Anda di halaman 1dari 20



One of the characteristic features of the Greek verbal system is the use
of a distinct perfect participle in the system of the active voice. In histo-
rical Greek its suffix appears as -w~, -6~, -6"t'oc, -6"t'o~ etc. (e.g. e:t~w~, e:t~6"t'oc etc.)
in the masculine-neuter, that is the suffix apparently ends in a voiceless den-
tal stop. But the feminine ending -ULOC (e.g. Horn. t~ULOC, Att. e:t~IJLOC), which
clearly contains the normal feminine suffix -ya and must therefore have been
based on a participial suffix ending in -uC 1, cannot be reconciled with a
dental suffix. A suffix in -t would have yielded a feminine form ending in -t-ya
which would appear as -Cl'Cl'OC or -"t"'t'oc in the Greek dialects. The difference in
vowel between -O"t'- and -U-LOC can be more readily explained on the assump-
tion that originally the participial suffix began with a digamma, so that the
masc.-ntr. form -wot- alternated with -u-, where -u- was the regular nil-
grade form of the full-grade form -wo-.
This is as far as the historical method will take us 2. In order to find a
solution to the problem left unanswered, we may now exploit the compara-
tive method. If we turn to the cognate languages, we find the following data.
In Sanskrit, the perfect participle corresponding to Gk. e:t~w~ shows a stem-
form vid-vas-, alternating with vid-vat- in the so-called middle cases; the
feminine nom. sg. is vid-u~-i. The latter is particularly interesting as it clears
up the formation of Gk. t~uLocfe:t~ULOC: it is from *wid-us-ya, where -us-
is the nil-grade of a suffix -wes jwos-. But Sanskrit is also interesting in that
it seems to offer the variation -vas- j-vat-. A comparison of Sanskrit and Greek

1 C stands for any suitable consonant.

S Strictly speaking, of course, even this is to claim too much for the historical
method. From historical Greek alone it would probably be impossible to see that we/wo
can alternate with -U-.
8 Oswald Szemerenyi

suggests therefore that the perfect participle had a suffix -wes-j-wos-j-us-,

beside which there was also a dental form -wot- 3.
Further evidence of -t-forms has been produced from the Western lE
languages. The clearest seems to be Gothic weitwod (acc. sg. masc.) "wit-
ness", nom. sg. pt (galiuga-)weitwods "(false) witness(es) ", gen. pI. weit-
wode. It can be equated with Gk. t~wc;, the semantic shift from " knowing"
to " witness" being an easy one, cf. Gk. 'LG't"Wp. The same suffix can be found
in Lat. caput, if this is *kap-wot- "something that takes, receptacle", and
in apud, if it is *ap-wot- (from apiscor) "having reached", and so "being
in the neighbourhood of", or simply" near, at ". Celtic is also thought to
have two words based on this formation: the Old Irish noun bibdu (gen.
bibdid, gen. pI. bibdad) "culprit, defendant", from *bhe-bhud-wot-, and Old
Irish coimdiu "Lord, lord" from *kom-med-wot-.
Thus an impressive picture has been built up, showing quite convincingly
that the Indo-European perfect participle was characterized by the suffix-
variation -wos-j-wot- '. This is the doctrine adopted by all current handbooks 5.
Nevertheless, the new Mycenaean evidence demands a drastic revision of
this picture.
The tablets present us with the forms araruja " &pOtP\)~Ot "; araruwoa,
ntr. pI., cf. Hom. &p'YJp6't"Ot; ntr. pI. tetukowoa (i.e. tetukwoa), corresponding
to an unattested * 't"'t"UXf6't"Ot, cf. Hom. 't"'t"UXWC;; finally the incomplete word
..J4.edikuja, of uncertain meaning and derivation 6.
The feminine form, identical with the historical type, is based on the suffix
form -wos-. But the surprising fact is that Mycenaean shows no sign of the
-t1orm. The only conclusion we can draw from this fact is that in Mycenaean
times only the suffix-form -wos- was in use. Which in its turn means that My-
cenaean did not inherit a suffixform -wot- from Indo-European, in other words:

3 On the distribution of these variants within the paradigm see the text further on.

See, e.g., Brugmann, Grundriss' Il I, 563 f. ; Wackernagel-Debrunner, Altindische

Gramm. Ill, 1930, 296 f., esp. 299; Il 2, 1954, 909; Hirt, Indogermanische Gramm.
Ill, 1927, 72; Meillet, Introduction a. l'etude comparative des langues i-e., 1937 8 , 279;
Specht, Ursprung der idg. Deklination, 1944, 344 f. - The" evidence" just quoted will
be discussed further on.
I As representative of current views I quote: Chantraine, Formation des noms en

grec ancien, 1933, 439; Morphologie historique du grec, 1947, 337, and 1964", 282;
Schwyzer, Griechische Gramm. I, 1939, 539 f. ; Meillet-Vendryes, Traite de grammaire
comparee des langues classiques, 19531 , 337 f.
I See M. Lejeune, Memoires de philologie mycenienne, 1958, 227 fn. 36, who suggests

ci=]8e:8Ixurexl 'assignees', 'designees '. Ever since Documents (p. 163) the word has
been commonly interpreted as 8e:81<llex)xurexl having completed their training', and
connected with didakare "*lllllex=&:M:1 ", "at school" (see Chadwick, Glotta 41, 1963,
184; Palmer, The interpretation of Mycenaean Greek texts, 1963, 47 12 5 f. 412 f.),
with no attempt to account for the appearance of the present (!) reduplication outside
its proper sphere at such an early date. The form is probably relevant to our discussion
but we can make no use of it. See also Chantraine, RPh 38, 1964, 260.
Perfect Participle Active 9

Indo-European used only the alternating forms -wos-/-us- in the perfect

participle, there was no variant -wot-.
Thix conclusion poses two questions. First, how are the existing, or
alleged, -t- forms of the other Indo-European languages tD be interpreted?
A close examination of the facts reveals that the mainstay of the theory,
the type found in Sanskrit, is due to secondary innovation! But for the seduc-
tive coincidence between Classical Greek and Classical Sanskrit no one would
ever have thought of positing an Indo-European suffix-variation -wos-/-wot-.
If this is true, the "evidence" of the other Indo-European languages is
bound to wither away like a weak sapling cut off its vigorous and life.;giving
The evidence of Indian can be summarized as follows. In Classical Sansk-
rit the suffix alternates between -vas- (nasalized -va'l'!1-s-) in the strong cases
and -U$- in the weak cases, with the variant -vat- appearing in the middle
cases. The following table shows the inflexion of vidva'l'!1-s " knowing" in the
masc. and neuter 7; the feminine, being a regular -i/ya- noun, is omitted.

Singular Dual Plural

m. n. m. n. m. n.
nom. vidvan vidvat vidvarp.sau vidu~i vidvaI!lsas vidvamsi
acc. vidvamsam vidvat vidvamsau vidu~i vidu~as
voc. vidvan vidvat vidvamsau vidu:?i vidvamsas

instr. vidu~a vidvadbhis

dat. vidu!?e \ vidvadbhyam
abl. vidu!?as vidvadbhyas

gen. vidu!?as vidu:?am

loco vidu!?i
l vidu!?os vidvatsu
As can be seen, the -t-stem is completely absent from the masc. singular,
in glaring contrast to the historical GreeK inflection. It appears in the neuter
sing. nom.acc.voc., again in contrast with historical Greek, but not in the
dual or plural nom.-acc.-voc., where Greek has it. The -t-suffix is used in San-
skrit in the dual instr.-dat.-abl., and in the same cases of the plural, but histo-
rical Greek has a blank here. Finally, Sanskrit employs the -t-suffix in the
loco plur. where Greek cannot be shown to have -O(JL from -ot-si rather than
-os-si, while Greek uses the -t-suffix in the dual gen.-dat., whereas Sanskrit
has in the corresponding gen.-Ioc. the -s-suffix.
It is clear that even if Sanskrit and Greek did inherit the suffix variation
-s- /-t- in this paradigm, it is impossible to reconstruct the original distribu-

7 Cf. W .D . Whitney, A Sanskrit Grammar, Leipzig 18892, 170.

10 Oswald Szemerenyi

tion, in other words, to reconstruct the paradigm itself. It is therefore impor-

tant to note that, if historical Greek shows a considerable extension of the
-t-suffix in relation to the Sanskrit distribution, Sanskrit itself also betrays
a similar tendency. There can be no doubt that the loco plur. in -vat-su cannot
represent an lE -wot-s-; it must therefore represent an analogical refashio-
ning 8. Vedic Sanskrit also shows that the masc. voc. sg. is innovated: in
Vedic times the voc. ends in -vas (cf. cikitvas "seeing", titirvas "having
crossed", didivas "shining"), showing the pure os-stem. It is also worth
pointing out that in Vedic the forms with the middle-stem -vat- are excee-
dingly rare: the loco pI. in -vat-su is never found; the instr. pI. is only atte-
sted by jiigrvadbhis "through the waking" (three times); the ntr. sg. in
-vat only by tatanvat " extending far" and samvavrtvat " enveloping" (once
each) 9. The analogical spread of -vat- is further shown by the fact that, whe-
reas in Vedic times derivatives in -tara- -tama- are based on the weak stem
-u~- (e.g. vidu~-tara- "knowing more", midhu~-tama- " most gracious" etc.) 10,
in Classical times they are formed from the middle-stem -vat-.
But the decisive proof of the fact that -vat- in the Sanskrit paradigm is
an innovation is presented by Iranian. In contrast to Skt. vidvadbhis, vidvatsu,
the Avesta has vioiUbis and viousu (cf. daduzbis, zazusu) , with no trace of
the -t-suffix. Even in earlier times, the fact that the -t-forms are not shared
by Iranian should have been sufficient warning against postulating even
an Aryan date for the Sanskrit type. After the decipherment of Linear B,
we can certainly no longer envisage an Indo-European date.
The appearance of the middle-stem -vat- in the lifetime of Indian is not
difficult to explain. It is clear that before the case endings -su and -bhis /
bhyas/bhyiim the weak suffix -us-, shown by Iranian, was first replaced by
-vas-, because -us-bh- would have led to -ubh-, obscuring the formation. But
-vas- itself was not safe before a following -bh- or -so. Although the exact
nature of the change is disputed, the fact is generally recognized that the clu-
sters -s-s- and -s-bh- were replaced by -ts- and -dbh-, not only in the paradigm
under discussion, but in others as well (cf. miid-bh- from miis- "month",
u~ad-bhis "dawn "), and in verbal paradigms, too (e.g. Ved. dhatsva) 11.
Thus the combined evidence of Aryan and Mycenaean Greek leads to
the conclusion that the Indo-European perfect participle had only one suffix

8 See Wackernagel-Debrunner, ALGr. III 301.

Cf. Wackernagel-Debrunner, ALGr. III 296 ( 155 a~); L. Renou, Grammaire
de la langue vedique, 1952, 196 f.
10 See Wackernagel-Debrunner, ALGr. III 296 bottom, and cp. Av. saskus-tllma-

" der am besten sich versteht auf, im Gedachtnis hat ", zazus-tllmo "der im Kampf
am meisten gewonnen hat, der siegreichste" (on this Benveniste, BSL 52, 1957, 13;
Humbach, Miinchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 10, 1957, 39f. with fn. 12).
11 See Wackernagel-Debrunner, ALGr. I Nachtrage, 1957, 97. The secondary cha-

racter of -vat- has been recognized by Renou, Gram. vedique 197

'P erfect Participle Active 11

a fact that is rather less surprising than the earlier assumption that it
mingled in an unheard-of manner two - which alternated between -was/
wosjus-. There is no evidence that there was, besides these variants, also
-wes- 12
We are now in a better position to assess the value of the evidence alle-
gedly supplied by the other Indo-European languages. Even with the current
confused ideas about the formation of the perfect participle, J. B. Hofmann
held that Lat. caput was rather more likely to contain a suffix -t- found in
other names of parts of the body than the perfect participle suffix -ut- 13.
I would merely add that, even if one accepts a suffix -wot-, there is absolu-
tely no trace of a variant -ut-. Lat. apud presents a much more interesting
and much more complex case. Here even Hofmann (op. cit., p. 60) is prepa-
red to accept the view, first advanced by Georges and Wharton, then inge-
niously argued by Brugmann, that apud is the neuter perfect participle of
the verbal root appearing in apiscor 14. It seems odd that it has not been noti-
ced until now that the semantic interpretation" erreicht habend" makes
the formal analysis unacceptable. For indeed, if we accept the derivation
- and it seems very attractive - we must assume that, as in the case of
aduersus and other stereotyped words, it was the masculine form of the parti-
ciple that was so often used that it eventually acquired a prepositional force 15.
In other words, the Latin preposition can only have started as the masc.
participle *ap-was. How can this primitive form be reconciled with the Clas-
sical form ?

I. Admitted by Wackernagel-Debrunner, ALGr. Il 2, 1954, 909, on the strength

of Tokharian, but Pedersen's view is rightly rejected by A.J. v . Windekens, Morpho-

logie comparee du tokharien, Louvain 1944, 1044. Pedersen, Etudes lituaniennes, 1933,
47f., also assumed the -e-grade for the locative, in order to explain the Lithuanian
nominative, but this is untenable; cf. Otr~bski, Gramatyka j!(zyka litewskiego Ill,
195 6 , 257; Vaillant, Gram. comp. Il 2, 1958, 555.
13 A . Walde- J.B. Hofmann, Lat. etym. \Vb. I 163 f. Note, however, that the equa-

tion with Skt. kapucchalam upheld by him (as if from *kaput-salam) is hardly tenable;
see M. Mayrhofer, ZDMG 105, 1955, 236 and Kurzgefasstes etym. Wb. des Altindischen
I, 1953-56, I56f.
U Brugmann, Berichte der Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften 35, Leip-

zig 1901, 108-10; he holds that apud is a ntr. acc., like aduersum, a point on which Hof-
mann, o.c. 60, does not make his position clear.
16 See on this phenomenon Brugmann, IF 27, 19IO, 234 f.; Leumann-Hofmann,

Lateinische Grammatik, 1926-28, 468; \Valde-Hofmann, o .c. Il 763; A. Ernout-F.

Thomas, Syntaxe latine, 1953 2, 13, II7; Leumann-Hofmann-Szantyr, Lat. Gram. Il,
1965, 173. Hofmann suggested (IF 44, 1927, 73f.) that the neuter forms aduersum pror-
sum etc. were older than aduersus prorsus etc., and (Leumann-Hofmann, o.c. 518 ; Leu-
mann-Hofmann-Szantyr, o.c. 221) that aduersum was an adverbial acc. of " content "
(cf. Plautus, Asin. 295: ibo aduorsum). Even if this were true in general, although Old
Latin does not provide sufficient time-depth to make the proof possible, a neuter *apwot
could not have been used in a way suited for the purpose, but only the masculine, refer-
ring to an agent " who has reached, is near".
12 Oswald Szemerenyi

At this juncture two facts must be recalled. First, the original alterna-
tion between -wosjwosjus- led in many languages to levelling, to the genera-
lization of one variant. For all practical purposes, the Classical form of the
Greek perfect participle can be described as having the suffix -ot-, with cer-
tain morpho-phonemic variations in the nom. sg. masc., the nom. acc. sg.
ntr., and the dat. pI. In contrast to Greek, the Sanskrit neuter seems to have
extended, in some cases at least, the weak form -us- which was so overwhel-
mingly represented in the paradigm. Leumann has shown that Vedic cak$u$-
" eye" is the neuter participle of the perfect ca-k$- "to see" 16. Intrusion
of the weak stem into the strong cases is also seen in Vedic cakru$am 17. This
process is carried to its logical extreme in the Avesta where we find nom. sg.
masc. mamnus "thinking", vidus " knowing" 18 and is also found in the
Slavic ending -1> from -us, e.g. neS1> "having carried" 19. From the point
of view of Latin the Oscan form sipus " sciens " is even more important if
it really represents *sep-us 20. These examples will suffice to show that it was
possible for Latin to transform the original complex inflection into the more
regular -us jus-em etc. The oblique stem, after rhotacism, became -or- which
was then extended to the nom. We may therefore expect a Latin apor, apur
as the nom. sg. masc. of the perfect participle.
The second point concerning Lat. apud is that, as is well known, beside
the "normal" Classical form we also find apor and apur in Early Latin.
It is also known that a similar alternation between ad and ar occurs in the
same period. It is usually assumed that, since the original sound in both words
was -d, this sound under certain conditions, namely before labials (cf. apur
jinem), regularly developed into -r 21. But it is impossible to see the phonetic
ratio for this change, although one can see the advantages of a by-form ar-
before labials - once such a form is established. Now ofthe two prepositions ad
and apud, only the former has an undisputed etymon : EngI. at and other
cognates guarantee an lE *ad 22; apud, on the other hand, if it is derived
1& Leumann, Morphologische Neuerungen im altindischen Verbalsystem (Mede-
deelingen der K. Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, 15/3), 1952, 105. See also
Tedesco, Language 21, 1945, 136 f.
17 Wackernagel-Debrunner, Ai.Gr. III 297.

18 Bartholomae, Grundriss der iranischen Philologie I I, Strassburg 1895-1901, 214.

10 On Slavic see the text further on .

0 C. D. Buck, A Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian, 1928 2 , 59, 173; Leumann-Hof-

mann, o.c., 340. Leumann also adds Lat. memor, in his view transformed from *memnus
(: Av. mamnus) after memini, but this is rather uncertain, see Walde-Hofmann, o.c.,
Il 67f.
21 Leumann-Hofmann, o.c., 128; \Valde-Hofmann, o.c., I IIf. I ignore here the

question whether -d from an original -t, as would be the case here, could also develop
into -r. Pisani's assumption that ar apor meridies show a Faliscan rhotacism of d (Ricerche
Linguistiche 5, 1963, 60) is based on nothing.
22 An Illyrian ar "an, bei, zu ", perhaps identifiable in 'ApM-nov (cf. EPidotio) ,

'Aplh.u't"1J, ' ApM~(Xvo<; sim., is rightly explained by Krahe (IF 62, 1956, 249-50) as due
Perfect Participle Active 13

from the root of apiscor as its perf. participle, can only be traced to apur,
apor 23. It seems reasonable to conclude that the four variants derive from
the blend of two original forms, *ad and *apor, which produced ar and apud
respectively. Once the new variants gained a measure of currency, it was
natural that they should be utilized for the purpose of dealing with peculiar
problems, such as those arising out of the sequence of dental and labial 24.
Certain Celtic forms are also generally accepted as presenting lndo-Euro-
pean perfect participles with the suffix -wot-. Sommer interpreted O. Irish
bibdu "culprit, defendant" as deriving from lE *bhi-bhid-wot-s, the perfect
participle of the lE verbal root *bheid- seen in Lat. findo "split" etc. 25. While
accepting the morphological analysis, Pokorny objected to the assumed pri-
mitive form on the grounds that the resulting form would be the palatalized
*bibdiu/bibded; he therefore proposed *bhe-bhud-wot-s, from the root *bhaud-
" beat" seen in, e.g., O. Engl. beatan "beat ", which, through *bibudus,
resulted in the attested bibdu 26. But, quite apart from the meaning, even
the formal analysis is anything but certain. There is nothing to prove that
the ending was -wot-s rather than simple -ot-s, especially as simple dental
suffixes are so frequent in Celtic. What is more, even the root-part may have
to be interpreted very differently. If, instead of dividing -d-ot-, we place the
cut before -dot-, we may see in the latter the compositional form of the root
*do- "to give", i.e. "-giver", or of *dhe- "place, do", cf. Lat. sacerdot-
from *sacro-dhO-t- " sacra faciens " 27. In that case, the first part of the com-
pound, *bibi-, *bibu-, *bebi-, *bebu-, is wide open to new etymological gues-
ses 28. Even more tenuous is the case for OIrish coimdiu " lord" which, fo11o-

to dissimilation before following d, and not as representing an lE *ar. Cf. also K . H.

Schmidt, ZCP 26, 1957, 1331 .
23 This is even more true if apur is to be traced to a neuter noun *apos (Brugmann,

2t Sommer suggested (IF Il, 1900, 63, 66) that tenus and secus also represented

neuter perfect participles. But this view is now generally abandoned in favour of the
neuter nouns *tenos, *sekwos; see Hofmann, IF 44, 1927, 72, 74; Leumann-Hofmann,
o.c., 517 (retaining PPA for secus, but 536 rejecting it for tenus, as also Leumann-Hof-
mann- Szantyr II 248, 267), Walde-Hofmann, o.c., II 506, 667; both rejected by Ernout-
Meillet, Dictionnaire etymologique de la langue latine, 1959t , 685.
25 Sommer, Festschrift W. Stokes, 1900, 24-5.

2S Pokorny, KZ 47, 1916, 163. Pedersen did not think that Pokorny's phonological

objections were decisive (see his Etudes lituaniennes, 1933, 49), but Pokorny repeats his
derivation in his Indogermanisches Etymologisches Worterbuch Il2. R. Thurneysen
(A Grammar of Old Irish, 1946, 124), more cautiously, regards this as a mere possibility.
It would also be important to decide whether OWelsh bibid ' rei' is compatible with
17 On sacerdos see Schulze, KZ 28, 1887, 281 (now in Kleine Schriften, 1934, 364) ;

Pedersen, MSL 22, 1922, 5; Walde-Hofmann, o.c., II 460.

28 Besides lE *Mebh-, *MiMi-, we may think of lE *gweMi- or *gweMu-, even

Oswald Szemerenyi

wing Strachan, Pedersen traced to a primitive *kom-med-wat-s, purely on the

strength of the verb commid- which can mean "measure, command etc. "
and the phonetic possibility of the derivation 29. Here again, there is no posi-
tive evidence in favour of the derivation; even if the noun were connected
with the verb, the suffix could be simple -at-so But one might wonder whether
the root-part is not really a borrowing from Lat. comes, that is Late Lat.
*komide, to which a further suffix was added in Irish. The greatest single
obstacle to the derivations just discussed is the fact that the only Irish word
that, at first sight, stands a good chance of representing a perfect participle
of Indo-European date, does not in fact show the expected dental. I mean
of course OIrish Jiadu m. "witness" which it is tempting to equate with
Goth. weitwod- " witness" and Gk. s:tMc;. But, disappointingly, this noun
has an n-stem inflection: acc. sg. Jiadain, acc. pI. Jiadna 30. The original inflec-
tion was *weid-an, *weid-on-ttt. and not *weid-wat-s, *weid-wot-ttt.
In contrast to the purely negative contribution of the Italo-Celtic langua-
ges, Gothic does produce a perfect participle with a suffix -t-. The masculine
consonantal stem weitwod- " witness" is quite clearly the same word as Gk.
d8wc; from lE *weid-was. But the question is whether the dental stem of
Gothic is sufficient to prove the lndo-European date of the -t- suffix in the
perfect participle, especially as Greek}s now proved to have been without it in
the Mycenaean period, and Sanskrit also owes it to innovation, not to mention
the other lndo-European languages which only use an -s-suffix in this forma-
tion. It must also be remembered that Gothic itself brings clear evidence of
the -s-suffix. This is generally admitted in the (masc.) plur. berusjos " parents",
but appears also in the fern. jukuzi "yoke, slavery" 31. This fact makes it
imperative to start from lE *weid-was even for Goth. weitwod-. The problem
then shifts to Germanic, and the question really is whether the emergence of
a dental inflection can be explained in Germanic.
A close parallel is provided by one of the word-forms expressing

U Pedersen, Vergleichende Gramm. der keltischen Sprachen Il, 19II, 102; Etu-

des litu. l.c. In Lewis-Pedersen, O.C., 175, this is repeated, but, surprisingly and without
any explanation, p. 67, the ending is said to point to -jot-s, as also in Pedersen, Vergl.
Gram. I 254.
30 See Thurneysen, o.c., 212, who, on the strength of the Gothic form, assumes that

the Celtic word was transformed from a nom. -(w)us.

n Goth. jukuzi, OE gycer represent the fern. pp of .yeuk-, from lE yeug-, see
Noreen, IF 4, 1893, 325 ; Streitberg, IF 14, 1902, 494. A formation connected with
Lat. iugera (Streitberg, Urgermanische Grammatik, 1896, 47, 80, contradicting 58;
Walde-Pokorny, Vergleichendes Worterbuch der idg. Sprachen I, 1930, 202) is out
of the question, since neither yugesyii- nor .yugosyii- (if such lE forms were possible)
would result in Goth. jukuzi. In the OE form the penult. -u- was palatalized, affecting
in its turn the first vowel; for the process, cf. haenep from hanapi-, aepele from apali-.
The problem is now finally settled by A. Bammesberger, Language 41, 1965, 416-9.
Perfect Participle Active 15

"month ", namely Goth. menops (a consonantal stem like weitwod-), ONorse
mono Or, OEngl. monatJ, OHigh Germ. manod. Here, too, it is usually assumed
that the -t-stem (resulting in Germanic -p-) of *menop- was inherited from
Indo-European, where it was in use side by side with an -s-stem *menes- 32.
The evidence for this statement comes from Lithuanian menuo, gen. menesio
" month ", which is said to reflect an early paradigm *menotj gen. *menes-os.
But without the temptation of Gmc. *menop- one would hardly have thought
of tracing Lith. menuo to *menot rather than *menor, a development paralle-
led by sesuo " sister " from lE *s(w)esor, or *menon, paralleled by piemuo
" shepherd" from lE *poimon 33. On the other hand, Gmc. *menop- is, like
weitwod-, completely isolated within the lE family of *menes- jmens-. It seems
clear that the Germanic development must be understood from within, from
the peculiarities found within the Germanic system itself .
. Now the history of an indubitable -t-stem, lE *nepot-s "grandson ",
is apt to throw light on our problem, too. Originally it had an ablauting para-
digm, nom. *nepos, acc. *nepot-w, gen. *nept-os, etc. The ablaut-variation
was mostly eliminated, compare Lat. nepos, nepotem, etc. In Germanic we
find that the noun has been transferred to the -n- stems: nom. *nefo (OEngl.
nefa "grandson, nephew", etc.). It is agreed that this curious change is
based on the coincidence of the normal -n-stem nominative-ending -0 with
a nom. *nefo of the word for" grandson" 34. But how does this relate to the
lE form *nepos? The answer is that the inherited nominative *nepos was
at one time replaced by *nepot, emphasizing the stem-final at the expense of
the nominatival -s, which then became *nepo, *nefo.35 It will be seen from

31 See J. Schmidt, Die Pluralbildungen der idg. Neutra, 1889, 194; Brugmann.

Grundr.1 Il I. 426f . 526; Walde-Pokomy. o.c . Il 271; Specht. KZ 66. 1939. 53. and
Ursprung der idg. Dekl., 1944, 344; Walde-Hofmann, o.c.,1 Il 71; Pokomy, Idg. etym.
Wb. 73If. ; Belardi, Rivista degli Studi Orientali 23, 1948, 76f., esp. 771 ; Makajev. in :
Sravnitel'naja gram. germanskix jazykov Ill. 1963, 266. A dissentient voice from A.
Scherer, Gestirnnamen bei den idg. V6lkem, 1953, 67, supported by Nehring, Kratylos
3, 1958, 66. On the etymon see Nehring (whose suggestion seems to point to foreign
origin, but note F. A. Wood's view, CP 7, 1912, 312) ; Brandenstein, Studien zur idg.
Grundsprache, 1952, I If. ; Risch, Festschrift Sommer. 1954, 195.
33 My own view is that menuo is based on *men6Y/menesos .. moon ", which was

enlarged from *men- under the influence of the often associated *ausor/(a)uses-os
.. dawn" ; on the formation of the latter see my note in Glotta 38, 1959. II2'. A *me-
nos or *menos is favoured by Kieckers, Sprachwissenschaftliche Miszellen, 1934, 32f. ;
Endzelynas, BaIt!! kalblf garsai ir formos, 1957, 127; Palmer, Minos 5, 1957, 63; Risch.
Museum Helveticum 16, 1959, 222f. On the Baltic forms see also Otr~bski, Gram. j~zyka
litewskiego Ill, 1956, 6If. ; Vaillant, Gram. comparee II I. 1958, I75f.
U Cf . e.g . Brugmann. Grundriss' Il 2, 1261, 128; E . Kieckers, Handbuch der

vergl. gotischen Grammatik, 1928, 84.

35 The Germanic innovation whereby animate -t-stems acquired a new nominative

in -t, instead of -s, has never heen explained satisfactorily. Brugmann, for instance,
assumed, on the strength of the Germanic declension seen in "moqn " and" grand-
16 Oswald Szemerenyi

this example that, at one time, there existed in the Germanic system the pat-
tern -osjot-~ beside -osjos-~, and that transfers from one class to the other
must have been quite easy and fairly frequent. It certainly provides the only
plausible explanation of the change from *menosj*menes-os to *menosjme-
not-~, and later *menosjmenot-~, eventually *menot/-ot-~ 36. If this is true,
the transformation of the awkward paradigm *weit-wosjwos-~j-us-os etc. to
*weit-wos- /wot- is also explained.
The result of this survey of the Western lndo-European data is that the
alleged evidence of an lE -wot-suffix is either non-existent - this is the case
in the Italo-Celtic group - or is due to secondary innovations - this is the
explanation of the single Gothic instance.
These results are confirmed by the evidence of the remaining lndo-Euro-
pean languages. The Slavic preterite participle active is of the type: m.
nom. nes'b, f. nom. nes'bsi, n. nom. nes'b. The paradigm shows the generali-
zation of the suffix-form -us- which intruded even in the m. and n. nom. : nes'b
derives from *nes-us. The fern. nes'bsi represents *nesus-ji, with -j- brought

son " , that, beside the normal sigmatic nominative, Indo-European also had an asig-
matic type, even in the animate gender; see Grundriss 2 II I, 1906, 425, 427. But soon
after he realized (IF 22, 1907, 181 1 ; Grdr.2 II 2, 19II, 128) that this was impossible. He
now suggested that all the nouns in question either were neuters originally - halip "war-
rior" and magap " maid" - or, for a time at least, became neuters - menot, under
the influence of (Goth.) sauil "sun ", and nepot under that of barn" child ". But this
involves the incredible assumption that all these nouns later reverted to their original
gender - an astonishing feat, indeed. What is more, there is no reason for assuming
that sauil was neuter in Gothic, and not feminine, as it is in ONorse and OEnglish, and
as is the variant sunna in Gothic itself; I hope to show this elsewhere. No wonder that
quite recently Specht attacked Brugmann for his change of heart and defended the
asigmatic type (Ursprung 368), but without answering Brugmann's fundamental objec_
tion. It is only fair to add that I myself succumbed to the pressure of the prevailing
doctrine when I admitted (KZ 73, 1956, 1902) that the Germanic facts warranted the
assumption of an lE nom. nepot, instead of nepos. Nevertheless, the answer is quite
We must start from the evident assumption that the lE -s-, -t- and nasal stems
at first preserved in Germanic the original ablaut-alternations of the animate inflec-
tion; they had
nom. sg. -os -os -on
acc. sg. -os-'V- -ot-"l,~ -on-'l!
gen. sg. -os-os -ot-os -en-os
(or -es-os) (or -et-os)
The agreement of the -s- and -n-stems led to the -t-stems' adopting the same pattern :
long vowel + stem final consonant in the nominative. Hence *nepos *nepot
(or *nefop) which eventually developed into *nefo, making the change to the -n-inflec-
tion possible. Note that *fos (lE *pos) 'foot' was also replaced by *fot.
38 It will be clear that the change from -s- to -t-inflection took place before the
processes described in the preceding footnote. A further problem is the origin of the
-s-stem in the word "moon-month" but it cannot be taken up here.
Perfect Participle Active 17

in from the oblique cases such as gen. *nes-us-jas (cf. Skt. bharantyas) ; this
j was also extended to the masc. and neuter inflection as shown by m. gen.
sg. nes'bsa from *nes-us-ja, etc 37. In Baltic, too, the suffix-form -us- was gene-
ralized, but the masc. nom. sg., under the influence of the present participles,
acquired a nasal. Thus we have Lithu. nes~s, gen. nes-us-io; fern. nom. nes-
us-i, gen. nes-us-ios, etc. 38. The new Tokharian data also confirm the -s-suf-
fix, and show no trace of a -t-suffix 39.
Since these results were reached in 1959, it seems advisable to take ac-
count of two, more recent, discussions of our problem. In his " Reflexions sur
le participe parfait actif" (Charisteria F. Novotny octogenario oblata, 196z,
71-77), A. Erhart also rejects the alleged Western European evidence for an
lE alternation -wos-j-wot- but maintains lE origin of Greek -fo't"- and Indian
-vat-. But these are traced to the lE suffix -went-, so that the paradigm of
the PPA represents an amalgam of two originally distinct formations: adjec-
tives in -wos- (from wejwo+s) and in -went- (also from wejwo but with nt).
Our discussion has shown that for lE times we cannot assume the presence
of -t-forms in the paradigm of the PPA. In view of the Mycenaean evidence
- ignored by this author - we could only admit influence of the adjectives
in -fe:v't"- in the post-Mycenaean period but by that time the difference in
function between the two formations was so great that no cross-influence
can be imagined.
An entirely different lE paradigm is postulated by Puhvel (in: Myce-
naean Studies, ed. E.L. Bennett, 1964, 171-177). But his assumption of an
lE PPA with suffix -wos-jus-, except for the neuter singular nominative which
ended in a dental, is at variance with everything we know of Indo-European.
The Indian neuter in -vat is obviously a secondary transformation - within
Indian - of the original -wos (or -us), and does not justify an unheard of
lE paradigmatic variation.
The elimination of the alleged -t-suffix from the paradigm of the Indo-
European perfect participle restores to this formation its inner unity. We
are no longer faced with the question, impossible to answer, which cases
should be assigned to the suffix -t- and which to -s-. In view of the history
of our discipline, we must consider this result as one of the major contribu-

37 Cf. Vondrak, Vergleichende slavische Grammatik 12, 1924, 668; Ill, 1928, 58;

Meillet-Vaillant, Le Slave Commun, 19342 ,259 (postulating -wes-f-wet- for Indo-European

but admitting that -wet- is not represented in Balto-slavic) (but cf. fn. 75 I).
38 See Brugmann, Grdr. 2 Il I, 57If.; J. Endzelins, Latviesu valodas gramatika,

Riga 1951, 943; J. Endzelynas, BaltlJ kalblJ garsai ir formos, 1957,204; Otr((bski, Gram.
j((zyka litewskiego Ill, 1956, 257f. Pedersen's discussion (Etudes lituaniennes 47f.)
is quite wrong.
3D See A. J. v. Windekens, Morphologie comp. du tokharien, 1944, 104 f. ; Krause-

Thomas, Tocharisches Elementarbuch l, 1960, 156f.; Lane, in: Ancient lE dialects,

edd. Birnbaum-Puhvel, 1966, 218.
18 Oswald Szemerenyi

tions of the Linear B texts to the advancement of our knowledge of lndo-

European 40. We can now also hope to restore the paradigm of the lndo-Euro-
pean perfect participle with greater certainty. The suffix -wos-, like all alter-
nating suffixes had, originally at any rate, its various grades assigned to the
different cases according to well-defined patterns, fairly well-known from
the inflection of ablauting stems. The following diagram cannot be far from
what was the actual usage at one time in Indo-European prehistory:
singular plural
m. n. m. n.
nom. weid-wos weid-wos 41 weid-wos-es weid-wos-~ 41
acc. weid-woS-1l/- weid-wos weid-us-rfs weid-wos-~
abl. gen. weid-us-os gen. weid-us-i5m
dat. weid-us-ei dat. abl. weid-us-bh/m-
loco weid-us-i weid-us-su 42

A comparison of this paradigm with the historical Greek paradigm re-

veals that Greek carried out complete levelling in the inflection, retaining
only the marker of the masc. nom. sg. In spite of the scantiness of our Myce-
naean evidence it can be presumed that this stage was already reached by
the time the palace-scribes established their scribal tradition.
The comparatist may be quite prepared to see his inquiry duly completed
here. But the Greek scholar will be much more interested in what I have
at the beginning of this investigation alluded to as the second of two que-
stions posed by the new Mycenaean data. If the -t-inflexion was not current
in Mycenaean times, and can now be seen to have no Indo-European origin,
how did it come to be evolved and incorporated into the living system by
Homer's time?
The general outline of the development can be forecast from what we
have found in Gothic. But it can be made more concrete by pointing to cer-
tain data. There are certain other cases, in which the adoption of a -t-inflec-
tion, instead of an earlier -s-inflection, can be observed in Homer himself.
But before presenting these parallels it will be helpful to recall that by Myce-
naean times the inherited Indo-European paradigm had undergone two chan-
ges. First, the suffix-alteration was eliminated, except for the masc. nom. sg.

40 I am contradicting on this point L. R. Palmer's statement made at the Oslo

Congress (see Proceedings of the Eighth Intemat. Congress of Linguists, Oslo 1958,
732 : " it cannot be claimed that the Linear B texts have added greatly to our knowledge
of Indo-European ") but I hope that he will be ready to accept the claim made on behalf
of Mycenaean.
41 Earlier weid-us ? If so, the direct forerunner of the Slavic type? Also, plural

*wei.d-us-;)? On the root-form *weid-/wid- see the text further on.

42 This is assuming that the Sanskrit-Slav ending is more primitive than the Greek

-si (which could be due to the sing. -i).

Perfect Participle Active 19

and, of course, the feminine which preserved the inherited -ULIX in most dialects
down to post-Classical times. Secondly, a major phonetic change, the aspira-
tion of intervocalic -s- and, as I believe 43, its complete loss by Mycenaean
times, presented certain problems for post-Mycenaean speakers. The Myce-
naean paradigm can be reconstructed in the following form 44 :

singular dual plural

m. n. m. n.
nom. fe:~8f~ IXplXpfoc; t fe:~8foe: fe:~8foe:c; IXplXpfolX
acc. fe:~8folX IXplXpfoc; \ IXplXpfoe: fe:~8folXc; IXplXpfolX
gen. fe:~8fooc; IXplXpfooc; Ife:~8foLLV ? fe:~8fowv IXplXpfowv
\ IXplXpfo~~v? Ife:~8foa(n IXplXpfoaa~
One of the most characteristic features of the post-Mycenaean period
is the tendency to eliminate hiatus within the word-unit by contraction. The
different dialects behave very differently in this respect, there is also a diffe-
rence in the degree to which they tolerate the continued existence of such
sequences. But as far as the paradigm of the perfect participle is concerned,
it is a significant fact that the sequences -OIX- -oe:- -00- -ow-, unlike the sequen-
ces where originally a digamma separated the vowels, tended to be contrac-
ted at an early date. The result is w from -OIX- -OW-, W or ou (i.e. open or
close long 0) from -oe:- -00-; cf. Attic EA&nouc; from -oe:c; 45. Hence the inflec-
tional variety of the Mycenaean paradigm would have given way to an almost
embarrassing poverty of distinct endings. In Attic, for instance, the paradigm
of the masculine would have been reduced to masc.
sg. e:t8wc; / e:t8w / e:t80u<; I e:t80~
pI. e:t80uc; / e:t8~ (6 I e:t8wv / e:t86(a)a~
In dialects with -00- )w, contraction would have led to an even poorer
e:t8wc;/e:t8w/e:t8wc;/e:t80L - e:t8wc;/e:t8wc;/e:t8wv/e:t80(a)O'L. No wonder that in order
to prevent this fatal reduction, certain steps were taken to make the para-
digmatic relation clearer, to produce a " viable" inflection 47.

(S On this point see at present CR 8, 1958, 61.

(( The instrumental is omitted here, as it must have been lost from the living speech
fairly soon after the Dorian invasion.
'5 Cf. Schwyzer I 249f. ; M. Lejeune, Traite de phonetique, 19561, 23If.
U Or * d8out;;? Cf. acc. eAocnOUt;;.

" To avoid the charge of " teleological" interpretation, I would like to make clear
the theoretical basis of this argument. We must obviously assume that for some time
old and new types live side by side, in our present case acc. fEt8fo(1. and fe:t8fw, gen.
fEt8Foot;; and fe:t8fout;; etc. The community cannot discard the old forms in order to
replace them by new ones, if the latter cause difficulties in the process of communica-
tion. It is during this period of coexistence, not less than a generation, that the commu-
nity decides, by trial and error, whether a form or formation is fit for its purposes.
20 Oswald Szemerenyi

Now transfers from the -s-stems, necessitated by the loss of inter-vocalic

-s-, are clearly attested in several groups of words. Of the words naming parts
of the body, Horn. OUt; and XOCP'Yl are relevant, since both are based on pri-
mitive -s-stems. The prehistory of XOCp'Ylfxa.p~((X}rot; is very complicated 48.
Much clearer is oOt;. Attic OUt; and Doric Wt; point to an earlier *OOt; which
has, on the strength of external evidence, especially OChurch Slavonic uxo
" ear", been traced to lE *ousos 49 ; the reconstruction has now been brillian-
tly confirmed by the Mycenaean compounds in -owe. The important point
is that the -s-stem *ousos, originally inflecting as gen. *ouses-os, loco *ouses-i,
etc., appears from Homer onwards in the enlarged form OUIX't'- (i.e. oflX't'-
with the metrically lengthened 0 spelt as ou) 50: the -s-stem inflection is repla-
ced by a -t-inflection in Late Mycenaean 51.
lt is, of course, clear that the -t-stem comes from other words for parts
of the body, notably f)1ta.p/~1tIX't'Ot;, oo6a.p/o{)6a."t'0t;. But it must be borne in
mind that even here the -t- inflection is a Greek innovation - whatever its
primary source 52; Lat. iecur /iecinoris (replacing an earlier *iecinis) and
uber/uberis as well as Sanskrit yakrt/yaknas, Udhar/Udhnas show no trace of
the -t-inflection. And the point that interests us here is precisely the que-
stion of chronology. Whereas in the case of OUt; Mycenaean does give a clue
to this question, in the case of XOCP'Yl we are less fortunate. In the famous furni-
ture tablets of Pylas the forms karaapi and seremokaraapi appear once each
(Ta 722,2; 708,2). In addition, a form seremokaraoi has been read in two
further tablets (707,2; 7I4,2) and a deleted qoukaraoi once (7I4,2), connected
with qoukara which occurs twice (7II,2.3). The form karaapi had at first

U See, e.g., Risch, Wortbildung der homerischen Sprache, Berlin 1937, 54; Schwy-

zer, 1,5 83; P. Chantraine, Morphol. 78 f. but esp. Morpho1.2 83f.; Grammaire home-
rique I, 19482, 230f. ; M. Leumann, Homerische Worter, Basel 1950, 159; J. Egli, Hete-
roklisie im Griechischen, mit besonderer Berucksichtigung der Fa.lle von Gelenkhetero-
klisie, Diss. Zurich 1954, 3d., 87f. ; Pisani, Storia della lingua greca, 1959, 521; Perrot,
Les derives latins en -men et -mentum, 1961, 325'; Shipp, Essays in Mycenaean and
Homeric Greek, 1961, 5f.; Palmer, in: A companion to Homer, edd. Wace-Stubbings,
1963, II3. Of particular importance is Gallavotti's paper" 11 nome della testa ... ",
RFIC 40, 1962, 135-149.
.. J. Schmidt, Pluralbildungen 467; Chantraine, Morphol. grec 80 (cf. Morphol.2
84f.); he is less confident at Gramm. homo I 230.
60 Att. w't'- is not based on *wcr<X't'-, from an unsubstantiated *ous (Schwyzer I 348,
520, contradicting 250), nor does Dor. WC; demand *ous. Theocritus' &.[L<jlwe:c; is now con-
firmed as a precious archaism (see Sommer, Zur Geschichte der griechischen Nominal-
komposita, 1948, IIof.) by Myc. -owe. I discuss all these problems in SMEA Ill.
61 The innovation is proved, for Knossos at least, by anowoto.
62 See Schwyzer I 520f.; Pisani, Miscellanea G. Galbiati Ill, 1951, 12f.; Bolelli,
ASNP 22, 1953, 67; Perrot, o.c., 291., esp. 322f. The -t- probably has several sources.
Thus, e.g., y<x'A<xx't'- certainly received it from [Le:At-L"-, see Szemerenyi, KZ 75, 1958,
174. I also think that Thurneysen, IF 39, 1921, 192f., was right in tracing '\)[L<X't'oc; to the
- influence of vux't'6c;, but see also Kieckers, IF 41, 1923, 184. Cp. also the text further on.
Perfect Participle Active 21

been interpreted as x(cx)pcx-CX:t"-CPL, in agreement with Horn. xpoccx't"- or XCXP'1lCX't"-.

But since -karaoi clearly was not from a -t-stem, Lejeune gave up this inter-
pretation and assumed that we had here an originally feminine *xcxpcx((j)oc
which was later transferred to the neuters 53. If this were true, we would have
clear evidence showing that the transfer of XcXP'1l to the -t-stems occurred
between Late Mycenaean and Homer. But the assumption of an originally
feminine XcXP'1l is very unlikely, and if it was feminine to begin with, a trans-
fer to the neuters would be hard to account for M. In the meantime however
even the foundation of this interpretation seems to have collapsed. In his
paper " Il nome della testa ... " quoted above, Gallavotti has pointed out
(p. I40 f.) that -karaoi has in all its occurrences a doubtful i which may in
fact be re. Gallavotti thinks that he can read re in Ta 707, 2, which would
mean that the traditional form must be replaced by seremokaraore also to
be read at Ta 7I4, 2, where we must read qoukaraore, too. PY Na I038 pre-
sents Jnokaraore which, combined with onokara[ at Mn I4I2, is to be read as
[0 Jnokaraore. The morphological cQnsequences of the new readings are twofold.
First, -karaore is the instrumental sg. (!) of a neuter *karaor which, instead
of the rln alternation, shows generalization of r in the singular (p. I43). Se-
condly, Gallavotti argues that in the plural karaapi we may see the conti-
nuation of *karast}-phi or *krast}-phi, but that there is no reason for assu-
ming a primitive form in -t}t-phi. From our point of view, the latter conclu-
sion is of importance. If Gallavotti is right, then the introduction of the
-t-inflection into the paradigm of xcXP'1l is post-Mycenaean.
There are several other -s-stems which in Attic are pure -t-stems, while
in Homer the process has either not yet begun, or the new stem only makes
a tentative first appearance. They are XP6><;, ",(/;;),w<;, ~pw<;, t8p6><; and EUp6><;.
Of particular importance is XP6><; "flesh, body; hue". The normal in-
flection is Xp6cx, Xpo6<;, xpot, but a gen. Xpw't"6<; appears once, at K 575, and
an acc. Xpw't"cx twice, at (j I72, I79. It is fairly generally agreed that this word
is an -s-stem 55. Nevertheless, a stemform xpW(j- or XPO(j-, usually stated or
implied, cannot be accepted as explaining the facts. Among the compounds
of the word we find Horn. (J.EACXyxp6><;, (J.EACXVOXp6><; and eUXp6><;. But 1t I75
brings the strange form (J.EACXYXpOL~<;. Touched by Athena's miraculous staff

63 Revue de Philologie 32, 1958, 216.

60& I find it difficult to see what other neuter words for" head" could outweigh the
influence of )(lPcxA~. See also Lejeune's earlier discussion in BSL 52, 1957, 194, and Chad-
wick, Minoica-Fs. Sundwall, 1958, 120; Palmer apud Shipp, o.c., 7 (= 6 fn. 15) ; Galla-
votti, RFIC 40, 1962, 138.
16 See Risch, Wortbildung 81; Chantraine, Morphol. 63f., Gram. horn. 11 21I. Schwy-

zer I 578 seems to assume a diphthongal stem .Xpw(u)o;: ~)(plXf-6o;, for which, however,
Xpo:uw is no evidence. Sommer, Nominalkomposita 21, thinks that one cannot decide
between xpocr- and Xpof-, but neither of these is tenable.
22 Oswald Szemerenyi

The neuter &UXPo~ appears in the scene where Homer describes how Eumaeus
is making sandals for himself (~ 24), 't'cX(.LVCUV 8p(.Loc ~e:mv euxpoe~. .. These
compounds clearly show that the underlying noun is either a neuter *Xpoo~
or, in view of our evidence, the masc. *XpoW<; 56. This means that the original
inflection of the noun was *Xpow~/x.po6((j)oc/Xpo6((j)o~/Xpo6((j)~. It is clear
that in the nominative the sequence -ocu- was contracted to, while in the
oblique cases either contraction with subsequent shortening took place, or
in the sequence of three vowels one 0 was lost by hyphaeresis 57.
The -s-inflection is replaced by the -t-inflection in Xpcu't'~, Xpw't'oc, which
becomes the rule in later times. As always in such cases, we must ask for
the model of this change. Schwyzer suggested that adjectives of the type -~pW<;/
-~PCU't'~ were behind the transfer. This was rightly rejected by Egli, since
the adjectives are not of the same shape and have no semantic connection
with our word 58. But his own qlW<;, qlcu't'~ will not do either 59, since the mea-

.. Already pointed out by Witte, RE VIII, 1913, 2230, 8f. and 3d. Strangely enough,
Risch, Wortbildung 119, 203, seems to think that !J.&AIXYXpOL~<; derives from XpOL~,
and this from Xpw<;, like xlXp8L'I) from x1jp. But even XpOL~ is hardly a derivative in -L'I),
but a collective *Xpoo(cr)-iX (see Risch 13). And in view of !J.E:AIXV6)(poo.:; etc. it is impos-
sible to seek in IL&AIXYXpOL~<; anything but )(pw<;. The regular -)(po~<;, seen in EU)(poe<;,
was metrically unusable and had to be lengthened; the lengthened 0 is spelt before 'I)
as Ot as in 7jYVOL'I)crE:, &.yvot~cror:cr', see Chantraine, Gram. homo 11 99, and - pace Chan-
traine - even rrvot~ which, in view of Att. rrvo~, cannot be from *ITVOfL,x (or rather *rrvo-
nIX, see M. Scheller, Die Oxytonierung der griech. Substantiva auf -tlX, 1951, 831 ). The
fact is that *rrvOfLIX would have resulted in Attic *rrvolor:/ITV61X, and only Schulze (QE
405f., followed by Meillet, RPh 53, 1927, 197; Schwyzer, GG I 469) could have hit upon
the idea that the Homeric word was different (ITVofLIX) from the Attic (ITvof-~). The
correct view (rrvOt~ metrically lengthened from rrvof~) is stated by Kiihner-Blass, Griech.
Gram. 13 382; Bechtel, Vocalcontraction 271; Risch, Wbdg. 119. Homeric )(POL~, on
the other hand, is a spelling for Xpo~, with a from 00. The neuter EU)(poe<; is not explai-
ned by saying (Risch 74) that it was formed after or:l8w<;: &.vlXt8~<; sim., since the result
would have been EU)(p~<;-)(pe<;, as it is later in ILE:AIXYXP~<; of the comic poets. On &.Xpe:LOV,
derived by Schulze from *&.)(P~<;, transformed from *&.)(po~<; 'pallid', see now Szemere-
nyi, Sprache 11, 1966, 15-17, esp. 16. The peculiar nom. sg. IL&A<xv6)(poo<; at T 246 is,
by diektasis (Chantraine, Gram. homo I 75f.), from ILE:AlXv6)(pw<; (see Sommer, Nomi-
nalkomposita 27 and 28 end), itself contracted from -)(po'l)t;; cf. &.aTU~OW-T'I)<; <-~WT'l)C;
<-~o~T'I)<;, Chantraine 82.
61 In the nom. *Xpow<; either contraction or metrical lengthening was unavoidable.

For Homeric hyphaeresis see Chantraine, Gram. homo I 73f. This explains the nom. pI.
ILE:AIXV6XpoE:C;, acc. pI. T:XILE:crLXPoor:<; siro., which stand for -)(POE:E:C; etc., as &.XA&&t; for &.x-
Ae:ee:c; etc., and resolve Sommer's difficulty, O.C., 26. Neither contraction nor hyphae-
resis would be " endangered ", even if the vowels had originally been separated by a
digamma. A stem *Xpofoo- Was thought by the decipherers to be established by Myce-
naean akorowee, interpreted as the dual/plur. nom. of *&:-)(pwf1)C; "of uniform colour"
or *&'-Xpw>"1)C; "colourless, pale" (see, e.g., Documents 76f., 387; Lejeune, RPh 84"
1958, 207 ; Doria, Parola del Passato 70, 1960, 49 '7 ) ; but the derivation has been que-
stioned by, e.g., Gallavotti, Parola del Passato 52, 1957, 9 (: Gtxpo<;+OUc;).
18 Egli, O.C., 59.
i t This was suggested by Risch, \Vortbildung 15, accepted by Egli, I.c.
Perfect Participle Active 23

ning is again very different. It seems clear that a word, or words, describing
part(s) of the body is (are) required, and I believe that the source was xpoc't"6c;;
note that (as if in exchange ?) we find the" monstrous" acc. XpOC't"1X at e 92 60.
Less important are, from our point of view, YEAW't"-, epw't"-, t~pw't"-, since,
although they are undoubtedly transformed from -s-stems, the change is
posthomeric; noteworthy is nonetheless the acc. t~pW't"1X appearing at Hes.
Erga 28961. Finally, for EUpW<;, EUpW-roc; an earlier -s-stem is proved by Horn.
EUPWEV't"IX, where -w- is from -os-w-.
These examples clearly show that an -s-stem inflection, as tending to be
obscured by inevitable contraction, was in many cases early replaced by a
-t-declension. This applies to masculines as well as neuters, whereas feminine
-s-stems are either immune (IXt~WC;) or choose a different way out (e.g. Att.
~wc;). The more interesting is the case of XcXPLC;, which, although undoubtedly
an -i-stem originally, already in Homer normally inflects as XiXpL't"- 62. One
is almost tempted to say that t performs the role of a " Hiatustilger ", but
this would rather obscure the complicated processes that result in the even-
tual word-shapes produced by refashioning.
In the light of these parallels it will be easier to understand how the
original -s-stem inflection of the perfect participle came to be replaced by
the -t-stem declension. The details will probably never be cleared up. But it
is worth pointing out that for the consolidation of the -t-stem 63 the present
participles were probably also responsible, especially if they preserved an
original variation -WV/-IX't"- (lE -~t-) down to (post- ?) Mycenaean times 6, .

0 Note that <pw~ " light" also became a -I-stem after Homer. But the poetic

b <pw~ (Egli 6of.) cannot have been the model for this ordinary household word. The source
is clearly ax6't"o~, which, originally a masc. -a-stem, became a ntr. -s-stem under the
influence of <p&o~, and formed &v ax6't"c:~ after b <pae~, axoT-e:tv6<; after <plXt~v6~, axo-
't"e:Lv6~ in its turn producing <pc.,m:~v6~ (Egli 67f.). The original inflection <pwc;, gen. <pw~
(<pato~), dat. <pWL (from <pii~ <pat\ under the influence of -w-) was untenable in any case.
The starting point may have been the gen. pI. ax6't"wv, producing <pw't"wv, etc. Because of
Schwyzer's curious remark (I 578), note that <PW\ does not warrant any other source
beyond <p.xo~; also that" Att ... xpw~ is not" older" than Xpo(, but transformed from
Xpor after the long vowel of Xpw~ etc., although here our view might seem to support
XPO\ from Xp06((J)~.
n See Chantraine, MorphoI. 64, Gram. homo IS 211; Schwyzer I 514; Egli 59f.
I add here that the famous &~ lpov gv-ro originally had lpo(lX) and lpo'J is not an Aeoli-
cism, but elimination of the hiatus. On the disputed question of" Aeolic" Y&AO~, ~poc;,
see Sommer, Nominalkomposita 264 , with references. On !8pw<; see also the paper refer-
red to in fn. 50 .
Risch, Wortbildung IS .
ea Schwyzer (I 540) suggests that the type ,xyvwc;/-w't"o~ may have contributed.
But the difference in the vowel-quantity between d86't"oc; and ,xyvw't"oc; is not encou-
" An especially nice example would be &At~<PIX/,xAd<pIX't"OC;, a neuter participle in
-tlt/-tl/-os, from cXAtt<pW, literally "(the) anointing (thing)", now found in Myc. arepa
Oswald Szemerenyi

These analogical influences can be illustrated as follows. The plural of

the participles, as tabulated below,

pI. nom. -foec;/-folX -ov'rec;/-rx:rlX
acc. -folX<;/-folX -OV'r1X<; (-IX'rIX<;?) / -1X'r1X
gen. -fowv -1X'rWV
dat. -foO"cn -IXO"O"~ (cf. ~V'rIXO"O"t)

presented one obvious point of contact in the dat. pI. The parallelism of
-IXO"O"~/ -foO"O"~
easily led to the transformation of] the genitive to -O'rwv after
-1X'rWV. The next steps may have been either extension to plural -0'r1X<;, -onc;,
-0'r1X, or singular gen. -O'rO;, dat. -O'r~, and finally acc. sg. -0'r1X.
This scheme naturally presupposes a state of affairs when the present
participle still showed - more or less - the inherited ablaut-variations,
a problem that will be discussed elsewhere.
Before concluding, two more points should be briefly mentioned.
The Mycenaean name widuwojo, widowoijo 85 represents a f~~fo~cx; and
is certainly derived from f~~fo(O")-. On the face of it, it looks as if it were
derived fron the oblique stem of the masculine. Lejeune thinks it also possi-
ble that it started from *wid-us-yo-s which was refashioned after f~~fo(O")-;
the latter form would survive in Hesychius's 8ui:o~' !L~P'rUPeC; and Lac.
~~8u~0~ " (boy) prefects" 88. As pointed out by Schwyzer, it is, in view of the
meaning, very unlikely that this 8ui:o~ should be masculinized from ~ui:1X

nom., a1'epate instr.-dat. The nom. lXAe:t<pOCp is a late innovation as ;was surmised by
Schwyzer (I 520) on the basis of the historical data. The assumption of an old hetero-
clitic 1'/n-stem (recently by Lejeune, REG 72, 1959, 139; Ruijgh, Mnemosyne 14, 1961,
205; Gallavotti, RFIC 40, 1962, 142) is disproved by the absence of deverbative cases.
This example is certainly in favour of J. Schmidt's theory (Pluralbildungen 187f.) that
-{LOt/-(L-rot;j was re-formed under the influence of neuter participles in -/--ror;. I add
here that Hom. oM~ cannot be from 8&xvw (Boisacq s.v.; Risch 308; Schwyzer I 620,
II 491; Chantraine, Gram. homo I 250), since in that case we would have o8oy~.
Like M~, 7tU1;, it is from a nominal case: o8~ replaces o8cXO'O'(t), the old dat. pI. of
08cJ>v, the use of the dat. pI., and its archaic form, being paralleled by &yx&r; from &y-
XIXO'(t), see Risch 305; Chantraine, Studi italiani di filologia classica 27-8, 1956, 106.
And just as A&~, m)~, originally dat. pI. of ACXX-r-, 1tuy-, changed *yv&r(t) from y6vu to
yW!; so o8iO'O', too, became under their influence oM~; see Sprache Il, 1966, 20 71 A
further trace of the participial weak-grade may be the Homeric lx71-rt &X71-rt which
cannot be formed with (Brugmann, IF 17, 1904, 9f. ; Schwyzer I 550') - the result
would be *excxa-rfi-r- - but, as suggested by Pisani (Rendiconti Accad. Lincei 6/7, 1931,
76f.), is metrically lengthened from (&)exii-rt, loco of (&)exwv; differently Leumann,
Homerische Warter, 1950, 25If.
la Documents 427; A. Sacconi, Rendiconti dell'Accademia dei Lincei 8/16, 1961,
276 .
.. Memoires de philologie mycenienne 224 fn. 14; 263 .
Perfect Participle Active 25

which is not attested in the meaning" witness" 67. It is more likely that
the late ~L8uLOL, ~L8EOL were modified from an earlier fL8(f)OLOL - identi-
cal with the Mycenaean form - at a time when the sequence -OLOL was
replaced by -ULOL (under the influence of -u!:ot?) and this by -ELOL 68. But
the important point is that the form *widwos-, now attested for the mascu-
line, raises, and settles, an interesting problem. Hitherto we have assumed
that in the perfect participle the root-form feL8- was used in the masc. (and
neuter), fL8- in the feminine. This view must now be revised. Some cases of
the masculine, perhaps the weak cases, had the weak form of the root: feL8fw<;
but fL8u(a)o<;, or, by later levelling, fEL8fw<;-fL8fo(a)o<; 69. This would cer-
tainly apply to the plural also.
Another problem is also concerned with the root-form of feL8fw<;. It
is generally assumed that the Indo-European perfect had a reduplicated
formation as well as a type without reduplication 70. But, as was emphasized
by Leumann a short time ago 71, the latter type is only found in the verb
*woida, which is not the' principal' representative of the type (Meillet),
but the only representative. Now in view of the well-known fact that verbs
meaning" to know" are frequently used, and as a result often deviate from
the normal development 72, it is justifiable to doubt the assumption even
for this case. In other words, if *woida lacks the reduplication, it is due to a
previous and comparable change in Early Indo-European. Now the expected
form at that stage was *wewoid- in the perfect singular, *wewid- in the dual
and plural. The participle was *we-wid-w6s/*we-wid-us-y~, with the nil-grade
necessitated by the accession of a new derivative element 73. Both forms
were obviously very frequent. Hence the perfect could easily succumb to
general tendencies, such as assimilation of *wewoid- to *wowoid- with sub-
sequent reduction in rapid speech to ' *woid-; the dual/plur. *wewid- would

87 Schwyzer I 540. For this reason I cannot accept Leumann's interpretation, Cel-

tica 3, 1955, 241., and Festschrift Sommer, 1955, 157.

IS Compare the late change from -Uta: to -eta:, also hotly debated, but certainly

not of lE date or form; see Schwyzer I 474.

10 This conclusion is also reached by Leumann, Celtica 3, 242.

70 Cf. Brugmann, Grundrissl II 3, 1916, 43If. ; Meillet, IntroductionS 206; Schwy-

zer I 766y; Belardi, RL I, 1950, 95.

71 Leumann, Celtica 3, 241.

71 Compare, for instance, French sais from *sayo, instead of *sapyo; see M.K.

Pope, From Latin to Modern French, 19561, 358; H. Flasdieck, ZRPh 74, 1958, 72f.
73 Leumann's paper in Celtica 3 is important in settling this question for Greek.
In discussing Schwyzer's claim that in Greek there is no evidence of the digamma in
-wot-, Leumann (p. 246) seems to overlook MM't1X, although he convincingly shows (p. 248)
that this represents fef~3f6-ra:. Now the Mycenaean evidence settles this question too. -
Kurylowicz, Apophonie 105, regards e:t3w~ (and even &p1j?W~ etc.) as archaisms present-
ing the full-grade of the root, although he had just stated that, where the accent had
always been on the ending, the root Was weakened: we should therefore expect *wid-
w6s- even on his theory.
26 Oswald Szemerenyi

naturally follow suit, unless at that time, before the period of weakenings, -
there was only one form, *wo(wo)id-, for all numbers. In the participle the
sequence of three w-s would again easily lead to a dissimilated form *we-
(w)idwos, thus giving rise to a new stem-form *weid-. If the pluperfect and
other forms were current already in lE times, they, too, must have been
based on *we-wid-, and adopted the new stem-form *weid- (e.g. Gk. 1)-fe:L8-E~
etc.). The advantage of this theory is that it can account for the curious Greek
masc. participle fEL8-f~ 74. If this represented an lE type without redup-
lication, it would be impossible to understand how the root-syllable escaped
the consequences of the fact that it was unaccented. It is clear that the accent-
relations only permitted the variants *woid-Jwid-, there was no room for a
third variant. It is also useless to suggest that there might have been" other"
forms where the normal-grade was justified. Even if there were formations
like the subjunctive, the moods never influence the participial formations.
But if *weid- came into being in the way described, it is easy to understand
that at a later stage the unusual root-form could again be dropped in favour
of the well-established nil-grade. This is shown by Skt. vid-vas-, in contrast
to the Greek and Gothic forms.
Enough has been said to show the importance attaching to the few
perfect participle forms that have been vouchsafed to us by the Mycenaean
finds. We can now see that the alleged Indo-European parallels of a promi-
scuous -wos Jwot-suffix were a mirage. The internal origin of the Greek inflection,
on the other hand, makes it imperative to try to understand the develop-
ment of the lE legacy within the peculiar frame-work of historical Greek.
The parallels in historical and prehistoric Greek will have shown how the
details of the development must be placed in this context 75
.. The peculiar root-form of this participle has often tempted scholars to posit
*fe:f~1)w<;as its primitive form. This is of course impossible (see Schulze, KZ 27, 1885.
547f. now Kleine Schriften , 1934. 109f.; Schwyzer I 5408) ; the change took place in
Indo-European. I am glad to be in agreement on this point with V. Pisani (AGl 41.
1956. 158') but this is not" una bella e certo antica isoglossa greco-gotica ". nor is the
reduplication secondary. L.R. Palmer (Sprache 5. 1959. 131) also notices the importance
of Myc. widwoijo but thinks that this necessitates a revision of the view that the masc.
participle had the stem-form fe:~1)- ; he does not. however, offer an explanation for Horn.
Att. fe:~1)w<;. As to the fate of the Early lE *wowoida. I should here draw attention to
the fact, recently emphasized by Bulachovskij (lzvestija Akademii Nauk, Otdelenije
Jaz. i Lit., 18, 1959, Ill) that Slavic vedati with its acute accent requires an lE *void-.
This cannot represent an lE lengthened -o-grade. but could very well be from wo(w)oi-
da> w6ida.
16 After the first draft of this paper had been wtitten down in 1959. I saw that

Chadwick also assumes (The Decipherment of Linear B. 1958, 95) that Greek -wot- is
a post-Mycenaean innovation - a gratifying agreement. But his claim that -wot- is
.. not found outside Greek" contradicts appearances at least, and he has made no at-
tempt to disprove the" evidence" as has been done here. Valiant, who also reaches
this conclusion (Gram. camp. II 2, 554f.). assesses somewhat differently the evidence
of Sanskrit, Greek and Germanic, while Pisani. though aware of the Mycenaean facts,
still adheres to the old view (AGl 41, 1956, 158; Paideia 15. 1960, 227).