The Absence of Simple Thematic Present Verbs and the Core Indo-European Subjunctive in Anatolian

The Anatolian language branch is thought to have been the first to split off from the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) mother tongue, leaving Core Proto-Indo-European (CPIE) behind as one separate proto-language, which would later yield languages such as Greek and Sanskrit. Simple thematic present verbs form one of the most basic verbal classes within CPIE. In addition, these verbal forms are morphologically identical to the CPIE subjunctive.

Within the Anatolian languages, however, simple thematic present verbs seem to be strikingly scarce, while the subjunctive mood is entirely absent. This study therefore addresses the following research question: “What is the status of the simple thematic present verbs in Anatolian?”. Within CPIE, two types of thematic verbs can be identified: simple (examples 1, 2), and complex (examples 3, 4).

Simple thematic present verbs and the subjunctive are both formed from the verbal root, followed by a thematic vowel *-e/o-, and the verbal ending: (1) Sanskrit 3sg.pres.act. bhár-a-ti ‘he/she brings’ < CPIE *bher-e-ti; (2) Greek 1pl.pres.subj.act. ἴ-ο-μεν ‘let us go’ < CPIE *h1i-o-men. Complex thematic present verbs are formed from the verbal root, followed by a complex thematic suffix, i.e. an athematic consonantal suffix followed by a thematic vowel *-e/o-, and the verbal ending. These verbs occur abundantly in both Anatolian and the Core IE languages, rendering them of PIE origin: (3) Hittite verbal stem šariie ̯ /a-zi ‘to sew’ < PIE *s(e)r-ie ̯ /o-; (4) Greek 1sg.pres.act. εἴρω ‘I fasten’ < PIE *s(e)r-ie ̯ /o-.

Earlier research, most notably by Oettinger (1979), identified a dozen Hittite verbs as “possible simple thematic presents”. The accuracy of these identifications has long been debated (Kloekhorst 2008, Sasseville 2020). In a comprehensive study of all the proposed examples (at the time), Lehrman (1985) argued for the complete absence of simple thematic presents in Hittite.

The results of this study were, however, not widely accepted within Hittitology. The present research thoroughly re-examines the previously proposed examples, with the addition of one Hieroglyphic Luwian lemma. I subject each Anatolian verb that is still considered to be simple thematic to detailed philological and comparative analysis in order to assess their original morphological nature.

Close examination shows that none of the previously cited Anatolian verbs can securely be classified as a simple thematic present. Instead, each lemma can be explained either as a secondary thematization of an original athematic root, or as an original complex thematic formation. As such, no genuine simple thematic presents can be reconstructed for Proto-Anatolian.

This conclusion is reinforced by the parallel absence of the morphologically identical CPIE subjunctive mood within Anatolian. This study contributes greatly to both Anatolian and Indo-European linguistics in general. Cross linguistic evidence from Hittite and Hieroglyphic Luwian sheds light on the curious nature of the Proto-Anatolian verbal system.

The complete absence of simple thematic verbs in Anatolian provides new, crucial evidence for the phylogenetic position of Proto-Anatolian within the greater Indo-European language family. Furthermore, the certainty of complete absence of this verbal category in Anatolian has substantial implications regarding the origin of the CPIE subjunctive mood. Bibliography Adams, D.

Q. (1978). On the Development of the Tocharian Verbal System.

Journal of the American Oriental Society, 98(3), 277–288. Beekes, R. S.

P. (1981). The Subjunctive Endings of Indo-Iranian.

Indo-Iranian Journal, 23, 21–27. Bozzone, C. (2012a).

The PIE Subjunctive: Function and Development. In H. C.

Melchert (Ed.), The Indo-European Verb (pp. 7–18). Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.

Dahl, E. (2013). The Indo-European subjunctive and its origin as a present.

Journal of Indo-European Studies, 41, 392– 420. Eichner, H. (1969).

Hethitisch u ̯ ešš-/u ̯ aššiia ̯ - “(Gewänder)tragen; anziehen; bekleiden.” Münchener Studien Zur Sprachwissenschaft, 27(1969), 5–44. Hoffmann, K. (1968).

Hethitisch luk(k)-, lukki-. Zeitschrift Für Vergleichende Sprachforschung, 82(2), 214–220. Hoffner, H.

A. Jr., & Melchert, H. C.

(2024). A grammar of the Hittite language (2nd ed.). University Park, Pennsylvania: Eisenbrauns.

Jasanoff, J. H. (2003).

Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jasanoff, J.

H. (2017). PIE *u ̯ eid ̯ - “notice” and the origin of the thematic aorist.

In B. S. S.

Hansen, B. N. Whitehead, T.

O. Olander, & B. A.

Olsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 14th Fachtagung of the Indogermanische Gesellschaft, 17-22 September 2012, Copenhagen (pp. 197–208). Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.

Kloekhorst, A. (2008). Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon.

Leiden/Boston: Brill. Kloekhorst, A. (2014).

Once more on Hittite ā/e-ablauting ḫi-verbs. Indogermanische Forschungen, 119(2014), 55–78. Kloekhorst, A.

(2023a). Proto-Indo-Anatolian, the “Anatolian Split” and the “Anatolian Trek”: A Comparative Linguistic Perspective. In K.

Kristiansen, G. Kroonen, & E. Willerslev (Eds.), The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited: Integrating Archaeology, Genetics, and Linguistics (pp.

42–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lehrman, A.

A. (1985). Simple Thematic Imperfectives in Anatolian and Indo-European.

Yale University. Lehrman, A. A.

(1991). Hittite išpárri- “trample” and Vedic sphuráti “kick.” Die Sprache, 35(1991–1993), 131–132. Melchert, H.

C. (1994). Anatolian Historical Phonology.

Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi. Melchert, H. C.

(Ed.). (2003). The Luwians.

Leiden/Boston: Brill. Melchert, H. C.

(2004). Latin īnsolēscō, Hittite šulle(šš)- and PIE Statives in -ē-. Hṛda ̄ ́ Mánasā.

Studies Presented to Professor Leonard G. Herzenberg on His 70th Birthday, 90–98. Melchert, H.

C. (2014). Hittite išpar- “to spread out” and išparre/a- “to kick.” In P.

Taracha (Ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Hittitology, Warsaw, 5-9 September 2011 (pp. 499–506). Morpurgo Davies, A.

(1982). Rhotacism and Verbal Endings in the Luwian Languages. Zeitschrift Für Vergleichende Sprachforschung, 96(1982/1983), 245–270.

Nikolaev, A. (2010). Indo-European *dem(h2)- “to build” and its derivatives.

Historische Sprachforschung, 123(2010), 56–96. Oettinger, N. (1979).

Die Stammbildung des hethitischen Verbums. Nürnberg. Peyrot, M.

(2013). The Tocharian Subjunctive. Leiden/Boston: Brill.

Renou, L. (1932). À propos du subjonctif védique. Bulletin de La Société de Linguistique de Paris, 33, 5–30.

Sasseville, D. (2020). Anatolian Verbal Stem Formation: Luwian, Lycian and Lydian.

Leiden/Boston: Brill. Villanueva Svensson, M. (2021).

The origin of the Indo-European simple thematic presents. Indo-European Linguistics, 9(2021), 264–292. Watkins, C.

(1973). Hittite and Indo-European studies: The denominative statives in -ē-. Transactions of the Philological Society, (1971), 51–93.

Yoshida, K. (2009). On the Origin of Thematic Vowels in Indo-European Verbs.

In East and West: Papers in Indo- European Studies (pp. 265–280). Bremen: Hempen Verlag.

Yoshida, K. (2014). The Thematic Vowel *e/o in Hittite Verbs.

In Munus amicitiae: Norbert Oettinger a collegis et amicis dicatum (pp. 373–384). Ann Arbor/New York: Beech Stave Press.

Yoshida, K. (2016). Hittite Mediopassives in -atta.

In D. Gunkel, J. T.

Katz, B. Vine, & M. Weiss (Eds.), Sahasram Ati Srajas: Indo-Iranian and Indo-European Studies in Honor of Stephanie W.

Jamison (pp. 499–511). Ann Arbor/New York: Beech Stave Press.

Yoshida, K. (2022). On the Origin of the Indo-European Thematic Present.

Gengo Kenkyu, 162, 119–144.