¹ L. L. Hammerich, Det germanske svage Praeteritum, Arkiv 38.21–50 (1922), however, suggests as auxiliary the present of the IE root es-. J. Sverdrup, Das germanische Dental-präteritum (D.germ.D.), NTS 2.5–96 (1929) presents the most recent explanation by periphrasis in addition to giving a history of previous scholarship. Because his review of earlier theories—as well as that of H. Collitz, Das schwache präteritum und seine vorgeschichte (D.sch.P.), Hesperia 1.1–26 (Baltimore, 1912); O. von Friesen, Om det svaga preteritum i germanska språk (Om d.sv.p.) (1925), Skrifter utgivna av K. Humanistiska Vetenskaps-Samfundet 1.22 (Uppsala, 1927); and A. W. M. Odé, Das schwache Präteritum in den germanischen Sprachen (D.s.Prät.), Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen (Amsterdam, 1926)—covers previous theories with possibly one exception (cf. fn. 4), I shall not offer another review. A sketch of dhē-theories would indicate that a reduplicated (perfect) form of the auxiliary was suggested before Scherer, zGdS² 303–6 (Berlin, 1890), suggested the aorist. In recent explanations a reduplicated form of the auxiliary was proposed by von Friesen, the aorist by Sverdrup. Various verbal nouns have been suggested: acc. by Amelung, ZfdA 21.229–53 (1877); inst. by Lorentz, Über das schwache Präteritum des germanischen und verwandte Bildungen der Schwestersprachen (Leipzig, 1894); casus indefinitus by Hirt, IF 17.36–84, esp. 45 (1904); the stem by Streitberg, Urgermanische Grammatik 334–42 (Heidelberg, 1896); the participle by Bugge, Das schwache german. praeteritum, KZ 23.523 (1877); nouns in -tē, -tō by Hammerich, Arkiv 38.21–50; nouns in -ti, -tu by von Friesen, Om d.sv.p.

² Cf. W. Begemann, Das schwache präteritum der germanischen sprachen (Berlin, 1873) and Die bedeutung des schwachen präteritums der germanischen sprachen (Berlin, 1874) for the first such theory. K. Brugmann's suggestion of spread of an IE to-suffix is essentially the same, cf. Das schwache Praeteritum, PBB 39.84–97 (1914), Gdr.² 2.3.369–70. E. Prokosch, A Comparative Germanic Grammar (CGG) 193–8 (Philadelphia, 1939) modified this theory by suggesting a tā-suffix; his modification is very like the theory proposed by Möller, Eng. Stud. 3.160–3 (1880), i.e. origin in a pre-Gmc. imperfect in .

³ An explanation from IE -t(h)ēs was suggested by Wackernagel and Behagel, KZ 30.313 (1890); from IE -tai by Collitz, D.sch.P. and Das schwache präteritum als mischbildung, PMLA 43.593–601 (1928): cf. also BB 17.1–53, 227–44 (1891), MLN 29.178–81 (1914), IF 34.209–22 (1914–15); and from IE -to by Odé, D.s.Prät.

⁴ Some scholars, however, hold one theory; e.g. Hirt, Handbuch des Urgermanischen (HU) 2.160 (Heidelberg, 1931–4) accepts the periphrastic theory, whereas O. Jespersen, Language 381 (London, 1922) accepts Collitz's theory. Collitz, D.sch.P. 1–26, and Sverdrup, D.germ.D. 5–36, present with their reviews criticisms of most previous theories.— F. Braun's theory in Japhetitische Studien zur Sprache und Kultur Eurasiens 1.58–9 (Berlin, 1922), which suggests borrowing from a substratum, is merely presented as a suggestion; we must reject it until detailed evidence is given.

⁵ At first scholars used the Skt. periphrastic perfect as analogical formation and set up a definite case form as the first element; but attempts to explain how the endings of this noun element were lost did not agree with the treatment of unaccented vowels in other Gmc. medial unaccented syllables. Then Streitberg suggested that the ‘stem’ was used, UG 341. Sverdrup proposed a verbal noun ‘dessen genaue Bildung und Kasus wir nicht mehr bestimmt feststellen können’, D.germ.D. 44. Such an admission (or the suggestion that non-existent, hypothetical noun-forms were used) in my opinion seriously weakens the theory as a whole.

⁶ Scholars who suggest dhē- as auxiliary have to explain (1) why forms of this root occur as simple verb only in WGmc. and (2) why the ‘auxiliary’ in Gothic is different from that in NGmc. and WGmc. Loewe suggested an explanation by haplology, IF 8.254–66 (1898). Sverdrup rejected it, D.germ.D. 24–31, and suggested that in the periphrasis were used forms of the IE root dhē- which then ceased to be used independently in the language, D.germ.D. 47. According to this explanation, perfect forms from IE dhē- are not found in Gothic as simple forms because they are used in periphrasis, but they are found in WGmc. because aorist forms of dhē- are used in periphrasis. By this hypothesis the Gothic and the WGmc. situations are explained, but not the NGmc.; there we have perfect forms of dhē-neither as simple forms nor in periphrasis. In addition to this objection I suggest that Sverdrup's premise is not valid, D.germ.D. 47: ‘Indem das zweite Kompositionsglied allmählich zu einem blossen formantischen Element herabsinkt, verschwindet entweder das selbständige Wort ganz oder lebt nur fort in einer verschiedenen, speziellen Bedeutung.‘ E. Sapir, Language 108–9 (New York, 1921) discusses the passage of words from independent use to use as the second member in a compound, but he observes no tendency of such words to drop out of the language. Cf. English full: dutiful, like: manly and manlike, able: marketable, German voll: hoffnungsvoll, Teil: Viertel and Gegenteil, and the second element of the Romance future tense or of the Scandinavian medio-passive.

⁷ The origin of the classical Skt. (not Vedic) periphrastic perfect is clear, but this formation is quite different from the weak preterite. Those formations in other dialects which are like the weak preterite are of doubtful origin. The Greek θην-aorist has been variously explained by Brugmann, KVG 550, Wackernagel KZ 30.302–13 (1890), and Prévot, L'aoriste grec en -θην 98–100 (Paris, 1934); likewise the Latin bam-imperfect, cf. F. Sommer, Kritische Erläuterungen zur Lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre (Krit. Erl.) 140–5 (Heidelberg, 1914), and the Slavic imperfect, Meillet-Vaillant, Le slave commun 271–5 (Paris, 1934).

⁸ Collitz attempted to establish the origin of the characteristic dental in these words in IE t by setting up a law which was based on Grassmann's and Bartholomae's laws, cf. D.sch.P. 105–16, esp. 110. Von Friesen convincingly refuted this law, Om d.sv.p. 43–50, 56–8; cf. also Sverdrup, D.germ.D. 18–9. Prokosch then tried to explain them as analogical developments, CGG 204. He has a starting point for such a development in OE, but not in OS and ON.

⁹ Both Brugmann and Prokosch assume analogy of the endings with forms of the root dhē-, PBB 39.92–5, CGG 198–9. Consequently they have to solve the difficulties which arise in connection with forms of this root in Gmc., cf. fn. 6; but they have not done this. Prokosch's theory that the Alem. forms are ‘original’ raises some difficulties that I shall note in my discussion of these forms.

¹⁰ Brugmann did not explain the semantic relation between a to-present and a preterite. Prokosch asserted that “Brugmann's hypothesis is materially strengthened, if the -tä-form of the suffix rather than the -to-/-te- form is used as a starting point. This occurs in L. intensives (frequentatives, conatives) like clamitāre ‘cry aloud’, iactāre ‘throw frequently’, captāre ‘try to catch’. These express modes of action (aspects), and it would be well in keeping with the general trend of the Gmc. verb system, if the -tā- suffix (or, for that matter, the -to-/-te- suffix) should there assume temporal function.” Thus, although Prokosch suggested a development from indicators of aspect to indicators of tense, he did not develop his point further.—If we examine the Latin iteratives in -tā-, we find that most of them are specifically Latin formations (except gustāre, portāre, itāre); cf. M. Leumann, Lateinische Grammatik⁵ 316–7 (München, 1928). I have been unable to find in the Thesauri any support for the contention that the verbs which came down in Latin from IE with a -tā- suffix originally had iterative meaning, nor in F. Specht, Zur germanischen Stammbildung, Philologische Studien aus dem Romanisch-Germanischen Kulturkreise 32–47 (Halle, 1927).

¹¹ Brugmann cited three such verbs which survive, which, however, need not be considered the models for the formation. Sverdrup pointed out difficulties with these forms, D.germ.D. 13–4. And the form which Prokosch finds most convincing is otherwise explained by Benveniste, Orig. 190.

¹² Cf. A. Meillet, Introduction à l’étude comparative des langues indo-européennes⁸ 207, 250 (Paris, 1937); H. Hirt, IGr. 4.239: ‘Der Aorist drückt in manchen Fällen das Momentane, Punktuelle, dann aber auch die abgeschlossene Handlung aus’.

¹³ Cf. Lang. 18.125–32, esp. fn. 7.

¹⁴ Gdr.² 2.3.390–2.

¹⁵ Gdr.² 2.3.336–50. See also Hirt, IGr. 4.253–7.

¹⁶ Gdr.² 2.3.464–7. See also Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik 1.774 (München, 1939).

¹⁷ Cf. E. H. Sturtevant, Lang. 16.273–84 (1940).

¹⁸ Cf. Persson, Beitr. 561–2; Gdr.² 2.3.465.

¹⁹ Cf. Meillet, Introduction⁸ 221: ‘il indique un procès accompli avec force ou répété; ce doit être le sens ancien’; Esquisse d'une Grammaire comparée de l'Arménien classique¹ 85–6 (Vienne, 1903).

²⁰ Cf. Meillet, Esquisse¹ 80–1.

²¹ Cf. Schwyzer, Gr.Gr. 1.760–3.

²² Cf. F. Sommer, Handbuch der Lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre³ 521–3 (Heidelberg, 1914); Krit. Erl. 140–5; M. Leumann, Lateinische Grammatik⁵ 327.

²³ Cf. Meillet-Vaillant, Le slave commun 272–4.

²⁴ Cf. Sverdrup, D.germ.D. 38–9; Hirt, HU 2.158.

²⁵ Cf. Hirt, IGr. 4.253–4.

²⁶ Cf. Prévot, L'aoriste 98–100; Benveniste, Orig. 196.

²⁷ Cf. Persson, WE 210; Sommer, HLLF 558–66; Krit. Erl. 161–6; Leumann, Lat. Gr.⁵ 334–5 for other theories.

²⁸ Cf. Persson, WE 207; Brugmann, Gdr.² 2.3.62–3.

²⁹ Cf. Prévot, L'aoriste; Benveniste, Orig. 189–97.

³⁰ Cf. Persson, WE 209–10.

³¹ Cf. Brugmann, MU 1.83–4; even this example (OE cealf: Gk. βρἐφος) is no longer considered valid; cf. K¹¹ 275, WP 1.615, 689.

³² Cf. Brugmann, MU 1.83. For further examples see MU 1.82–4 and Sommer, Krit. Erl. 162.

³³ Cf. Brugmann, PBB 39.88–90.

³⁴ Cf. Sverdrup, D.germ.D. 13–4; Benveniste, Orig. 190.

³⁵ Cf. Brugmann, PBB 39.96.

³⁶ WP 2.694–5; Persson, Beitr. 813–20.

³⁷ WP 1.392–7.

³⁸ WP 2.264–6, 270–1; Specht, Zur germanischen Stammbildung 37, 45.

³⁹ WP 2.284–90.

⁴⁰ WP 2.82.

⁴¹ PBB 39.88–9.

⁴² WP 1.40; Benveniste, Orig. 190.