfider -ībwasetoroso -ībwas[e]ntor[e]s -léicfiter -ībwas[e]ntoroso -ībwasetoro -ībwas[e]ntoro secondary f-future active/deponent 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. -léicfinn -léicfeda -léicfed -ībwasema[m] -ībwaseto-ībwaseto Old Irish verbal paradigms 173 1 pl. 2 pl. 3 pl. -léicfimmis -léicfide -léicfitis -ībwasemos[te] -ībwase[t]e-ībwasento[ste] secondary f-future passive 3 sg. 3 pl. -léicfide -léicfitis -ībwaseto-ībwasento[ste] reduplicated future active 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. cechna cechnae cechnaid cechnas cechnaimmi cechnaimme cechnaithe cechnait cechnaite -asoms -aseses -a[ti]s -asso -asomos[i]s -asomoses -aseteses -asontes -asonteso -cechan -cechnae -cechna -asom -ases -[ā] -cechnam -asomos -cechnaid -cechnat -asetes -asont[o] reduplicated future passive 3 sg. rel. 3 pl. rel. cechnaithir cechnathar cechnaitir cechnatar -asetor[e]s -asetoroso -as[e]ntor[e]s -asontoroso -cechnathar -asetoro -cechnatar -asontoro ē-future active 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. béra bérae béraid béras -asoms -aseses -a[ti]s -asso -bér -bérae -béra -asom -ases -[ā] 174 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language bérmai bérmae bérthae bérait bértae -asomos[i]s -asomoses -aseteses -asontes -asonteso -béram -asomos -béraid -bérat -asetes -asont[o] ē-future passive 3 sg. rel. 3 pl. rel. bérthair bérthar bértair bértar -asetor[e]s -asetoroso -asontor[e]s -asontoroso -bérthar -asetoro -bértar -asontoro s-future active 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. gigsea gigse gigis giges gigsimmi gigsimme gigeste gigsit gigsite -soms -seses -ses -sso -somos[i]s -somoses -seteses -sontes -sonteso -gigius -gigis -gig -s[ō] -ses -s -gigsem -somos -gigsid -gigset -setes -sont[o] s-future deponent 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. messur messer mïastir mïastar messimmir messammar mïastae messitir messatar -s[ō]ros -[i]storos -str[e]s -stroso -s[e]mor[e]s -somoros -se[tes]es -s[e]ntr[e]s -sontroso -fessur -fesser -fïastar -s[ō]ro -[i]storo -stro -fessamar -somoro -fessid -fessatar -sedwe -sontro Old Irish verbal paradigms 175 s-future passive 3 sg. rel. 3 pl. rel. mïastair gigestar gigsitir messatar -stor[e]s -storoso -s[e]ntor[e]s -sontoroso -fïastar -storo -gigsiter -sontoro 176 Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language PRETERIT s-preterit active 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. léicsiu léicsi léicis léices léicsimmi léicsimme -iss[ō]s -iss[ei]s -isses -isso -issomos[i]s -issomoses léicsit léicsite -issontes -issonteso -léicius -léicis -léic -iss[ō] -iss[ei] -iss -léicsem -issomos -léicsid -léicset -issetes -issont[o] s-preterit deponent 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. 1 pl. 2 pl. 3 pl. -suidigsiur -suidigser -suidigestar -suidigsemmar -suidigsid -suidigsetar -iss[ō]ro -istoro -istro -issomoro -issedwe -issontro t-preterit active 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. 1 pl. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. birt bertae bert(at)ar -tes -teso -tonto[ro]so -biurt -birt -bert -t[ō] -t[ei] -t -bertammar -bertid -bert(at)ar -tomo[ro] -tete -tonto[ro] Old Irish verbal paradigms 177 reduplicated preterit active 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. 1 pl. 2 pl. 3 pl. cechan cechan cechain cechnammar -as -<t>as -es -amo[ro]s cechnatar -a[nto]r[o]s -cechan -cechan -cechain -cechnammar -cechnaid -cechnatar -a -<t>a -e -amo[ro] -ate -a[nto]r[o] reduplicated preterit deponent 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. 1 pl. 2 pl. 3 pl. génar génar génair génammar -a[ro]s -<t>a[ro]s -[ar]es -amo[ro]s génatar -a[nto]r[o]s -ménar -ménar -ménair -ménammar -ménaid -ménatar -a[ro] -<t>a[ro] -[ar]e -amo[ro] -ate -a[nto]r[o] ā-preterit active 1 sg. 2 sg. 3 sg. rel. 1 pl. rel. 2 pl. 3 pl. rel. gád gád gáid gáde gádammar gádammar -as -<t>as -es -eso -amo[ro]s -amo[ro]s gádatar gádatar -a[nto]r[o]s -a[nto]r[o]so -gád -gád -gáid -a -<t>a -e -gádammar -amo[ro] -gádid -gádatar -ate -a[nto]r[o] preterit passive AII 3 sg. 3 pl. léicthe léicthi -itoses -itois -léiced -léicthea -itos -itās 178 Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language BI 3 sg. 3 pl. brethae brithi -toses -tois -breth -bretha -tos -tās REFERENCES Allen, William Sidney 1970 Vox Latina, Cambridge: University Press. Beekes, Robert Stephen Paul 1983 “On laryngeals and pronouns”, Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 96, 200-232. 1995 Comparative Indo-European linguistics: An introduction, Amsterdam-Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Euler, Wolfram 1993 “Oskisch-Umbrisch, Venetisch und Lateinisch: grammatische Kategorien zur inneritalischen Sprachverwandtschaft”, OskischUmbrisch: Texte und Grammatik, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 96-105. Insler, Stanley 1968 “The origin of the Sanskrit passive aorist”, Indogermanische Forschungen 73, 312-346. Kortlandt, Frederik 1978a “Proto-Indo-European obstruents”, Indogermanische Forschungen 83, 107-118. 1979a “Toward a reconstruction of the Balto-Slavic verbal system”, Lingua 49, 51-70. 1981a “More evidence for Italo-Celtic”, Ériu 32, 1-22. 1981c “1st sg. middle *-H2”, Indogermanische Forschungen 86, 123-136. 1983a “Proto-Indo-European verbal syntax”, Journal of IndoEuropean Studies 11, 307-324. 1984 “Old Irish subjunctives and futures and their ProtoIndo-European origins”, Ériu 35, 179-187. 1985 “Proto-Indo-European glottalic stops: The comparative evidence.” Folia Linguistica Historica 6, 183-201. 1986b “The origin of the Slavic imperfect”, Festschrift für Herbert Bräuer zum 65. Geburtstag, Köln: Böhlau, 253-258. 1996b “Old Irish ol ‘inquit’”, Études Celtiques 32, 143-145. 1997a “Thematic and athematic verb forms in Old Irish”, Sound Law and Analogy: Papers in honor of Robert S.P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60th birthday, Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi, 133-137. 2002 “The Indo-Uralic verb”, Finno-Ugrians and Indo-Europeans: Linguistic and literary contacts, Maastricht: Shaker, 217-227. 2003a “An Indo-European substratum in Slavic?”, Languages in prehistoric Europe, Heidelberg: Winter, 253-260. 2003b “Glottalization, preaspiration and gemination in English and Scandinavian”, Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 58, 5-10. 2003c Armeniaca: Comparative notes, Ann Arbor: Caravan. 2004a “Accent and ablaut in the Vedic verb”, Indo-Iranian Journal 47/1, 7-15. 2005b “Lithuanian tekėti and related formations”, Baltistica 40/2, 167-170. 2007 Italo-Celtic origins and prehistoric development of the Irish language, Amsterdam: Rodopi. Meillet, Antoine 1918 “À propos de latin formīca”, Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 20, 115. 1931 “Caractère secondaire du type thématique indo-européen”, Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 32, 194-203. Meiser, Gerhard 1986 Lautgeschichte der umbrischen Sprache, Innsbruck: IBS. 1992 “Die sabellischen Medialendungen der 3. Person”, Rekonstruktion und relative Chronologie, Innsbruck: IBS, 291-305. 1993 “Uritalische Modussyntax: zur Genese des Konjunktiv Imperfekt”, Oskisch-Umbrisch: Texte und Grammatik, Wiesbaden: Reichert, 167-195. 2003 Veni Vidi Vici: Die Vorgeschichte des lateinischen Perfektsystems, München: Beck. Pedersen, Holger 1921 Les formes sigmatiques du verbe latin et le problème du futur indo-européen (= Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser 3/5), København: Høst & Søn. Renou, Louis 1925 “Le type védique tudáti”, Mélanges linguistiques offerts à M. J. Vendryes, 309-316. Schrijver, Peter 1991a The reflexes of the Proto-Indo-European laryngeals in Latin, Diss. Leiden, Amsterdam-Atlanta: Rodopi. Staaij, Robert Johannes van der 1995 A reconstruction of Proto-Italic, Diss. Leiden. Strachan, John 1949 Old-Irish paradigms and selections from the Old-Irish glosses, Dublin: Royal Irish Academy. Stuart-Smith, Jane 2004 Phonetics and philology: Sound change in Italic, Oxford: University Press. Thurneysen, Rudolf 1946 A Grammar of Old Irish, Dublin: DIAS. Untermann, Jürgen 1993 “Gr. ἔθηκα = lat. feci, gr. ἧκα = lat. ieci?”, Indogermanica et Italica: Festschrift für Helmut Rix zum 65. Geburtstag, Innsbruck: IBS, 461-468. Vaan, Michiel de 2003 “Latin au- ‘away’, an allomorph of ab-”, Anuari de Filologia 25-26, 141-147. Villar, Francisco 1997 “The Celtiberian language”, Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie 49-50, 898-949. Wackernagel, Jacob 1896 Altindische Grammatik I: Lautlehre, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Wagner, Heinrich 1956 “Zu den indogermanischen ē-Verben”, Zeitschrift für Celtische Philologie 25, 161-173.