Cover not available
Part of
Perfects in Indo-European Languages and Beyond
Edited by Robert Crellin and Thomas Jügel
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 352] 2020
► pp. 15–48

Chapter 2
The development of the perfect within IE verbal systems

An overview

| Friedrich Schiller University Jena

This paper gives an overview of the development of perfect forms in the branches of Indo-European. It begins with a discussion of the perfect in Proto-Indo-European and problems with its reconstruction. Special attention is paid to the formal and functional discrepancies between the Common Indo-European perfect and related forms in the Anatolian branch. The paper then traces the continuation of the Proto-Indo-European perfect form and gives an overview of various new constructions which take the place of the original form. It concludes with a short discussion of the semantic shifts which take place in the different Indo-European branches.

Keywords: diachronic development, PIE perfect, monolectic periphrastic perfect, ergative-like, participle
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The inherited IE perfect
    • 2.1The (Proto-)Indo-European background
      • 2.1.1The function of the perfect and related formations
      • 2.1.2The form of the perfect
        • 2.1.2.1Analysis of the endings
        • 2.1.2.2Stem formation, ablaut and accent
        • 2.1.2.3Perfect and *ha-conjugation in the context of the PIE verbal system
        • 2.1.2.4Examples of reconstructable perfects (all 3sg)
      • 2.1.3Different explanations
    • 2.2The development of the old perfect in IE
      • 2.2.1Oldest period: The perfect as a distinct category
        • a.Indo-Iranian
        • b.Greek
      • 2.2.2Later periods: The perfect as a past tense or lost
        • a.Italic
        • b.Celtic
        • c.Germanic
        • d.Tocharian
        • e.Albanian
        • f.Armenian
        • g.Slavic and Baltic
  • 3.New perfects
    • 3.1Periphrasis with copula only
      • 3.1.1Type 1: pst.p only (→ ‘ergatival’)
        • a.Indo-Iranian
        • b.Armenian
        • c.Tocharian
      • 3.1.2Type 2: ‘Active’ construction vs. pst.p
        • a.Indo-Iranian
        • b.Baltic
        • c.Slavic
        • d.Italic (Pre-Latin)
    • 3.2Periphrasis with ‘be’ + ‘have’
      • a.Anatolian
      • b.Indo-Iranian
      • c.Greek
      • d.Italic
      • e.Celtic
      • f.Germanic
      • g.Baltic
      • h.Slavic
      • i.Albanian
    • 3.3Other developments
  • 4.New functions of the (old or new) perfect
    • 4.1Perfective and/or past
    • 4.2Inferential (evidential)
      • a.Sanskrit
      • b.Iranian
      • c.Baltic
      • d.Bulgarian-Macedonian (Balkan Slavic)
      • e.Albanian
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 23 September 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.352.02kum
References
Bashir, Elena
1988 Topics in Kalasha syntax: An areal and typological perspective. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan dissertation.Google Scholar
Beekes, Robert S. P.
2011 Comparative Indo-European linguistics. An introduction. 2nd edn., revised and corrected by Michiel de Vaan. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentein, Klaas
2016 Verbal periphrasis in Ancient Greek: Have and be constructions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bielmeier, Roland
1989 Yaghnōbī. In Schmitt (ed.) 1989b, 480–488.Google Scholar
Cheung, Johnny
2002 Studies in the historical development of the Ossetic vocalism. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Christol, Alain
1990 Introduction à l’ossète: éléments de grammaire comparée. LALIES – Actes des sessions de linguistique et de littérature (Aussois, 26–31 août 1986) 8. 7–50.Google Scholar
Crellin, Robert Samuel David
2016 The syntax semantics of the perfect active in Literary Koine Greek (Publications of the Philological Society 113). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dahl, Eystein
2010 Time, tense and aspect in early Vedic grammar. Exploring inflectional semantics in the Rigveda. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 Evidence for evidentiality in late Vedic. In Jared S. Klein & Kazuhiko Yoshida (eds.), Indic across the Millennia: from the Rigveda to Modern Indo-Aryan. 14th World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto, Japan, September 1st–5th, 2009. Proceedings of the Linguistics Section, 9–23. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
2014 The development of the Vedic perfect: From anterior to inferential past. In Jared S. Klein & Elizabeth Tucker (eds.), Papers from the 13th World Sanskrit Conference: Volume III: Vedic and Sanskrit historical linguistics, 179–242. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.Google Scholar
Debrunner, Albert
1954 Altindische Grammatik. Vol. II, 2: Die Nominalsuffixe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Deo, Ashwini
2006 Tense and aspect in Indo-Aryan languages: Variation and diachrony. Stanford, CA: Stanford University dissertation.Google Scholar
Drinka, Bridget
2017 Language contact in Europe: The periphrastic perfect through history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunkel, George
2014 Lexikon der indogermanischen Partikeln und Pronominalstämme. Vol. 2: Lexikon. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond
2009 Khwarezmian. In Windfuhr (ed.), 336–376.Google Scholar
Eichner, Heiner
1975 Die Vorgeschichte des hethitischen Verbalsystems. In Helmut Rix (ed.), Flexion und Wortbildung: Akten der V. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Regensburg, 9.-14. Sept. 1973, 71–103. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Emmerick, Ronald E.
1989 Khotanese and Tumšuqese. Schmitt (ed.) 1989b, 204–229.Google Scholar
Fahs, Achim
1985 Grammatik des Pali. Leipzig: Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Fortson, Benjamin W.
, iv 2010 Indo-European language and culture. An introduction, 2nd edn. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
García Castillero, Carlos
2002 Zum indoiranischen Typ śáye śére . Historische Sprachforschung 115. 151–185.Google Scholar
Gerö, Eva-Carin & Arnim von Stechow
2003 Tense in time: The Greek perfect. In Regine Eckardt, Klaus von Heusinger & Christoph Schwarze (eds.), Words in time: Diachronic semantics from different points of view, 251–294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gotō, Toshifumi
1997 Überlegungen zum urindogermanischen «Stativ». In Emilio Crespo & José Luís García Ramón (eds.), Berthold Delbrück y la sintaxis indoeuropea hoy: Actas del coloquio de la indogermanische Gesellschaft Madrid, 21–24 de septiembre de 1994, 165–192. Madrid: Ediciones de la UAM and Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey L. J.
2008 Alignment change in Iranian languages: A construction grammar approach. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harðarson, Jón Axel
1993 Studien zum urindogermanischen Wurzelaorist und dessen Vertretung im Indoiranischen und Griechischen (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 74). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
von Hinüber, Oskar
1977 Notes on the e-preterit in Middle Indo-Aryan. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 36. 39–48.Google Scholar
1982/83 Zum Perfekt im Pāli. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 96 (1). 30–32.Google Scholar
1986 Das ältere Mittelindisch im Überblick. Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, Karl
1960 Zum Aorist von dr̥ś . Indo-Iranian Journal 4. 119–120. [reprint in Hoffmann 1975: 146–147].Google Scholar
1968 Zum Optativ des indogermanischen Wurzelaorists. In Jan C. Heesterman, Godard H. Schokker, Vadasery I. Subramoniam (eds.), Pratidānam. Indian, Iranian and Indo-European Stu-dies presented to Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper on his sixtieth birthday (Janua Linguarum, Series maior 34), 3–8. Den Haag: Mouton [reprint in Hoffmann 1975: 245–250].Google Scholar
1975 Aufsätze zur Indoiranistik 1 ed. by Johanna Narten. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. & H. Craig Melchert
2008 A Grammar of the Hittite language: Part 1: Reference Grammar. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay H.
1979 The Position of the ḫi- Conjugation. In Erich Neu & Wolfgang Meid (eds.), Hethitisch und Indogermanisch. Vergleichende Studien zur historischen Grammatik und zur dialektgeographischen Stellung der indogermanischen Sprachgruppe Altkleinasiens (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 25), 79–90. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
1997 Gathic Avestan cikōitərəš . In Alexander Lubotsky (ed.), Sound law and snalogy: Papers in honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60th birthday (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 9), 119–130. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2003 Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013 The Tocharian subjunctive and preterite in *-a- . In Adam I. Cooper, Jeremy Rau & Michael Weiss (eds.), Multi nominis grammaticus. Studies in Classical and Indo-European linguistics in honor of Alan J. Nussbaum on the occasion of his sixty-fifth birthday, 105–120. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press.Google Scholar
2018 What happened to the perfect in Hittite? A contribution to the theory of the *h₂e-conjugation. In Rieken (ed.), 137–156.Google Scholar
Forthcoming. The Germanic weak preterite: Facing up to talgidai . Historische Sprachforschung 131 2018[2020].Google Scholar
Job, Michael
1994 Zur Funktion des Perfekts im R̥gveda. In Roland Bielmeier & Reinhard Stempel with the assistance of René Lanszweert (eds.), Indogermanica et Caucasica. Festschrift für Karl Horst Schmidt zum 65. Geburtstag, 41–62. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, Lars & Bo Utas
(eds.) 2000 Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 24). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jügel, Thomas
2015 Die Entwicklung der Ergativkonstruktion im Alt- und Mitteliranischen. Eine korpusbasierte Untersuchung zu Kasus, Kongruenz und Satzbau (Iranica 21). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kapović, Mate
(ed.) 2017 The Indo-European languages. 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Keydana, Götz
2006 Die indogermanische Perfektreduplikation. Folia Linguistica Historica 27. 61–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Ronald
2010 On the prehistory of Old English dyde . In Marcin Krygier & Liliana Sikorska (eds.), Þe comoun peplis language (Medieval English Mirror 6), 9–22. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Klingenschmitt, Gert
1982 Das altarmenische Verbum. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Kloekhorst, Alwin
2008 Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon (Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series 5). Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
2012 Hittite ‘ā/e’-ablauting verbs. In H. Craig Melchert (ed.), The Indo-European verb: Proceedings of the conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Los Angeles, 13–15 September 2010, 151–160. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
2014 Once more on Hittite ā/e-ablauting ḫi-verbs. Indogermanische Forschungen 119.55–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 The Old Hittite and the Proto-Indo-European tense-aspect-system. Indogermanische Forschungen 122. 295–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018  The origin of the Hittite ḫi-conjugation. In Lucien van Beek, Alwin Kloekhorst, Guus Kroonen, Michaël Peyrot, Tijmen Pronk & Michiel de Vaan (eds.), Farnah. Indo-Iranian and Indo-European studies in honor of Sasha Lubotsky, 89–106. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave.Google Scholar
Korn, Agnes
2013 Looking for the Middle way: Voice and transitivity in complex predicates in Iranian. Lingua 135. 30–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kortlandt, Frederik H. H.
1983 Proto-Indo-European verbal syntax. Journal of Indo-European Studies 11. 307–324 [reprint in Kortlandt 2010: 91–103].Google Scholar
2010 Studies in Germanic, Indo-European and Indo-Uralic. Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid I.
2006 Passive and middle in Indo-European: Reconstructing the early Vedic passive paradigm. In Werner Abraham & Larisa Leisiö (eds.), Passivization and typology: Form and function (Typological Studies in Language 68), 62–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 The Vedic ya-presents. Passives and intransitivity in Old Indo-Aryan (Leiden Studies in Indo-European 19). Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2017 Indo-Aryan. In Kapović (ed.), 214–262.Google Scholar
Kümmel, Martin Joachim
1996 Stativ und Passivaorist im Indoiranischen (Historische Sprachforschung. Ergänzungsheft 39). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
2000 Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen: Eine Untersuchung der Form und Funktion einer ererbten Kategorie des Verbums und ihrer Weiterentwicklung in den altindoiranischen Sprachen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Kümmel, Martin Joachim, & Rix, Helmut
(eds.) 2001 Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. 2nd expanded and corrected edn. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Kümmel, Martin Joachim
2004 Zur o-Stufe in der idg. Verbalstammbildung. In James Clackson & Birgit Anette Olsen (eds.), Indo-European word formation: Proceedings of the conference held at the University of Copenhagen, October 20th 22nd 2000, 139–158. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum.Google Scholar
2012 The inflection of the Hittite verb class of mema/i- . In H. Craig Melchert (ed.), The Indo-European Verb: Proceedings of the Conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies, Los Angeles, 13–15 September 2010, 201–208. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
2016 Is ancient old and modern new? Fallacies of attestation and reconstruction (with special focus on Indo-Iranian). In David M. Goldstein, Stephanie W. Jamison & Brent Vine with the assistance of Angelo Mercado (eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference, Los Angeles, October 23rd and 24th, 2015, 79–96. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
2017 Partizipien und Verbaladjektive als Prädikate im Indoiranischen. In Claire Le Feuvre, Daniel Petit & Georges-Jean Pinault (eds.), Verbal adjectives and participles in Indo-European languages / Adjectifs verbaux et participes dans les langues indo-européennes: Proceedings of the conference of the Society for Indo-European Studies (Indogermanische Gesellschaft), Paris, 24th to 26th September 2014, 141–158. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
2018 Anatolisches und indoiranisches Verbum: Erbe und Neuerung. In Rieken (ed.), 239–258.Google Scholar
Leluda-Voß, Christina
1997 Die Perfekterfassung und das neugriechische Perfekt. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Lühr, Rosemarie
1984 Reste der athematischen Konjugation in den germanischen Sprachen. In Jürgen Untermann & Bela Brogyanyi (eds.), Das Germanische und die Rekonstruktion der indogermanischen Grundsprache. Akten des Freiburger Kolloquiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Freiburg, 26.-27. Februar 1981 (Amsterdam Studies in the Theory and History of Linguistic Sciences, Series IV, Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 22), 25–90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lundqvist, Jesse & Anthony D. Yates
2018 The morphology of Proto-Indo-European. In Brian D. Joseph, Jared S. Klein & Matthias Fritz in cooperation with Mark Wenthe (eds.), Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics 3 (Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 41:3), 2079–2195. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lyonnet, Stanislas
1933 Le parfait en armenien classique: principalement dans la traduction des Évangiles et chez Eznik (Collection linguistique 37). Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Malzahn, Melanie
2004 3:3, 5:1, or 4:2? On the ablaut of the root aorist in Greek and Indo-European. Historische Sprachforschung 117. 50–75.Google Scholar
2010 The Tocharian verbal system (Brill’s studies in Indo-European languages & linguistics 3). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Masica, Colin P.
1991 The Indo-Aryan languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Meiser, Gerhard
1998 Historische Laut- und Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
2003 Veni vidi vici: die Vorgeschichte des lateinischen Perfektsystems. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
Melchert, H. Craig
2013 Ablaut patterns in the Hittite ḫi-conjugation. In Stephanie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert & Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th annual UCLA Indo-European conference: Los Angeles, October 26th and 27th, 2012, 137–150. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
2015 The Tocharian s-preterite. In Melanie Malzahn, Michaël Peyrot, Hannes Fellner & Theresa-Susanna Illés (eds.), Tocharian texts in context: International conference on Tocharian manuscripts and Silk Road culture, Vienna, June 25–29th, 2013, 127–135. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Meyer, Robin
2015 Morphosyntactic alignment, pattern replication, and the Classical Armenian periphrastic perfect. In Stephanie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert & Brent Vine (eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual UCLA Indo-European conference, Los Angeles, October 24th and 25th, 2014, 117–133. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Morgenstierne, Georg
1947 Some features of Khowar morphology. Norsk Tidsskrift for Spogvidenskap 14.5–28.Google Scholar
Neu, Erich
1968 Das hethitische Mediopassiv und seine indogermanischen Grundlagen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Novák, Ľubomír
2010 Jaghnóbsko-český slovník s přehledem jaghnóbské gramatiky. Prague: Filozofická Fak.Google Scholar
Oberlies, Thomas
2001 Pali: A grammar of the language of the Theravada Tipitaka; i>with a concordance to Pischel’s Grammatik der Prakrit-Sprachen (Indian Philology and South Asian Studies 3). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2003 A Grammar of Epic Sanskrit. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oettinger, Norbert
1976 Der indogermanische Stativ. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 34.109–149.Google Scholar
1979 Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums. Nürnberg: Carl.Google Scholar
2002 Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums. Reprint with a new preface and a short revision of the Hittite verbal classes. Dresden: TU.Google Scholar
Peyrot, Michaël
2013 The Tocharian subjunctive (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages & Linguistics 8). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pooth, Roland
2000 Stativ vs. Medium im Vedischen und Avestischen. Historische Sprachforschung 113:1.88–116.Google Scholar
2004a Ablaut und autosegmentale Morphologie: Theorie der urindogermanischen Wurzelflexion. In Maria Kozianka, Rosemarie Lühr & Susanne Zeilfelder (eds.), Indogermanistik – Germanistik – Linguistik, 401–471. Hamburg: Dr. Kovač.Google Scholar
2004b Zur Genese der späturidg. thematischen Konjugation aus frühuridg. Medialformen. Indogermanische Forschungen 109.31–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Der urindogermanische Progressiv. In Rosemarie Lühr & Sabine Ziegler (eds.), Protolanguage and Prehistory. Akten der XII. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft in Krakau, 381–406. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
2014 Die Diathesen Aktiv vs. Medium und die Verbsemantik im Vedischen der R̥gveda-Saṃhitā. Leiden: University of Leiden dissertation.Google Scholar
Randall, William & Howard Jones
2014 On the early origins of the Germanic preterite presents. Transactions of the Philological Society 113:2.137–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rieken, Elisabeth
(ed.) 2018 100 Jahre Entzifferung des Hethitischen: Morphosyntaktische Kategorien in Sprachgeschichte und Forschung. Akten der Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft vom 21. bis 23. September 2015 in Marburg. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Ringe, Donald A., Jr.
2006 From Proto-Indo-European to Germanic (A linguistic history of English 1). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rix, Helmut
1988 The Proto-Indo-European middle. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 49.101–119.Google Scholar
1992 Zur Entstehung des lateinischen Perfektparadigmas. In Oswald Panagl & Thomas Krisch (eds.), Latein und Indogermanisch. Akten des Kolloqiums der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Salzburg, 23. – 26. September 1986, 221–240. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck [= 2001 Kleine Schriften: Festgabe für Helmut Rix zum 75. Geburtstag ed. by Gerhard Meiser, 209–228. Bremen: Hempen.].Google Scholar
1998 Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: Die Wurzeln und ihre Primärstammbildungen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Schmalstieg, William R.
1987 A Lithuanian historical syntax. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Rüdiger
1989a Altpersisch. In Schmitt (ed.) 1989b, 56–85.Google Scholar
(ed.) 1989b Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Schuhmann, Roland
2016 Zur Endung der 3.Sg.Ind.Prät. der schwachen Verben in den Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark. In Sergio Neri, Roland Schuhmann & Susanne Zeilfelder with the assistance of Satoko Hisatsugi (eds.), “dat ih dir it nu bi huldi gibu”: linguistische, germanistische und indogermanistische Studien Rosemarie Lühr gewidmet, 407–418. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Schumacher, Stefan
2004 Die keltischen Primärverben: ein vergleichendes, etymologisches und morphologisches Lexikon. Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachen und Literaturen der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
2005 »Langvokalische Perfekta« in indogermanischen Einzelsprachen und ihr grundsprachlicher Hintergrund. In Gerhard Meiser & Olaf Hackstein (eds.), Sprachkontakt und Sprachwandel: Akten der XI. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Gesellschaft, Halle an der Saale, 17. – 23. September 2000, 591–626. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Schumacher, Stefan & Joachim Matzinger
2013 Die Verben des Altalbanischen. Belegwörterbuch, Vorgeschichte und Etymologie (Albanische Forschungen 33). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Sims-Williams, Nicholas
1989 Sogdian. In Schmitt (ed.) 1989b, 173–192.Google Scholar
1997 The denominal suffix -ant- and the formation of the Khotanese transitive perfect. In Alexander Lubotsky (ed.), Sound law and analogy: Papers in honor of Robert S. P. Beekes on the occasion of his 60th birthday, 317–325. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
2017 Iranian. In Kapović (ed.), 263–286.Google Scholar
Skjærvø, Prods Oktor
1985 Remarks on the Old Persian verbal system. Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 45.211–227.Google Scholar
1987 On the Tumshuqese Karmavācanā text. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 119:1.77–90.Google Scholar
Speijer, Jakob S.
1886 Sanskrit syntax. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Stang, Christian S.
1942 Das slavische und das baltische Verbum. Oslo: Dybwad.Google Scholar
1966 Vergleichende Grammatik der Baltischen Sprachen. Oslo, Bergen & Tromsø: Universitetsvorlaget.Google Scholar
Tanaka, Toshiya
2011 A morphological conflation approach to the historical development of preterite-present verbs: Old English, Proto-Germanic, and Proto-Indo-European. Fukuoka: Hana-Shoin.Google Scholar
Thompson, Rupert
2017 Greek. In Kapović (ed.), 287–316.Google Scholar
Wackernagel, Jacob
1904 Studien zum griechischen Perfektum. Göttingen: Dieterich.Google Scholar
Watkins, Calvert
1969 Indogermanische Grammatik, vol. III, part 1: Geschichte der indogermanischen Verbalflexion. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Wendtland, Antje
2011 The emergence and development of the Sogdian Perfect. In Agnes Korn, Geoffrey Haig, Simin Karimi & Pollet Samvelian (eds.), Topics in Iranian linguistics (Beiträge zur Iranistik 34), 39–52. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Google Scholar
Whitney, William Dwight
1879 A Sanskrit grammar (Bibliothek indogermanischer Grammatiken 2). Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel and London: Trübner.Google Scholar
Willi, Andreas
2016 The Oscan perfect in –tt . Transactions of the Philological Society 114:1.75–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 The origins of the Greek verb. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Windfuhr, Gernot
(ed.) 2009 The Iranian languages. London & New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Yoshida, Yutaka
2009 Sogdian. In Windfuhr (ed.), 279–335.Google Scholar
Zukoff, Sam
2017 The reduplicative system of Ancient Greek and a new analysis of Attic reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 48:3. 459–497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Luraghi, Silvia, Guglielmo Inglese & Daniel Kölligan
2021. The passive voice in ancient Indo-European languages: inflection, derivation, periphrastic verb forms. Folia Linguistica 55:s42-s2 ► pp. 339 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.