Leonid Kulikov

Language vs. grammatical tradition in Ancient India: how real was Pāṇinian Sanskrit? Evidence from the history of late Sanskrit passives and pseudo-passives

Abstract There are certain discrepancies between the forms and constructions prescribed by Pāṇinian grammarians and the forms and constructions that are actually attested in the Vedic corpus (a part of which is traditionally believed to underlie Pāṇinian grammar). Concentrating on one particular aspect of the Old Indian verbal system, viz. the morphology and syntax of present formations with the suffix ‑ya-, I will provide a few examples of such discrepancy. I will argue that the most plausible explanation of this mismatch can be found in the peculiar sociolinguistic situation in Ancient India: a number of linguistic phenomena described by grammarians did not appear in Vedic texts but existed within the semi-colloquial scholarly discourse of the learned community of Sanskrit scholars (comparable to Latin scholarly discourse in Medieval Europe). Some of these phenomena may result from the influence of Middle Indic dialects spoken by Ancient Indian scholars, thus representing syntactic and morphological calques from their native dialects onto the Sanskrit grammatical system.

The decline of labile syntax in Old Indo-Aryan : A diachronic typological perspective

Abstract The ancient Indo-European languages, such as early Vedic or (Homeric) Greek, are usually considered to be characterized by a high degree of lability. According to the communis opinio, they had a considerable number of labile verbs or verbal forms that could be labile, cf. rudrā॔ r̥tásya sádaneṣu vāvr̥dhuḥ ‘Rudras have grown [intransitive] in the residences of the truth’ ~ índram ukthā॔ni vāvr̥dhuḥ ‘The hymns have increased [transitive] Indra’. This paper offers a general overview of the Vedic verbal forms for which labile patterning is attested. I will argue that, for most of these forms, the secondary character of lability can be demonstrated. Thus, for many labile forms with middle inflection (in particular, forms belonging to the present system), labile patterning results from the polyfunctionality of the middle diathesis (self-beneficent / anticausative). The secondary transitive usages of some fundamentally intransitive verbs such as puṣyati ‘prospers; makes prosper’ originates from the syntactic re-analysis of content accusative constructions of the type ‘X prospers (in) Y’→‘X makes Y prosper’. I will further demonstrate that, within the Old Indo-Aryan period, we observe the decline of the labile type. Already in the second most ancient Vedic text, the Atharvaveda, we find very few labile forms. Thus, most of the active perfects which show labile syntax in the Rgveda are either attested in intransitive usages only, or in transitive usages only, or do not occur at all. I will also discuss the main mechanisms of the loss of labile pattern in Old Indo-Aryan.

Constraints on the causative derivation in early Vedic : Evidence for a diachronic typology of transitivity

Abstract The present paper demonstrates the relevance of the semantic approach to transitivity (going back to Hopper and Thompson 1980) for the analysis of Vedic causative verbs. I will argue that in terms of this approach it is possible to explain a number of constraints on causative derivation (which cannot be explained in terms of the traditional, syntactic, definition) and to offer a unified account of the semantics of these verbs. I will also briefly discuss some theoretical implications of this analysis of causative verbs in Vedic for a diachronic typology of transitivity.

Quelques notes sur les formes dites 'itératives’ indo-européennes: le type patayati et les presents redoublés en védique

The present paper focuses on some Vedic present formations that are traditionally considered as iteratives. These include the -aya-presents with the short root syllable of the type patayati ‘flutters’ (as opposed to the -aya-causatives of the type pātayati ‘makes fly, makes fall’ with the long root syllable) and the reduplicated presents of the type bibharti ‘carries’. I argue that the meaning of these formations should be described as atelic, rather than iterative (although in some contexts the iterative meaning may indeed appear). An atelic action or process, such as patayati ‘flutters’ or bibharti ‘carries’, does not suggest any inner terminal point built into the situation (“iterativ-ziellose Bedeutung” in terms of B. Delbruck). By contrast, actions or processes expressed by such presents as patati ‘flies’ or bharati ‘brings’ can be qualified as telic, that is, directed to a certain goal, as suggested by the very nature of this action/process. I will also provide morphological and functional parallels of these formations outside Indo-Iranian, foremost in Slavic (of the type nositi ‘carry’).