Sandell- The Morphonology of Reduplicated Presents in Vedic and Indo-European

7/28/2019 Sandell- The Morphonology of Reduplicated Presents in Vedic and Indo-European

1/32

The Morphophonology of Reduplicated Presents in Vedicand Indo-European*

University of California, Los Angeles1. Introduction and aimsThe verbal system of Vedic Sanskrit employs a diverse array of reduplicatedformations that are indispensable for the reconstruction of reduplicated verbalcategories in Proto-Indo-European; see Kulikov 2005:43 1-5 and citations thereinfor a linguistically current resume of all Vedic verbal formations with reduplica-tion. Among these formations, the reduplicated present (Class I11 in the tradi-tional nomenclature of Sanskrit present classes; cf. Whitney 1889:227-78) showsthe greatest diversity of vocalism in its reduplicating syllable.' Specifically, redu-plicated presents exhibit a variation between i- and a-vocalism in the reduplicantthat lacks an immediate phonological or morphological explanation. For mostroots that form reduplicated presents in the Vedic period, the reduplicant vocal-ism is stable by lexeme; for instance, ddii 'give' and dbhas 'chew' build3.sg.pres.act.ind. forms dddiiti and bdbhasti, whereas dbhr 'bear' and dvac'speak' build 3.sg.pres.act.ind. forms bibharti and vivakti, respectively. Neverthe-less, a few roots show an alternation between i- and a-vocalism in the redupli-cant, e.g., 3.sg.pres.act.ind. si&i but 3.~1. ascati to dsac 'follow', or 3.sg.pres.act.ind. jigiiti but (fossilized) pres.part.act. jdgat- to dgd 'go'.

Although reduplicated presents are non-productive already from the earliestphase of the Vedic language, for the reduplicated present stem to be a synchroni-cally non-derivable, lexicalized fossil is unhappy, because the burden of account-ing for all the peculiarities of its inflection then falls on the prehistory of theformation. Precisely in this vein, some scholarship (e.g., LIV:17, Tichy2006:1134, and Jasanoff 2003:128-32) projects the distinction between Vedic

* Thanks to Andrew Byrd, Bruce Hayes, Alexander Lubotsky, and Kie Zuraw for profitablediscussions on various aspects of this paper. I owe further thanks to the editors for their dili-gent work, especially Stephanie Jamison. R esponsibility for an y remaining infelicities or mis-judgments rests solely upon me.

1 Henceforth, I will use the terms "reduplicant" and "base" t o refer to what one might otherwisedesignate as the "reduplicating syllable" and the "root." I ignore any theoretical implicationsthat the former set of terms may have.

Stephanie W. Jamison, H. Craig Melchert, and B rent Vine (eds.). 201 1.Proceedings o f the 22nd Annual UC LA Indo-European C onferen ce. Bremen: Hem pen. 223-54.


2/32

Ryan Sandella-reduplicating and i-reduplicating presents back to distinct PIE types with *e-and *?"-reduplication. uch a reconstruction simplifies the morphological andphonological problems of inflection for the Vedic reduplicated present, but intro-duces a problem of semantic distinction between the two types; furthermore, thereconstruction of two PIE types does not account for the u-reduplication found inIndo-Iranian in a direct way.

The approach and objective of this paper are to attempt a systematic morpho-phonological account of the reduplicated present in Vedic that can capture thevariations in reduplicant vocalism at the synchronic level. I will further discussthe implications of the reduplicative process at work in Vedic for

theories of reduplication situated within the larger framework of genera-tive phonology

andthe reconstruction of the reduplicated present for Proto-Indo-European.

count of every detail in the inflectionnts. Rather, this work primarily seeks

ion that can generate the Vedic datawell a given stem is attested in thethis paper suggests how one mightccount for certain forms that are not

eptible to the synchronic analysis.flectional and phonological classification of the Vedic reduplicated

section introduces the sources of data on reduplicated presents in Vedic em-ployed for this study, the criteria for classification of verbal forms as genuine re-duplicated presents, and a classificatory scheme of the reduplicated presents.

drawn data concerning the inflection of the Vedic reduplicated present

the Rgveda (RV), via the concordance of Lubotsky (1 998);aveda (AV), via the index verborurn


3/32

The Morphophonology of Reduplicated Presents 225lemmata of Whitney 1885, for forms from Vedic texts other than theabove-mentioned.

Relatively few relevant forms are attested outside of the RV or AV, and indeedmany traces of reduplicated present inflection for a given root are entirely limitedto the RV. Whitney (1885:212-3) lists forty-nine roots as attesting to the stem ofan athematic reduplicated present. However, Whitney's classifications includesome forms that are properly to be understood as pluperfects or modal forms to aperfect stem. I apply the following criteria to determine whether a given root hasa reduplicated present:

1. If an unmistakable perfect stem is attested:(a) forms with primary endings, active or middle, in indicative mood,

clearly indicate a reduplicated present stem, even if ultimately de-rivative of a perfect;

(b) if no forms with primary endings, or only modal forms are attested,those forms probably belong to the perfect stem;

(c) if the perfect stem to the root shows a-reduplication, a stem with i-reduplication may reflect a reduplicated present stem.

2. If no unmistakable perfect stem is attested, then an imperfect or modalform may constitute evidence of a reduplicated present.

Based on these criteria, one should exclude ddhi 'think', dpi 'swell', dvyac 'sur-round', and probably ^man2 'waif2 on the basis of criterion l(b). At the sametime, however, criterion l(a) then demands that one consider bibhiti (to dbhi'fear') and mamatsi (to dmad 'enjoy7) as reduplicated presents, despite the factthat such forms do ultimately derive from perfects; cf. Cardona 1992 and Insler1972.~Table 1 presents those roots that attest to the synchronic formation ofathematic reduplicated presents.

2 Provided that the pluperfects and modal forms with the sense 'wait' ultimately derive from^man, 'think'; see the discussion in Kiimmel 2000:364-6. If one insists that these forms be-long to a separate root, then one may consider these forms as attesting to a reduplicated presentbased on criterion 2.

3 Indeed, that these derived reduplicated presents seem to conform to the morphophonologicalspecifications for reduplicated presents given below suggests that the reduplicated present wasnot an absolutely closed and lexicalized class in the early Vedic period.


4/32

Ryan Sandell

^Igadghrdcidjusd tq

toddi iddhaddhrdnij

d n idprjprc

dbhasdbhidbhrdmad

'move''go''drip ''observe?'enjoy''be sharp'

'give''point''put''hold''wash'

'lead''carry, keep ''mix''chew''fear''bear''enjoy'

*hser-*g''eh2-*gH*er-* k e i -* g e p* (s) ejg-*dehr*de&*dhehl-*dher-*nelgw-

*neiff-*per-*perk-*bhes-*bhe&-*bifer-*med-

xxgh&-citb-j k t a - , jus&i-tiktd-^

dattd-, -data-,-tta-disci-hitd-, -dhita-dhrtd-nikta-

nitd-xprkta-bhasita-cbhitd-bhrtd-mattd-AV

iyartijigatijigharti2.sg.pres.act.ind.

cik&iAV3 .pl.pres.act.subj.

jujusan R2.sg.pres.act.impv.

titigdhiMsHdddati3.sg.impf.mid.inj.

didigadddhati2 .pl.pres.act.impv .

didhrtd2.pl.pres.act.impv.

ninikta H2.du.pres.act.ind.

ninithdspiparti2.sg.pres.act.impv.

piprgdhi Rbhbhastibibhktivbibharti2.sg.pres.act.ind.

Continued on nextpa geNotes: X = unattested; R = rare (i.e., the stem is known from three or fewer forms), H = hapax leg-

omenon. All forms are RV and 3.sg.pres.act.ind. unless otherwise marked: AV = Atharva-veda, MS = Maitrayam Samhitii, V = Vedas, C = Classical Sanskrit. Accents are marked onlywhen attested.

a Glosses generally follow Whitney (1885) andKiimmel(2000).b Forms of PIE roots follow LIV.


5/32

The Morphophonology of Reduplicated Presents

Table 1-Continued- - -- -Skt. root Gloss PIE root Past pass. part. Class I11 example^ma\dm&dmidyas^YUIradvacdvai&is4 5dsac&asdsudsrdhasdh'idhuIhu

'measure''low7'(ex)change''(be) heat(ed),

boil''separate''give''speak''wish, want''handle''sharpen''follow''sleep''press''let loose''laugh''leave behind,

depart''pour, offer''call'

yutd-rat&

vista-Sitd-x

s& -~hasita-^hanu-^, hind-,

jahitd-hutd-had-

3.sg.pres.act.impv.mimiitu

mimati3.du.pres.act.ind.

mimitas R3 .sg.pres.act.impv.

yayastu Hyuyoti2.sg.pres.act.impv.

ririhivivaktivivagi H, 2.sg.pres.

act.ind. vav&i HvivestiSiSZtisi&i, 3 pl.pres.act.

ind. sdicatisasdstiTsR3.pl.pres.act.ind.

susvati Hsisartipres.part.act. dkyat- Hjdhzti, 3.sg.pres.mid.

ind.jihitejuhbti1 pl.pres.act.ind.

juhumdsi Rdhri 'be ashamed' *gi'rejH- h r i t ~ - ~ jihretiB

Notes: TS = Taittiriya Samhita,AB =Aitareya Brahmans, B = Brghmanas,E = Epic Sanskrit.Some forms given here require further comment:

jujusan (RV 7.61.6d) to djus could easily be a perfect subjunctive,though all other RVic perfect subjunctives to this root show full grade ofthe base. Also notable is 2.pl.preslperf.act.impv. jujustana. The forms'interpretation as reduplicated presents thus mostly relies on the etymo-logical connection with Hittite ku-ku-us-zi 'tastes' and Young Avestan


6/32

Ryan Sandell

3.sg.pres.mid.hd. (ii-)ziizuite; cf. Watkins 2003:391. LIEl66-7, on theother hand, does not believe that any Indo-Iranian forms continue an oldreduplicated present.titigdhi to dtij is a nonce form, though with LIE593 "im Kontext fimgierttitigdhi eindeutig als zu tijas- n. 'ScKarfeY Glut, Energie' gehorigerPrasensstamm." titigdhi is a synchronically valid Class 111 present.The imperatives didhrtam and didhrtd most probably belong to the betterattested reduplicated aorist stem didhar-. didhrtam (RV 5.86.6eQ shouldscan with long i in order to fit the lines' cadences; didhrta (RV 1.139.8g)may scan with short i.Note that, pace Whitney (1885:lOO), dP? Yilly(< *plehl-) probably doesnot have a reduplicated present. Having read all the occurrences of thestem p@ar-/p&r- in the RV and AV ~ aunaka, find that only AV~aunaka .35.4b (piparmi) lends itself well to an interpretation 'fill'. Fur-thermore, as Whitney (1905:520-l, 636) already mentions, the AVPaippalada sometimes reads bibharti whereAVS has piparti.Both vivasti (RV 7.16.1 lb) and vavdk.yi (RV 8.45.6b) are problematic.EWA:527 identifies both forms as ''Augenblicksbildungen"; Joachim(1978:151-2) likewise suggests that both forms are nonces; LIE672-3,misreading Joachim 1978, identifies only vivasti as an Augenblicks-bildung? and tentatively supports a link between vavbbi and Hittite we-wakki; Lubotsky (1998:1246) marks vavhksi as a nonce, but not vivasti.A 3.sg.pres.act.impv. vivastu is found in the SSmavedaY ut in a mantrawhich is a borrowing of RV 7.16.11. According to the synchronic princi-ples of formation developed in $4 below, vavhbi has aberrant redupli-cant vocalism, but could preserve an archaic accentuation; on the otherhand, vavabi could be built directly to a perfect stem, with perfect ac-centuation, like mambttu to dmad, but the perfect of dvai is rare (3xRV), and in all cases shows a long reduplication vowely thus vGvai-;see further Kummel 2000:477-80. In my assessment, the stem vivai- ismore likely the synchronically "grammatical" Class 111 formation, butthat Vedic inherited any reduplicated present to dvai is very doubtful.

Table 2 displays those reduplicated presents that also show thematization, butexhibit phonological patterns that indicate the synchronic productivity of a redu-plicated present stem:


7/32

The Morphophonology of Reduplicated Presents

Table 2. Thematized reduplicated presentsSkt. root Gloss PIE root Past pass. part. Class I11 example

dghrii 'sniff, smell' * g w h r e h I - g h r ~ t h - ~ 3.pl.pres.act.ind.jighrantiMs R

dnas 'return' *nes- X 3.sg.pres.mid.ind.nihsate

dpad 'go, step' *ped- pannh- AV pres.mid.part.pibdamcna- Hd m y a b 'affixy *me&-(8)- x mimiba t i Rdsthii 'stand' *steh2- sthit&- t&hatidhan 'strike' *gwhen- hat& 3.sg.pres.mid.ind.

jighnateNotes: see notes to table 1.Whether the reduplicated present stem to dghrii is thematic or athematic is notentirely clear. Whitney 1885:43 reads: "jigrati AV.MS (3p.)." However, Whitney(1905:694) acknowledges that the form in the AV (12.4.5) "can be . either sin-gular or plural." Furthermore, Amano (2009:556n2426) follows the emendationof von Schroeder (1881) in reading the MS manuscript form @ratgjighrati as@ratgjighranti. Kiithaka Samhitii forms (e.g., 3.sg.pres.act.opt. (ava)jighret, 2.sg.pres.act.impv. (ava)jighra) also suggest thematic inflection.

Table 3 shows further forms that must historically continue reduplicated pre-sents, but in which sound changes either eliminated a clear morphological divi-sion separating the reduplicant and the base or obscured an obvious phonologicalrelation between reduplicant and base.Table 3. Historical reduplicated presents

Skt. root Gloss PIE root Past pass. part. Class I11 exampledaj > d q 'drive7 * h 2 e & - ~ j i t a - ' ~ 3 .sg.pres.mid.ind.ijate Rdr > dir 'move' *h3er- 3.sg.pres.mid.ind. h t e (cf.

kar t i in table 1 above,to which h e emainsthe corresponding mid-dle in early Vedic)

Continued on next pageNotes: $B= ~ata~athariihtna~a. ee notes to table I .


8/32

Ryan Sandell

'praise' *h2ejsd- idith-dih 'be eager' *He@"- i h i t ~ - ~ 2.sg.pres.mid.ind.ihaseVsHd p ~ 'drink' * p e b pith- pibati&ad >&id 'sit' *sed- sannh-AV s fdati

Notes: VS = VFijasaneyi S ~ h i t i i . ee notes to table 1Vedic speakers had probably reanalyzed these forms as either root (Class 11) orthematic (Class I) presents to entirely different roots. One need not, therefore,bring to account this last group from the synchronic point of view, though theseforms may contribute data to the Indo-European picture.2.2.Phonologicalpatterns between root and redzplicuntWhen we examine the data for relationships between the vocalism of the redupli-cant and vocalism or other structure of the root, the following patterns emerge:

Roots that take a zero grade with u-vocalism invariably reduplicate withu-vocalism (e.g., juhbti).Roots that take a zero grade with i-vocalism invariably reduplicate with i-vocalism (e.g., cikisi).Roots that take a zero grade with y-vocalism invariably reduplicate withi-vocalism (e.g., bibharti).Thematic reduplicated presents invariably take zero grade of the root inthe base but reduplicate with i-vocalism (e.g.? tisthati).Roots of other structures (i.e.? CaC or Cii) show either i- or a-vocalism inthe reduplicant, but some fbrther subregularities are observable:1. CaC-roots in final coronal (i.e., dbhus, dnzad, dyas, and &as) always

show a-vocalism in the reduplicant.2. dvac, dvui, and dsac typically show i-vocalism in the re d ~ ~ l i c a n t . ~

Significant exceptions are the 3.pl.pres.act.ind. sdicati and corre-

4 See the discussion on viva+?i an d vavab i following table 1 above.


9/32

The Morphophonology of Reduplicated Presents 231sponding pres.part.act. sbicat- to d ~ a c ; ~will take up these forms in$5 .

3. CZ-roots (i.e., dg5, dd5, ddh5, dm&, dm&, dr5, d i ~ ,nd dh5) ex-hibit the greatest diversity of reduplicant vocalism: dd5 and ddhZ in-variably reduplicate with a-vocalism; drZ shows a-vocalism of thereduplicant except in the 2.sg.pres.impv.act. ririhi; dh~? ivides itsreduplicant vocalism into a for the active paradigm but i for the mid-dle paradigm; the remaining four roots always show i-vocalism of thereduplicant

In the main, the vocalism of the reduplicant is predictable based on either a mor-phological criterion (if thematic, the reduplicant takes i-vocalism) or aphonological criterion (root structure). To that extent, these patterns constitute"Islands of Reliability" in the sense of Albright (2002). Namely, where a genera1morphological pattern does not predominate, phonological subregularities maycome into play in order to determine the mo~holog ical xpression of a category.Indeed, the vocalism of the reduplicant very closely corresponds to the vocalismof the zero-grade allomorph of a given root as it appears in the past passive parti-ciple (see tables 1-3) or other morphological category that regularly takes zerograde of the root. For instance, even in the diverse CZ-roots, diZ builds a PPP&a- and a reduplicated present iiiiiti, while dd5 attests a PPP -d&a- or -tta- incompounds (instead of perhaps expected %ditb-< *db3-tb-; cf. Greek 6 0 ~ 6 ~ )nd areduplicated present dhdZti. Regardless of the precise historical origin of the re-duplicated present, then, such "Islands of Reliability" suggest that, at some pointin the prehisiory of Vedic (jerhaps Indo-Iranian), subcategories of reduplicationrelying on common phonological patterns established themselves. These patternsalone, however, do not constitute an account of how a Vedic reduplicated presentis built in the process of morphological and phonological derivation: unless onecan provide both historical and theoretical bases for these patterns, their collec-tion here is little better than the listing of aberrant reduplicated forms found inWhitney 1889:665-6 or Macdonnell 1916:144-5.3. Reduplication cross-linguisticallyThe data presented in $2 pose a difficult problem inreduplication, whether in the context of generative

that many approaches tophonology or historical

5 Note that the participle is homonymous except in accent with&ac 'dry up' (a-)sadist- (14x RV). the more common participle to


10/32

232 Ryan Sandelllinguistics, presuppose that the defining relationship between base and redupli-cant is of a phonological nature. See, for instance, Wilbur 1973, Marantz 1982, oreven the more recent models of McCarthy and Prince 1995 and Raimy 2000. Al-though reduplication could be defined purely in terms of a phonological copyingmechanism, such a definition would immediately exclude the Vedic reduplicatedpresent, which does not build reduplicants of absolutely reliable phonologicalform. Furthermore, most reduplicative processes known cross-linguistically aremorphophonological processes: the morphological marking found on a categorygives phonological expression to some syntactic or semantic value, but th e,phonological expression of the morpheme itself depends upon independentphonological operations. A purely phonological definition of reduplication, then,would not capture an essential aspect of many reduplicated categories across lan-guages generally. Hence, Inkelas and Zoll (2005:2) carefully distinguish betweentwo distinct linguistic processes, which nevertheless bear some surface similarityto one another:

1. Phonological Copying2. Morpho-Semantic Feature Reduplication [Morphological Reduplication]

In the succeeding subsections, I will define and expand upon these two catego-ries.3.1.Phonological copyingPhonological Copying entails that the phonological features of some segment arereproduced in another position in a word in order to satisfy structural demands ofa purely phonological nature, e.g., that no syllable lack an onset consonant or thatno syllable lack a coda consonant. Inkelas and Zoll(2005:2-3,20-I) cite cases ofthis phenomenon in Hausa, Yoruba, and Spokane (Interior Salish); in examples(1)-(2) I reproduce the Spokane case, in which an affix -e- meaning REPETITION(REP) s added to the verbal root (data are taken from Black 1996:210ff.; cf. alsoBates and Carlson 1997:105-7). If the verbal root is of the form CC at the stagein the derivation when -e- enters, the -e- is simply infixed; see (la)-(b), where$1'- and 12'- become $-e-1'- and 1-e-6'-. If instead the verbal root is of the formCVC at the stage in the derivation when -e- enters, the -e- is prefixed, and thefirst consonant of the root is copied to provide an onset to the syllable, thus re-sulting in a form ClVC,V c ee (2a)-(b), where id'- and nit'- become $-e-iilJ-and n-e-n 'it-.


11/32

The Morphophonology of Reduplicated Presents(1) Repetitive -e- infixes into an initial consonant cluster

a. I-e-, 3'-n'-t-an'/ + -e-l'n 'ten 'REP, chop-CONTROL-TRANSITIVE-1GTRANSITIVESUBJECTI cut it Up

repeatedly'b. I-e-, 1C'-n7-t-an'/+ 1'-e-c'n 'ten '

REP, tie-CONTROL-TRANSITIVE-~SGTRANSITIVESUBJECT+ 'I tied it Overand over'

(2) Phonological copying provides onset for -e-a. l-e-, gal'/ + -e-iil

REP, chop -+ 'I cut up repeatedly'b. I-e-, niC7-n'-t-axw/+ n '-e-n 'En 'txM'

REP, cut-CONTROL-TRANSITIVE-~SGTRANSITIVESUBJECTyou kept Oncutting it'

The seeming reduplication in the examples under (2) is merely a phonologicalrepair to a wholly phonological problem: Spokane does not allow syllables with-out onsets, but rather than inserting some default consonant, the features of thenearest consonant are copied into that onset position.3.2. Morpho-semantic eature reduplicationWork on reduplicative constructions that encode a syntactic or semantic value hastypically identified two major variations in phonological expression:

1. Fixed Segmentism: some phonological segment of the reduplicant re-mains constant throughout the paradigm of that reduplicated category,regardless of the base's phonological constituency.

2. Phonological Correspondence: every segment of the reduplicant has acorrespondent in the base, though the segments of the reduplicant mayundergo changes through identifiable phonological processes.

Inkelas and Zoll (2005) further consider constructions with semantic identity, butno necessary phonological relationship whatsoever, i.e., pure Semantic Doubling.3.2.1. Fixed segmentism. Examples of fixed segment reduplication are readilyavailable in the form of the reduplicated presents and the perfect of AncientGreek, which are cognate with the Vedic reduplicated present and perfect. Inthe reduplicated presents, one finds i-vocalism in the reduplicant throughout the


12/32

Ryan Sandellentire paradigm, regardless of the vocalism found in the root; likewise, the Greekperfect always displays e-vocalism in the reduplican t:

(3 ) Greek reduplicated presentRoot 1 sg.act. 1 ul.act.doq 'puty ri0q riQeped8m 'give' 5i5mpi Wiopevdpev remain' pipvm pipvopev

(4) Greek perfect1 %act. 1 vl.act.

&em 'leave' Xskoma XeXoizapevditei0 'convince' 7c67coda zezoi0apw"^/my flee' 116qevya m


13/32

The Morphophonology of Reduplicated Presents 235plicant is somehow phonologically reduced) reduplication. Example (6) showstrue "full" reduplication; example (7) demonstrates that the Vedic intensive fol-lows a pattern of "partial" reduplication:

( 6 ) Indonesian noun pluralization (data from Cohn 1989:185)hhk-hhk 'rights'bUku-bUku 'books'karh-karh 'monkeys'kacil-kacil ' S ~ ~ ~ ~ - D I S T R I B U T I V E 'wanita-wanita 'women'miniman-minuman 'beverages'

Here, two phonologically identical forms (i.e., each segment in the reduplicanthas an obvious co-indexation to a segment in the base, h1&k3-h\dyk3 'rights') areco-affixed to produce plural semantics.

(7) Vedic intensive reduplication (data from Schaefer 1994,S.V. given roots)w t 3ddi i 'point' mid. didi$e mid. dkdiiatednii 'bellow' act. nbnaviti 1pl.act. nonumasdvrt 'turn' act. vdrvarti act. vkrvrtati

In this case, the reduplicant (leftmost syllable) always shows the vocalism thatcorresponds to the full grade of that root, while the root itself undergoes ablaut,depending upon personlnumber and diathesis. Strictly speaking, where the rootstands in the zero grade (e.g., dgdiiate or nonumas), not every segment of thereduplicant has a correspondent in the base: in Idlab-dli2S3-I, he a in the redupli-cant lacks a corresponding segment in the base, while the i in the base lacks acorresponding segment in the reduplicant. The morphophonological derivationproceeds as follows:

(8) Derivation of 3.sg.pres.mid.intens. didis-'1. Root: /dais-/2. Semantics: intensive3. Morphology: reduplicate for intensive+ RED-do&/4. Phonology: fill the reduplicant following restrictions (not more than one

coda consonant)+ dai-da&/5. Semantics: middle diathesis

7 This derivation intends no theoretical claims w hatsoever; it is merely illustrative.


14/32

236 Ryan Sandell6 . Morphology: ablaut to zero grade of the base, add desinence+

Id5i-dais-tag3.2.3. Semantic doubling. Inkelas and Zoll (2005:6-8) farther classify certainconstructions in which no phonological relationship whatsoever obtains betweenthe constituents as reduplication:

(9) Khmer synonym compunds (after Inkelas and Zoll 200.523; data from Orunand Haiman:485-501)Compound Constituent semantics Compound semanticscah-tum 'old+mature' 'village elder'kee-mordok 'heritage+heritage' 'legacy'camaj-?ahaa(r) 'food+food' 'food'Paarkambag 'secret+secret' 'secret'cbah-prakat 'exact+exact' 'exact'peel-weelia 'time+time' 'time'

Similar is a case from Vanatuan Sye. In Vanatuan Sye, every verbal root has twophonologically distinct, but semantically identical, stem formations that cannot bephonologically derived from one another. Historically, these stems derive from asingle verbal root:

(10) Vanatuan Sye verbal allomorphs (data from Crowley 1998:83-5; see furtherInkelas and Zoll2005:524)Stem 1evsorevtitocepochiom01orucovolivag

Stem 2amsoravtitagkepaghiam01anducampoliamp%

'wake up''meet''fly''see it''fall''bathe''turn it''eat'

Which stem is used depends on the morphological category being expressed, e.g.,the simple future takes Stem 2, whereas imperatives take Stem 1. Most interest-ing is a reduplicative construction that consists in the co-affixation of the twostems:

(1 1) cw-amolz-omoll3p~Fu~-falL-fall1'we will fall all over'


15/32

The Morphophonology of Reduplicated Presents4. Modeling the Vedic reduplicated presentThis section will attempt to formulate a synchronic analysis of the Vedic redupli-cated present within two distinct approaches to reduplication: Base-ReduplicantCorrespondence Theory (McCarthy and Prince 1995) and Morphological Dou-bling Theory (Inkelas and Zoll 2005). Given the divergent theoretical claimsabout the nature of reduplication that these two models make, the compatibility orincompatibility of the Vedic evidence may serve to provide evidence in supportof or against one model or the other.4.1. Base-Reduplieant C orrespondence T heory and M orphological Doubling

Theory: Definitions4 1 . 1 . Base-Reduplicant C orrespondence T heoy. Under Base Reduplicant Corre-spondance Theory (BRCT), reduplication is a prosodic phonological process inwhich an abstract RED(up1icant) morpheme receives its phonological specifica-tion and ultimate surface form through the interaction and ranking of four con-straint relationships:

1. General I(nput)-O(utput) markedness constraints on acceptable surfaceform.

2. I(nput)-R(edup1icant) faithfulness: the output reduplicant should be pho-nologically like the input base.3. I(nput)-B(ase) faithfulness: the output base should be phonologically like

the input base.4. B(ase)-R(edup1icant) identity: the output reduplicant should phonologi-

cally resemble the output base.Figure 1represents the interactions of these various relations:

OUTPUT R [filled]- BB-RFig. 1. The Full Model of Reduplicative Identity (after McCarthy and Prince 1995:25)


16/32

238 Ryan SandellThis model of reduplication depends on the theoretical claims and machinery ofparallel Optirnality Theory (oT).*4.1.2. Morphological Doubling Theory. Morphological Doubling Theory (MDT)defines reduplication in terms of morphology and semantics: the constituents of areduplicative construction are semantically identical, and the targets of such aconstruction are morphological elements (such as a word, root, stem, or affix)rather than phonological elements (cf. Inkelas and Zoll 2005:66). Thus, true re-duplication, as opposed to phonological copying (cf. 93.1 above), consists in theco-affixation of two semantically identical morphemes. The fact that semanticallyidentical morphemes are often phonologically similar, if not identical, results inthe phonological similarities seen between base and reduplicant in many redupli-cative constructions cross-linguistically. The exact phonological shape that a re-duplicative construction adopts is the result of interactions between threecophonologies, is., distinct sets of phonological rules or constraints that apply tothe morphological constituents independently and then at the level of affixation(cf. Inkelas and Zoll2005: 19):

Fig. 2. Interaction of cophonologies in reduplicationI will employ Optimality Theory to represent the operation of the various copho-nologies in MDT, though MDT in itself is compatible with whateverphonological framework one chooses to adopt.4.2. Modeling under BRCTGiven that the data presented under $2 contain some patterns of reduplication inwhich the reduplicant and base lack an obvious relationship of identity, BRCTfaces a significant challenge. The following examples will illustrate that one mayformulate constraint rankings that can capture either the reduplication pattern ofCa- and CaC-roots (such as &a or dvac) that regularly show i-reduplication, orthe reduplication of roots that show a-reduplication (e.g., dbhas or dda), but not

8 See Prince and Smolensky 1993for an introduction to Optimality Theory.


17/32

The Morphophonology of Reduplicated Presents 239both. Either set of constraints can correctly predict the outcome for roots with

9zero grades in i, u, or r.Since the primary concern of the follow ing exposition lies solely in the qual-

ity of vocalism found in the reduplicant, whatever constraints necessary to pro-duce the correct consonantism or prosodic shape will be omitted in order tosimplify the exposition. I therefore take for granted the following conditions onthe reduplicant for Sanskrit reduplicated presents:

The reduplicant admits only of palatal stops (e.g., cik isi).All underlying aspirates surface as unaspirated [Grassmann's Law] (e.g.,bdbhasti).Where a root has more than one root-initial consonant, only the less so-norous of those c onsonan ts will app ear in the redu plicant (e.g., tisthati).

Limitations of space here do not permit independent justification of the con-straints in use.4.2.1. Constraint ranking I: MAX-IB, DENT-IB> *V[,hieh\> IDENT-BR.n exam-ple (12), the reduplication of Ima 'bellow' from the full grade morphologicallyrequired for the 3 .sg.pres.act.ind. su rfaces as mimati, in winning candidate a:

for the following reasons:The IDENT-BRviolations in (12a) result from a change in quality andlength of vocalism in the reduplicant; however, were the reduplicantvowel to maintain the same quality and/or length, violations of higher-ranking *q, 1 or *V[_iiighl ould en sue; cf. candidates b and c.

9 A stipulative constraint *R seems to be necessary to forbid an r in a reduplicant throughout,though the same restriction w as probably in operation for PIE itself; see further 55 .


18/32

240 Ryan Sande ll*u p> 1 and *Vr_~,igMo not force any changes in the surface expression ofthe base, because MA X-IB and IDEN T-IB,demanding faithfulness to theinput, outrank those markedness constaints.

In example (13), the (e) (= [ail) vocalism of the base is impermissible in the re-duplicant acco rding to the given constraint ranking, because it would violate both*ou> 1 and *V[-higM; f. candida te b.

However, to resolve *u p> 1 through the elimination of [i] still leaves a non-highvowel in the reduplicant, as in candidate (13c). Winning candidate (13a), on theother hand, violates low-ranking M AX-BR in deleting the [a] and violates IDENT-BR in chan ging the underlying non-syllabic Ill to syllabic [i], but thus avoids anyviolation of either *oF> 1 or *Vr-highl.

In order to satisfy both *q, > 1 or *V[-higill, as well as high -ranked *R, win-ning candidate (14a) shows deletion of all acceptable vocalic material originallypresent in the base, into which an anaptyctic vowel [i] is then inserted.''

However, as examples (15) and (16) illustrate, this set of constraints predictsthat roots that show a-vocalism in the reduplicant would instead have i-vocalism.Candidates (1 5a) and (16a) both pick out form s as winning candidates that do notexist, rather than the expected candidates of (15b) and (16b); in particular, con-trast exam ple (16) w ith example (12).11 Therefore, this constraint ranking cannotbe viable.

10 The general spread of [i] as an intermorphemic linking vowel, on analogy to original set-roots, could constitute a reasonable basis fo r assuming [i] as the standard anaptyc tic vowel ofSanskrit.

11 Kulikov (2005:438nl6) points out that a stem bibhas- is found in some manuscripts, but uni-versally is emended to babhas-.


19/32

The Morphophonology of Reduplicated Presents 241

4.2.2. Constraint ranking 2: *oI, 1, MAX-BRL+hlgii1> IDENT-BR,MAX-BR.Thisconstraint ranking similarly employs *q, 1 to drive the moraic value of the re-duplicant, but the removal of *V[-hiehinsures that forms such as bdbhasti andddddti can surface properly. M A X - B R [ + ~ ~ ~ , , ]ives preference to high vowels in thereduplicant, thereby securing forms such a s cikksi over "cakesi.

Examples (17) and (1 8) are parallel to examples (15 ) and (16), demonstratingthat expected bdbhasti and ddddti can win using the new set of constraints:


20/32

Ryan Sandell

In (19), the faithfulness constraint MAx-BR[+~,~~~,~,hich establishes a bias for thepreservation of [+high] segm ents existing in the base over [-high] segm ents, al-lows c i k k i to surface:

(19)

However, the ultimate consequence of this set of constraints is that other rootsthat show a type of a-vocalism in the base are predicted to show a-vocalism inthe reduplicant a s well, contrary to the actual data; compare (20) with (12) above:


21/32

The Morphophonology of Reduplicated Presents 243

Again, the given constraint ranking is unable to provide a successful account ofall variation found in the Vedic data. Therefore, one must conclude that the theo-retical machinery that BRCT offers is inadequate to explain the morphopho-nological patterns found in the Vedic reduplicated present.4.3. Modeling under MDTAt least for the athematic reduplicated presents represented in table 1, MDT canprovide a coherent account: the form ation of a reduplicated presen t consists in theco-affixation of the zero-grade allomorph to a given root, as the reduplicant, toanother form of the same root, taking whichever ablaut grade the inflectionalparadigm specifies. The Vedic reduplicated present is akin to the reduplicativeconstructions of Vanatuan Sye seen in example (1 1) in 53.2.3-two dis tinct al-lomorphs (in some cases, synchronically non-derivable allomorphs, as in zero-grade forms with i-vocalism to Cii-roots) are bound to one another in order tofulfill the need for two semantically identical elements, similar to the Khmersynonym constructions in example (9). The derivations in examples (21)-(24)illustrate the composition of a Vedic reduplicated present: cophonologies at theappropriate daughter nodes shape the respective allomorphs for w hich the m or-phosyntax calls, and then further cycle through the mother cophonology to pro-duce a final output.

As seen in the preceding section, the constraint *ou> 1, here present in theDaughter A cophonology, drives the prosodic shape of the reduplicant. L ikewise,the constraints ranked above DEP-V result in a redup licant of the form Ci- toroots with zero grades in r . Throughout, I take the form s of the past passive parti-ciple shown in table 1 as indicative of the morphological form of the zero gradeto a g iven root.


22/32

244 Ryan Sandell(21) Morphosyntactic operation: construct the 3.sg.pres.act.impv. for 'measure'

1 mi-mil- l&lmi-m-

Output: mi-ma-Suffix: -tu

+ mimiituTh e constraint set needed to generate the correct output is very simple: DaughterB (the base) and the Mother (the co-affixed stem) need only be strictly faithful tothe inpu ts; the reduplicant is largely faithful to the input a s well, but its restrictedprosodic shape induces some change. The burden for correct outputs instead fallsalmost entirely on the morphology, which selects the proper input form fromcomm ands received from syntax or semantics.

Given that the zero grade allomorph to dyas is probably yas- as the past pas-sive participle yastb- w ould suggest, then the a-vo calism found in the reduplicantof yayastu (22) is simply a preservation of the underlying vocalism. Given thatthe only free-standing form of the past passive participle to ^da 'give' attestedfrom the Rgveda forward is dattd-, or -data- or -tta- as the second member ofcompounds, I submit that the zero grade allomorph that served as an input fordd 6 was not 'di-, as mi- is to drnii (21)' but rather dad- or da-, thus making thevocalism of the reduplicant straightforward to obtain.1212 Some special pleading, though, is necessary to explain dadhati to ddha, which attests only a

PPP hita-, or -dhita- as the second member of compounds and in sandhi. I see two possiblefactors driving the formation of dadhati : (i) thoroughgoing identity of inflection to dda, and(ii) hit& as a suppletive form for the PPP taken from a lower register of speech. If one or both


23/32

T h e M o rp h o p h o n o lo g y of Redupl i ca t ed Presen t s(22) Mor phosyn tact ic operat ion: co nst ruct th e 3.sg.pres.act. impv. for 'boi l '(^yas n

Output : ya-yas-Suffix: -tu

+ ayastuThe interaction of constraints in the D aughter A cophonology demonstrates theoutcome for roots with zero grades in r (23). As in $4.2, I assume that [i] is theunmarked anaptyctic vowel. The validity of this assumption, however, gains fur-ther credenc e in that it helps to a ccoun t for the form ation o f reduplicated presentsto roots that exhibit sa rnp ras G ra~ an their zero grade, i.e., dvac , which has a PPPuktd-. If one introduces a further constraint, ONSET,which penalizes the forma-tion of syllables without an onset con sonant, ranked ab ove D EP-V , into the con-straint set of the Daughter A cophonology, then the desired reduplicated presentform vivakti will result (24).13

of these conditions hold good, then perhaps a zero-grade allomorph "dadh- or "dha- to ^ d h ~existed at some level of representation. One sh ould also take note o f the fact that data- is thePPP to Avestan 4dG- (with conflation of Proto-Indo-Iranian ' d d 2 'give' and 'ddhG 'set').

13 v ivas i to dva i is likewise an expected outcome under the same account, if the weak stem ofthe Cla ss I1 present, e.g., 1.pl.pres.act.ind. u M s i , is taken as evidence of the proper zerograde allomorph to d v a i


24/32

246 Ryan Sandell

(23) Morphosyntactic operation: construct the 3.sg.pres.act.ind. for 'bear' (dbhr)

Output: bi-bhar-Suffix: -ti

+ bibharti(24) Morphosyntactic operation: construct the 3.sg.pres.act.ind. for 'speak'

to 'sneak' (= ucV/full grade allomorph

to 'soeaky/

c. ac- 11 *!


25/32

The Morphophonology of Reduplicated PresentsOutput: vi-vac-Suffix: -ti

+ vivaktiThe presence of a constraint ONSET n the morphologically determined DaughterA cophonology makes for an interesting contrast with Vedic perfects, which alsoshow reduplication: the 3.sg.perf.act.ind. of dvac is uviica, which has the redupli-cant the reduplicated present would have produced without ONSET.This contrast,then, perhaps provides evidence of intralinguistic morphologically conditionedphonology.4.4. ConclusionsSection 4.2 demonstrated that a model that defines reduplication in terms ofphonological correspondence between the constituent morphemes, such asBRCT, cannot account for significant parts of the Vedic data. In contrast, MDTallows one to describe the formation of the Vedic reduplicated present as an es-sentially morphological operation, subject to relatively minor alteration at thephonological level. This outcome bolsters the thesis of Inkelas and Zoll (2005)that reduplication is fundamentally morphological and semantic in nature, ratherthan phonological.

Although the approach described in 54.3 captures the data of athematic redu-plicated presents, certain thematic reduplicated presents, on the other hand, flatlycontradict this model, e.g., 3.sg.pres.mid.ind. ighnate to w an, where the modelof 54.3 would predict "jaghnate. Given that the thematic reduplicated presentsare absolutely consistent in the form of the reduplicant regardless of the rootphonotactics, one may simply treat them as instantiations of fixed-segment redu-plication, as discussed under 53.2.1. Thematic reduplicated presents reflect amorphophonological process distinct from athematic reduplicated presents.

The question of historical origins nevertheless remains: how and why wouldVedic have developed the synchronic process that it employs for forming redu-plicated presents, in the face of data from other Indo-European languages?5. Reconstructing the Indo-European reduplicated presentThis section will summarize arguments concerning earlier reconstructions of thePIE reduplicated present, then finally make a new attempt, employing MDT tomodel the reduplicative process.


26/32

248 Ryan Sandell5 .1 . One or two reduplicatedpresents?In the main, I am sympathetic to the intuitions of Frotscher and Hill (2010:2) that"the assumption of just one stem formation is much more economical" and that"mixed paradigms are better explained . if i- and e-reduplication originallybelonged to one paradigm," e.g., sbakti vs. sdscati, jigiiti vs. jbgat-, or jahativs. jihite. Models that adopt two types of reduplicated present must appeal toextra-paradigmatic analogy to explain such mixed paradigms, and also have amore difficult burden of proof with respect to semantics. 4

The converse approach, namely, to derive all athematic reduplicated presentsin Vedic from a single Indo-European type, goes back at least to Hirt 1900:190-3. More specifically, Hirt suggested that the consistent absence of full grade inthe desinence of the 3.pl.pres.act.ind. of reduplicated presents, e.g., bi-bhr-ati ordd-d-ati, in contrast to the other Vedic athematic present types, which alwaysshow full grade of the desinence in the S.pl.pres.act.ind., e.g., s-dnti or yu-fi-j-dnti, points to original accentuation and full grade in the reduplicant; thus Vedicdd-d-ati would continue PIE *d&-dhs-~ti. atkins 1969:36 makes a similar ob-servation, though Watkins ultimately attributes the full grade of the reduplicantalongside the zero grade of the ending in the 3 .~1. o analogy with Vedic inten-sives of the form 3.~1. dr-vrt-ati (cf. example (7) above).15 Kortlandt (1987:222)makes essentially the same observation as Hirt, and Kulikov (2005:445-6) fol-lows and expands upon Kortlandt.

Frotscher and Hill (2010) also aim for a single PIE type, but because theVedic accent is interpreted as absolutely indicative of a PIE fall grade, Vedicforms like bibharti are derived from PIE *bh&bhelor-ti.That the reduplicated pre-sent took *o-grade of the root in its strong stem seems improbable, insofar as astem *bh&bhor-would then be very similar to the stem of the PIE perfect. Fur-thermore, the non-operation of Brugmann's Law in the 3.sg.pres.act. subjunctivesbi-bhar-a-t and ba-bhas-a-t, where an original *o-grade should have produced'bi-bhiir-a-t, 'ba-bhiis-a-t, also speaks against the reconstruction of *o-grade inthe root! For the stem to have been *bh&-bher- ould be even stranger, given that

14 The semantic difference that Tichy (2006: 113-4) sees between bibharti and dddhati is proba-bly more a feature of lexical semantics than of the reduplication itself.

15 Watkins' implication seems to be that fixed-segment *i-reduplication was original to the Indo-European reduplicated present, though a means of accounting for the thoroughgoing a-reduplication of dadati and dddhati is then lacking.

16 Admittedly, however, the data on the inflection of the active subjunctive singular of the redu-plicated present is conflicting as to whether full grade or zero grade of the root was original.


27/32

The Morphophonology of Reduplicated Presents 249PIE did not license the co-occurrence of two e-grades in a single word. Hence,the approach of Hirt, Kortlandt, and Kulikov, in which *i-reduplication is an out-come of zero-grade ablaut, while *e-reduplication is the outcome of full-gradeablaut, seems most promising.5.2. Reconstruction andformalization in MDTI reconstruct the paradigm of the PIE reduplicated present active indicative asfollows, using *bher-as a sample root:

Thus, one may identify a strong stem in the singular, a weak stem in the firstand second plural, and a weakest stem in the third plural and the participle.The root accentuation of the singular is preserved in a few cases, e.g., bibhhrtiand iydrsi, as well as in all roots with zero grades in u . The l/2.pl., ingeneral, faithfully preserve the original accent and ablaut, whereas the singularhas shifted the accent onto the reduplicating syllable (so also Whitney 1889:243),possibly to enhance contrast between the reduplicated present and the perfect.Thus, 3 .~1 . 2c ati and pres.part.act. sdscat-l8 preserve PIE *si-skw-gti and *si-s P - ~ t - ,espectively,'9 while jdgat-20 preserves PIE *g%-gwh2-pt-.Note also the

Frotscher and Hill (2010:3) try to dismiss the accentuation of bibharti (RV 4.50.7, AVS19.26.1, 2) and i y h i (RV 10.37.4), but both forms are lectiones difficiliores, given that theaccent throughout the paradigms of those stems is otherwise on the reduplicant. To attributethe accentuation to perfect-derived forms like cikksi seems difficult, since such forms are rela-tively rare (bibhkti is not yet present in RV or AV).Jasanoff (2003: 129) contends that 3.~1. dscati is a nonce formation, based on the "substantiv-ized participle sascat- 'pursuer'." That the substantivization of the participle occurred is trueenough, but a certainly participial usage, datsg. sdscate, occurs at RV 2.16.4b. Jasanoff doesnot account for why saicat- itself should have a-vocalism in the reduplicant. To simply takesaicati at face value seems more straightforward.That the */c" of *sk-sku-ptiand * sk-sP-pt- seems to show a palatal outcome (Skt. c) in a non-palatalizing environment is unproblematic, because Indo-European root-final (labio-)velarsappear as palatals in Skt. when preceding a vowel, regardless of the provenance of that vowel.Put another way, the underlying form of the IE root *seP- has become /sac/ in Skt., so 3.sg.skakti is the result of internal sandhi from Isisactil. Compare the RVic paradigm of the ClassVII present to dprc 'mix': 2.sg.act.ind. p ~ & i , .pl.act.ind. prficanti, 3.sg.act.impv. pmaktu.An informal count of roots from Whitney 1885 finds seven roots in final k versus twenty-two


28/32

250 Ryan Sandellparadigmatic split of the PIE root *ihehl- nto Vedic active jahati (cf. PPP htina-)versus middle ihite (cf. PPP hind-). Furthermore, reduplicated media tantum pre-sents that have been reinterpreted in Vedic as root presents, such as h e < *h$-h&d-t6i, are precisely in line with the inflection of the weak stem found in thefirst and second plural of the active.If one accepts a PIE paradigm containing both *i- and *&vocalism in the re-duplicant, then the *i-vocalism falls out as a representation of the zero-gradeform of the root; more specifically, this *i-vocalism may well reflect an anap-tyctic vowel, inserted into the reduplicant at the level of Mother node phonologyin order to prevent a geminate consonant from surfacing, following the view thatPIE did not allow geminate consonants (26). I

(26) Morphosyntactic operation: construct the 3.sg.pres.act.ind. for 'bear' I

Output: *bhi-bh&-Suffix: *-ti+ *bhibh6rti

- -roots in final c ; most of the former seem to be late introductions into the Classical language,while the latter are largely of Indo-European origin.

20 jagat- is, however, fossilized as a noun, 'moving world', and has been replaced in Vedic withjigat-, in accordance with the rules of derivation given in 94.3.


29/32

The Morphophonology of Reduplicated Presents 25 1For the PIE construction, the inputs are taken to be the full-grade form of theroot. In accordance with the common view that *e-grade in PIE bore the wordaccent, the constraint *E[_stresslrohibits an unaccented * e from surfacing; for mypurposes here, I assume that the accent is assigned at a level of derivation preced-ing what is shown in (26) and (27). Thus, the reduplicant takes zero grade, but *Rdisallows a syllabic resonant, so this potential syllable nucleus is re m~ved.~ 'heanaptyctic [i] appears at the level of the Mother cophonology in order to satisfyboth *GEMINATEnd MAX-10, given that DEP-V is ranked lower than those twoconstraints. Limitations of space here do not permit further comment on the na-ture of anaptyctic vowels in PIE, but the reader may find helpful discussion inVine 1999 and Byrd 201 0: 108. The corresponding weakest stem, in the 3.pl., eas-ily falls out from these constraints as well:

(27) Morphosyntactic operation: construct the 3.pl.pres.act.ind. for 'bear'(*bher-)

Output: *bh&bhr-Suffix: *-nti

+ *bh6bhrpti

21 *F$ seems well motivated insofar as no IE language attests to a syllabic resonant or a clearvocalizedreflex thereof in a reduplicant. For more on special phonological properties limitedto reduplicants, see Inkelas an d Zoll2005:ch.3.


30/32

252 Ryan Sandell5.3. From PIE to VedicThe PIE athematic reduplicated present derivations seen in (26) and (27) furnishmorphologically identical inputs as the daughters of the reduplicative construc-tion, whereas Vedic, as demonstrated in $4.3, employs morphologically distinctinputs. The final question, then, is: what drove this basic change in the underlyingmorphological constituency of the reduplicated present between PIE and Vedic?As per Kulikov 2005:445-6, the crucial step appears to lie with laryngeal-finalroots (Vedic Cd-roots): following the vocalization of the laryngeals to Vedic Iilwhen such roots were in the zero grade, speakers began to associate the inheritedi-vocalism in the reduplicant with the zero-grade allomorph of the root. Conse-quently, the zero-grade vocalism spread throughout the individual paradigms,thus leading to u-reduplication in roots with zero grades in u (such as juhhti) anda-reduplication to roots in which a phonological full grade had come to fill themorphological zero grade, as in roots ending in coronals (such as b d b h a ~ t i ) . ~ ~diiand ddhii, meanwhile, may have developed a paradigm with a-reduplication dueto early loss and non-vocalization of the root-final laryngeal; contrast 1.pl.pres.act.ind. Jiiimasi with dadmas or 3.sg.pres.mid.ind. Mite with dattd. ddii andddhd thereby escaped the pattern of other Cii-roots, but ultimately fell victim tothe larger pattern that the Cd-roots promoted (cf. n12 above).

ReferencesAlbright, Adam. 2002. Islands of Reliability for Regular Morphology: Evidence from

Italian. Language 78.684-709.Alderete, John, Jill Beckman, Laura Benua, Amalia Gnanadesikan, John McCarthy, and

Suzanne Urbanczyk. 1997. Reduplication with Fixed Segmentism. http://roa.rutgers.edu/files/226-1 O97/226-1097-ALDERETE-0-O.PDF (1 1 February 20 10).

Amano, Kyoto. 2009. MaitrayamSamhita 1-11. Bremen: Hempen.Bates, Dawn, and Barry F. Carlson. 1997. Spokane (Npoqinikn) Syllable Structure and

Reduplication. In Ewa Czaykowska-Higgins and Dale Kinkade (eds.), Salish Lan-guages and L inguistics: Theoretical Descriptive Perspectives (Trends in Linguistics:Studies and Monographs 107), 99-1 23. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Black, Deidre. 1996. The Morphological and Phonological Structure of Spokane Lexe-mes. Ph.D. diss., University of Montana.

22 The constraints and derivational process given in figures (26)and (27)would in fact predictthat PIE roots with zero-grade u- or i-vocalism would have such vocalism in the reduplicant. Ifone insists that PIE athematic presents with zero grade in u never exhibited u-vocalism in thereduplicant (note Hittite kukuizi< *geys-), hen (26)and (27) equire minor modification.


31/32

The Morphophonology of Reduplicated Presents 253Byrd, Andrew. 2010. Reconstructing Indo-European Syllabification. Ph.D. diss., Univer-

sity of California, Los Angeles.Cardona, George. 1992. On the Development of Presents like bibhkti. In Ravindranatha

N. Srivastava (ed.), Language and Text: Studies in Honour of Ashok R. Kelkar, 1-13.Delhi: Kalinga.Cohn, Abigail. 1989. Stress in Indonesian and Bracketing Paradoxes. Natural Language

and Linguistic Theory 27.1 67-2 16.Crowley, Terry. 1998.An Erromangan (Sye) Grammar (Oceanic Linguistics Special Pub-

lication 27). Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.EWA = Mayrhofer, Manfred. 1986-2001. Etymologisches Worterbuch des Altindo-

arischen. Heidelberg: Winter.Frotscher, Michael, and Eugen Hill. 2010. The Accentuation of Oind. 3rd Class (Redupli-

cated) Presents. Paper presented at the Arbeitstagung der Indogermanischen Ge-sellschaft, 13-1 5 September 2010, Los Angeles.

Hirt, Hermann Alfred. 1900. Der indogerma nisc t: Vornehm lich in seinemVerhaltnis zur Betonung . Strassburg: Trubner.

Hurch, Bernhard. 2005. Graz Reduplication Database. http://reduplication.uni-graz.at/2February 2011).

Inkelas, Sharon, and Cheryl Zoll. 2005. Reduplication: Doubling in Morphology.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Insler, Stanley. 1972. Vedic mamatsi, dmamadur, and Ga te. Zeitschrift fur vergleichendeSprachforschung 86.93-103.

Jasanoff, Jay H. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European Verb. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Joachim, Ulrike. 1978.Mehrfachprasentien im & V e d a .Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Kortlandt, Frederik. 1987. Archaic Ablaut Patterns in the Vedic Verb. In George Cardona

and Norman H. Zide (eds.), Festschrift for Henry Hoenigswald: On the Occasion ofHis Seventieth Birthday, 216-23. Tubingen: Nan.

Kulikov, Leonid. 2005. Reduplication in the Vedic Verb: Inheritance, Analogy, and Ico-nicity. In Bernhard Hurch (ed.), Studies on Reduplication, 431-54. Berlin: Moutonde Gruyter.

Kummel, Martin Joachim. 2000. Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen. Wiesbaden: Reichert.L I V = Rix, Helmut. 2001. Lexikon der indogermanischen verben. Wiesbaden: Reichert.Lubotsky, Alexander. 1998.A & V ed ic Word Concordance. New Haven: American Ori-

ental Society.Macdonell, Arthur Anthony. 1916 [1993]. A Vedic Grammar or Students. Reprint: Delhi:

Motilal Banarsidass.Marantz, Alec. 1982. Re Reduplication. Linguistic Inquiry 1 1.487-509.McCarth~, ohn, and Alan Prince. 1995. Faithfulness and Reduplicative Identity. In Jill

Beckman and Susan Urbanczyk (eds.), Papers in Optimality Theory (University of


32/32

254 Ryan SandellMassachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics IS), 249-384. Amherst: GraduateLinguistics Student Association, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

Narten, Johanna. 1972. jcigat- im Rigveda. In Jacob Ensink and Hans Peter Gaeffke(eds.), India maior: Cong ratulatory Voluine Presented t o J. Gonda, 161-6. Leiden:Brill.

Orun, Noeurng, and John Haiman. 2000. Symmetrical Compounds in Khmer. Studies inLanguage 24.484-5 14.

Prince, Alan, and Paul Smolensky. 1993. Optimality Theory: Constraint Interactionin Generative Grammar (Cognitive Science Center Tech Report TR-2). NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers Center for Cognitive Science.

Raimy, Eric. 2000. The Phonolosy and Morphology of Reduplication. Berlin: Mouton deGruyter.

Schaefer, Christiane. 1994. Das Intensivum im Vedischen (Historische SprachforschungErganzungsheft 37). Gottingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.

von Schroeder, Leopold. 1881.Maitriiya@amhitci. Leipzig: Brockhaus.Tichy, Eva. 2006. A Su rvey of Proto-Indo-European. Bremen: Hempen.Vine, Brent. 1999. Greek pica 'root' and 'schwa secundum'. In Vjaeeslav V. Ivanov and

Brent Vine (eds.), UCL A Indo-European Studies I, 5-30. Los Angeles: University ofCalifornia, Program in Indo-European Studies.

Vogelin, Charles F. 1958. Working Dictionary of Tiibatulabal. International Journal ofAmerican Linguistics 24.221-8.

Watkins, Calvert. 1969. Indogermanische Grammatik 11111: Geschichte der indo-germanischen Verbaljlexion. Heidelberg: Winter.

. 2003. Hittite ku-ku-us-zi, KUB 10.99 i 29. In Gary Beckman, Richard Beal, andGregory McMahon (eds.), Hittite Studies in Honor of Harry A. Hoffner Jr.: On theOccasion of His 65th Birthday, 390-2. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Whitney, William Dwight. 1881. Index Verborum to the Published Text of the Atharva-Veda. Journal o f the American Oriental Society 12.1-383.. 1885 [1963]. The Roots, Verb-Forms, and Primary D erivatives of the SanskritLanguage. Reprint: Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.. 1889 [1960]. Sanskrit Grammar. Reprint: Cambridge: Harvard University Press.. 1905. Atharva-Veda SamhitG: Translated with a Critical and Exegetical Com-mentary. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Wilbur, Ronnie Bring. 1973. The Phonology of Reduplication. Ph.D. diss., University ofIllinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Documents

Sandell- The Morphonology of Reduplicated Presents in Vedic and Indo-European