Proto-Indo-European reduplicated presents, being an ancient class of Proto-Indo-European verbs, probably existed as there a variety of such forms in the daughter languages. There is evidence to support the reconstruction of separate classes of athematic and thematic presents in Proto-Indo-European (PIE). The exact structure of any reduplicated present class in PIE is uncertain, as there are a variety of different accentuation patterns in Vedic and there also inconsistencies regarding the choice of the initial reduplicant between languages such as Ancient Greek and Sanskrit. In general, the class of thematic reduplicated presents may be reconstructed with a fixed ablaut grade and initial i-reduplication, whereas the athematic type shows varying e- and i-reduplication and a more dynamic ablaut.
Reduplicated athematic
Ablaut The root is prefixed with a copy of the initial consonant(s) of the root, separated by a vowel. The accent was perhaps fixed on this prefix, but the root grade alternates as in root athematic verbs. The vowel can be either e or i:
e-reduplication: *(é)-(e)-ti ~ *(é)-(∅)-nti i-reduplication: *(í)-(e)-ti ~ *(í)-(∅)-nti The *(e) ~ (Ø) ablaut of the reduplicated athematic type is possibly preserved in archaic Vedic formations, such as dádhāti ~ dhatté, perhaps from PIE *dʰédʰeh₁ti ~ *dʰédʰh₁n̥ti.
Reduplicant There is a cognate verb in ancient Greek, τίθημι ("títhēmi"), which showcases initial i-reduplication. According to Beekes it is likely that the initial reduplication syllable of the Greek form is more archaic, as he suggests that the Sanskrit form could have adopted the initial dá- from the third-plural form dádhati. The majority of Indo-European languages exclusively utilized i-reduplication, with examples such as Ancient Greek ἵστημι ("hístēmi") and Latin sistō, both of which perhaps derive from *stísteh₂ti. Indo-Iranian, in contrast, utilizes both reduplicants alongside an innovative type of u-reduplication that is confined to roots containing u. Ultimately, based on this evidence, it has been suggested that there existed two separate Proto-Indo-European paradigms, one of which contained i-reduplication and the other e-reduplication. If this theory is accepted, then it is possible that Ancient Greek generalized the i-reduplication to all such presents, whereas Indo-Iranian preserved both formations. There is an attested Hittite verb kukušzi ("to taste"), which perhaps parallels an attested Young Avestan form āzūzušte, perhaps hinting at a u-reduplicated Proto-Indo-European form of the shape *ǵu-ǵews-. However, the reconstruction of this term is disputed: The LIV, for instance, tentatively suggests an alternative derivation of the Avestan form from a reduplicated perfect. Another Vedic form, jujuṣan, has been varyingly interpreted as a reduplicated present connected to the aforementioned Hittite and Avestan forms or as a perfect subjunctive, though the other attested Rigvedic perfect forms of this root show the full-grade. Moreover, the philologist Alexander Lubotsky considers it unlikely that jujuṣan is an archaic form. Alternatively, it has been proposed that Proto-Indo-European only formed i-reduplicated athematic presents and that the additional reduplicants were an Indo-Iranian innovation. It is possible that the a-reduplication in Indo-Iranian resulted from the adaptation of the reduplicant syllable to the root vowel, yielding forms such as dádāti, which belongs to the root dā. However, Sihler critiques this theory, noting the i-reduplication also occurs in Vedic terms with roots containing a, such as in mímāti, which belongs to the root mā. Another theory, postulated by the linguist Manu Leumann, maintains that a-reduplication in verbs such as dádhāti stems from the perfect, though Kortlandt argues that this proposal is premised upon a weak justification. The linguist Jeremy Rau proposes that there were two classes of athematic e-reduplicated presents and thematic i-reduplicated presents. According to Rau, the Ancient Greek language generalized the i-reduplicant to athematic present on the model of forms such as μίμνω ("mímnō"). According to Yates and Lundquist, the existence of two distinct types of reduplicated present in PIE is possible, though they argue that this theory does not adequately explain the differences in the initial reduplicant between seemingly cognate terms, such as the aforementioned Sanskrit dádhāti and Ancient Greek τίθημι ("títhēmi"). Moreover, there are certain Sanskrit roots that appear to showcase both types of reduplication. For instance, the root sac, which forms the i-reduplicated verb síṣakti, also is connected with the attested third-person plural form sáścati. According to the linguist Ryan Sandell, the reconstruction of one PIE paradigm with both i- and e-reduplication better explains this Sanskrit phenomenon, whereas the assumption of two separate verbal formations in PIE necessitates that these Sanskrit reduplicated presents be explained through analogical remodeling. The linguists Eugen Hill and Michael Frotscher further argue that unifying these forms under one singular verbal class is inherently more economical and requires fewer assumptions than the reconstruction of two separate formations.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
