There were several distinct types of Proto-Indo-European desiderative formations. Many daughter languages, such as Ancient Greek or Latin, converted the original desideratives into future formations. However, the original desiderative meaning is still preserved in Indo-Iranian.
*(h₁)se-desiderative
Ordinary This thematic suffix formed desiderative verbs, meaning "to want to do". Ringe reconstructs for this formation the ablaut paradigm *(é)-(h₁)s-eti ~ *(é)-(h₁)s-onti, which contains the accented full grade of the root. Ancient Greek future forms such as δείξω (deíxō)—the future form of δείκνυμι (deíknumi)—suggest that, in Proto-Indo-European, the desiderative suffix was applied to the bare root, not the verbs themselves. The Proto-Indo-European desiderative is the source for the future tense in a variety of daughter languages, with only Indo-Iranian retaining the original desiderative meaning. In Latin, certain third-conjugation verbs likely derive from original desideratives, such as vīsō ("to look at, see"), which probably reflects a Proto-Indo-European verb *wéydseti ("to want to see"), itself from the root *weyd- ("to see"). Despite the reconstruction of a laryngeal in the suffix, numerous verbs within Ancient Greek form their future paradigms purely via the addition of a thematic s-suffix, which may result from the deletion of the laryngeal between stops and the *-s-. The linguist Jaan Puhvel suggests that standard Greek sigmatic future forms may reflect the deletion of the laryngeal when placed between two nonsyllabic consonants. If this theory is accepted, then a term such as "ἄξουσι" ("áxousi") could still be explained from Proto-Indo-European *Heǵ-Hsonti. However, in Ancient Greek, verb stems ending in nasals or liquids generally create futures utilizing the suffix -έω (-éō), likely as a consequence of the e-coloring laryngeal *h₁ in the desiderative suffix. Future forms such as μενέω (menéō) may derive from earlier *menehō, itself from *ménh₁seti. According to Puhvel, the laryngeal likely remained present when placed subsequent to root-final *r, *l, *m, and *n, thereby allowing for the preservation of the laryngeal in hypothetical pre-forms such as *ménh₁seti. Further evidence for an original laryngeal perhaps appears in Celtic, where the Old Irish s-subjunctive has been derived from an *-(a)se- morpheme, which itself perhaps resulted from the vocalization of the laryngeal as *a.
Reduplicated In Sanskrit, there exists a particular type of thematic desiderative class formed via í-reduplication and a sa-suffix. For instance, consider the desiderative term nínīṣati, which belongs to the root √nī-. However, roots marked by the vowel -u- typically formed desideratives utilizing u-reduplication, such as the term jughukṣati, which belongs to the root √guh-. Whereas the Sanskrit reduplicated desiderative was typically marked by a weak root vowel, certain roots with a final resonant produced lengthened grade desideratives. Puhvel suggests that these formations regularly reflect a Proto-Indo-European sequence of the shape *-RHs-, in which the resonant and the consonant *-s- were separated an intervening laryngeal. For instance, the Sanskrit desiderative cíkīrṣati can be construed as the expected outcome of Proto-Indo-European *kʷí-kʷr̥-(h₁)s-eti. Regardless, this specific type of desiderative may have existed at the Proto-Indo-European level, as it also possibly the source of certain Old Irish and Ancient Greek reduplicated futures. In Ancient Greek, there exist terms such as Homeric "δεδέξομαι" ("dedéxomai"), a future form of δέχομαι ("dékhomai"). Such reduplicated futures also appear in Attic Greek—Aristophanes, a 5th-century BCE Athenian playwright, utilizes the reduplicated future form "κεκλαύσεται" ("keklaúsetai"). In Old Irish, numerous verbs showcase s-futures with reduplication, such as guidid—the future form of which was gigsea. However, the linguist Frederik Kortlandt argues that the endings of the Old Irish reduplicated s-future are indicative an originally athematic paradigm, in contrast to the thematic nature of the Sanskrit reduplicated desiderative.
*sye-desiderative Ringe reconstructs this paradigm as *(∅)-sy-éti ~ *(∅)-sy-ónti, though Lundquist and Yates instead reconstruct *h₁s-ye-ti. According to Jasanoff, there is evidence in Sanskrit for a laryngeal within the suffix, namely the -i- present in the future forms of roots ending with a resonant. For instance, the Sanskrit root kṛ- ("to do, make") forms a future of the shape kariṣyáti, where the -i- perhaps reflects an earlier *h₁ laryngeal. However, Sanskrit roots that do not end in a resonant also generally do not form futures using the suffix -iṣyáti, such as the root vac- ("to speak, say"), which produces a future of the shape vakṣyáti. This verbal formation is reflected in the Sanskrit future-forming suffix -syáti and possibly also the Lithuanian future paradigm. Given the restriction to one specific area of the Indo-European world, it may have been a dialectal regionalism within the proto-language. However, the *sye-suffix is perhaps attested in Gaulish future forms such as pissiumi ("I shall see").
*s-presents
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
