In Proto-Indo-European language, there are several distinct types of reconstructable aorist verb formations. Of these, the athematic root aorist—which demonstrated the full-grade in the singular and the zero-grade in the plural—was seemingly the most common. There was a thematic root aorist formation, which displayed fixed zero-grade in the root and the accent on the suffix with the thematic inflectional endings. This type may have been extremely rare in the original proto-language and it is possible that many later examples of thematic root aorists are post-PIE innovations. Another type of thematic aorist, the reduplicated thematic aorist, was also uncommon and is largely confined to the Greek, Indo-Iranian, and potentially Armenian branches. The sigmatic aorist, which displayed Narten-type ablaut, is widely attested throughout the Indo-European family, though there are few examples of this formation that can be confidently reconstructed in the original Proto-Indo-European language itself.
Root athematic According to Ringe, this type was the most common aoristic formation in Proto-Indo-European. It was formed similarly to root athematic verbs, though it had secondary endings. The linguist Melanie Malzahn notes that there is evidence that the root aorist paradigm originally showcased the full-grade in the singular and the dual, while demonstrating the zero-grade in the plural. For instance, in Ancient Greek, aoristic forms such as ἔβητον ("ébēton") and ἔβημεν ("ébēmen") perhaps reflects the pre-forms *gʷéh₂tom and *gʷéh₂me respectively. Such an ablaut sequence would be highly unusual for Proto-Indo-European verbs, as all other known formations either display fixed ablaut or the full-grade in the singular and the zero-grade in both the dual and the plural. It is unclear whether this irregularity dates back to the Proto-Indo-European period or is instead the result of a secondary reintroduction of the full-grade due to analogical pressures. Homeric Greek also reveals a third-person dual form of the shape βάτην ("bátēn"), which may preserve original zero-grade vocalism in contrast to the later variant ἐβήτην ("ebḗtēn").
Root thematic The formation seemed to have zero-grade of the root and accent on the thematic vowel, like the "tudati" type. It is possible that the thematic root aorist originated as the past imperfect of tudati-type presents, though it also possible that the tudati-presents were secondarily created on the model of these aorists. It is possible that certain examples of thematic root aorists in Ancient Greek served as replacements for older athematic root aorists, such as the form ἔκλυον ("ékluon"), which replaced the athematic variant κλῦτε ("klûte"). According to Beekes, there is a corresponding thematic aorist formation in Sanskrit śruvam, though Beekes explains both the Indo-Aryan and Greek forms as innovations. Within Ancient Greek, thematic root aorists often cooccur with double-nasal presents, such as the aorist ἔλαθον ("élathon") which is beside the present λανθάνω ("λανθάνω"). Such a pattern is perhaps also present in Armenian, where the nasal-infix present lkʻanem—which parallels Ancient Greek λιμπάνω ("limpánō")—also showcases a thematic root aorist elikʻ, which corresponds to Ancient Greek ἔλιπον ("élipon"), itself perhaps from *likʷét. Another example perhaps derives from Old Armenian egit, which belongs to the nasal-infix present gtanem. Few examples of this formation are reconstructable, though—according to Yates and Lundquist—examples such as *h₁ludʰét and *widét strongly indicate that this type of aorist is of PIE date. The term *h₁ludʰét is particularly suggestive of the antiquity of this type, since the verb is continued by terms such as Old Irish luid and Tocharian B lac, both of which belonged to languages where the thematic root aorist type is otherwise absent. Jasanoff suggests that the formation was almost certainly rare, as—should it have been common—then it likely would have left far more traces in the Indo-European family. The formation was completely abandoned in the Germanic branch, indicating that it was used so infrequently as to be completely dropped from the verbal system of some of the daughter languages. There are other such aorists present in the Indo-European languages, particularly the Greek, Armenian, and Indo-Iranian branches, such as Ancient Greek ἔφυγον ("éphugon") and Armenian ebarj. According to the linguist George Cardona, the majority of these terms are later innovations, though Yates and Lundquist argue that the ability to confidently reconstruct multiple instances of this formation implies that there were additional examples of this class in PIE.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
