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. 245–278

Chapter 7
The synthetic perfect from Indo-Iranian to Late Vedic

ORCID logo | UiT – The Arctic University of Norway
This paper outlines the origin and development of the synthetic Perfect from Indo-Iranian, the reconstructed common ancestral stage of the Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages, to Vedic, the oldest attested stage of Old Indo-Aryan. Comparative evidence from Old Iranian, Homeric Greek and a number of other Indo-European languages shows that this morphological category ultimately originates from Proto-Indo-European. In the course of its history, the synthetic Perfect develops from a P-oriented stative construction in Indo-European, via an anterior construction in Indo-Iranian to a general past tense with an emerging indirect evidential sense in Old Indo-Aryan. The present contribution highlights the various stages of development reflected in Vedic, but it also includes reference to the Indo-Iranian prehistory of the Vedic Perfect, as well as to its demise in later stages of Indo-Aryan. The development of the Indo-Iranian Perfect indicates that anterior categories tend to be rather unstable diachronically.
Keywords: Indo-Iranian, Indo-Aryan, stative, anterior, evidentiality
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical and philological preliminaries
    • 2.1Theoretical considerations
    • 2.2Philological preliminaries
  • 3.The synthetic perfect in Indo-Iranian
    • 3.1The Proto-Indo-Iranian situation
    • 3.2Outline of the development of the synthetic Perfect in Old Iranian
  • 4.The synthetic Perfect in Old Indo-Aryan
    • 4.1The synthetic Perfect in Early Vedic
    • 4.2The synthetic Perfect in Middle Vedic
      • 4.2.1The Early Middle Vedic Perfect
      • 4.2.2The Perfect in Middle Vedic Proper
    • 4.3The synthetic Perfect in Late Vedic
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 September 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.352.07dah
References (40)
References
Amano, Kyoko. 2009. Maytrāyaṇī Saṃhitā I-II. Übersetzung der Prosapartien mit Kommentar zur Lexik und Syntax der älteren vedischen Prosa (Münchener Forschungen zur historischen Sprachwissenschaft 9). Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, Dipak. 1997. The Paippalāda-Saṃhitā of the Atharvaveda (Bibliotheca Indica 319). Calcutta: The Asiatic Society.Google Scholar
Botne, Robert & Tiffany L. Kershner. 2008. Tense and cognitive space: On the organization of tense/aspect systems in Bantu languages and beyond. Cognitive Linguistics 19. 145–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan, Revere Perkins and William Pagliuca. 1994. The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cardona, George. 2002. The Old Indo-Aryan tense system. Journal of the American Oriental Society 122 (Indic and Iranian Studies in Honor of Stanley Insler on His Sixty-Fifth Birthday), 235–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Eystein. 2010. Time, tense and aspect in Early Vedic grammar: Exploring inflectional semantics in the Rigveda (Brill’s Studies in Indo-European Languages & Linguistics 5). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011a. Tense and aspect in Indo-Iranian Part 1: The present and aorist. Language and Linguistics Compass 5. 265–281. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. Tense and aspect in Indo-Iranian Part 2: The perfect, futurate, participial and periphrastic categories. Language and Linguistics Compass 5. 282–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Evidence for evidentiality in Late Vedic. Klein & Yoshida (eds.), 9–22.Google Scholar
. 2013. Typological change in Vedic: The development of the aorist from a perfective past to an immediate past. In Folke Josephson & Ingmar Söhrman (eds.), Diachronic and typological perspectives on verbs (Studies in Language Companion Series 134), 261–298. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. The development of the Vedic perfect: From anterior present to inferential past. In Jared Klein & Elizabeth Tucker (eds.), Vedic and Sanskrit historical linguistics: Papers of the 13th World Sanskrit Conference III, 179–242. New Delhi: Motilal Banarshidass.Google Scholar
. 2015. Toward a formal model of semantic change: A neo-Reichenbachian approach to the development of the Vedic past tense system. Lingua Posnaniensis 57. 41–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Tense and temporal remoteness in the Old Indo-Aryan verbal system: A multidimensional timeline approach. In Vit Bubenik, Bridget Drinka, John Hewson & Ondřej Sefčik (eds.), Exploring universals of tense and aspect, 129–153. Hamburg: Baar.Google Scholar
Delbrück, Berthold. 1897. Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen. Vol. II. Strassburg: Trübner. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Di Giovine, Paolo. 1990. Studio sul perfetto indoeuropeo I: La funzione originaria del perfetto studiata nella documentazione delle lingue storiche (Biblioteca di ricerche linguistiche e filologiche 26). Roma: Dipartimento di studi glottoantropologici dell’Università di Roma “La Sapienza”.Google Scholar
. 1996a. Studio sul perfetto indoeuropeo II: La posizione del perfetto all’interno del sistema verbale indoeuropeo (Biblioteca di ricerche linguistiche e filologiche 40). Roma: Il Calamo/Dipartimento di studi glottoantropologici dell’Università di Roma “La Sapienza”.Google Scholar
. 1996b. Studio sul perfetto indoeuropeo III: Indici (Biblioteca di ricerche linguistiche e filologiche 41). Roma: Il Calamo/Dipartimento di studi glottoantropologici dell’Università di Roma “La Sapienza”.Google Scholar
Eberle, Kurt & Walter Kasper. 1994. French past tenses and temporal structure. In Rolf Thieroff & Joachim Ballweg (eds.), Tense systems in European languages (Linguistische Arbeiten 308), 149–172. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Arlo. 2009. The Paippalādasaṃhitā of the Atharvaveda: Kāṇḍas 6 & 7 (Groningen Oriental Studies 22). Groningen: Forsten.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey L. J. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages: A construction grammar approach (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 37). Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Karl & Bernhard Forssman. 2004. Avestische Laut- und Flexionslehre. 2nd revised and extended edition. (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 115). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Humbach, Helmut, Josef Elfenbein and Prods O. Skjærvø. 1991. The Gāthās of Zarathushtra and the other Old Avestan texts I: Introduction – Text and translation. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Jamison, Stephanie W. & Joel P. Brereton. 2014. The Rigveda: The earliest religious poetry of India. Translated by Stephanie W. Jamison and Joel P. Brereton. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Jay H. 1978. Stative and middle in Indo-European (Innsbrucker Beiträge zur Sprachwissenschaft 23). Innsbruck: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Innsbruck.Google Scholar
Kamp, Hans & Uwe Reyle. 1993. From discourse to logic: Introduction to modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal logic and discourse representation theory (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophie 42). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Keith, Arthur B. 1920. Rigveda Brahmanas: The Aitareya and Kauṣītaki Brāhmaṇas of the Rigveda (Harvard Oriental Series 25). Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kent, Roland G. 1953. Old Persian: Grammar, texts, lexicon (American Oriental Series 33). New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 1998. Aspect and event structure in Vedic. The yearbook of South Asian languages and linguistics 1998. 29–62.Google Scholar
. 2002. Event structure and the perfect. In David I. Beaver, Luis D. Casillas Martínez, Brady Z. Clark & Stefan Kaufmann (eds.) The construction of meaning, 113–136. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI.Google Scholar
Klein, Jared S. 1978. The particle u in the Rigveda: A synchronic and diachronic study (Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung. Ergänzungsheft 27). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
1985. Toward a discourse grammar of the Rigveda. Heidelberg: Winter.Google Scholar
Klein, Jared S. & Kazuhiko Yoshida (eds.). 2012. Indic across the millennia. From the Rigveda to Modern Indo-Aryan. Proceedings of the linguistics section. 14th World Sanskrit Conference, Kyoto, Japan, September 1–5 2009. Bremen: Hempen.Google Scholar
Kobayashi, Masato. 2012. Information structure and the particles vái and evá in Vedic prose. In Klein & Yoshida (eds.), 77–92.Google Scholar
Kulikov, Leonid. 2013. Language vs. grammatical tradition in Ancient India: How real was Pāṇinian Sanskrit? Evidence from the history of late Sanskrit passives and pseudo-passives. Folia Linguistica Historica 34. 59–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kümmel, Martin J. 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
Olivelle, Patrick. 1996. Upaniṣads: A new translation by Patrick Olivelle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, Hans. 1947. Elements of symbolic logic. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Skjærvø, Prods O. 2009. Old Iranian. In Gernot Windfuhr (ed.), The Iranian languages, 43–195. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Witzel, Michael. 1989. Tracing the Vedic dialects. In Colette Caillat (ed.), Dialectes dans les littératures indo-aryennes: Actes du colloque international, org. par l’UA 1058, Paris (Fondation Hugot), 16–18 sept. 1986 (Publications de l’institut de civilisation indienne 55), 97–264. Paris: Boccard.Google Scholar
. 1995. Early Indian history: Linguistic and textual parameters. In George Erdosy (ed.), Language, material culture and ethnicity. The Indo-Aryans of ancient South Asia (Indian Philology and South Asian Studies 1), 85–125. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar