¹ For general summaries, with citations of preceding literature and bibliographies, see especially K. Brugmann, Grundriss der vergleichenden Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen ² 2. 3. 583–642, Strasbourg, 1916; A. Meillet, Introduction à l'étude comparative des langues indo-européennes ⁵ 190–5, Paris, 1922.

² See especially Meillet, ‘Sur l'origine de la distinction des flexions conjointe et absolue dans le verbe irlandais’, in Revue celtique 28 (1907). 369–73, and MSLP 14 (1908). 412–15, 18 (1914). 234; H. Pedersen, Vergleichende Grammatik der keltischen Sprachen 2. 331–44, Göttingen, 1913; R. Thurneysen, Handbuch des Alt-Irischen 326–7, 337–41, Heidelberg, 1909.

³ For the material see A. Bezzenberger, Beiträge zur Geschichte der litauischen Sprache 198–201; Göttingen, 1877; F. Kurschat, Grammatik der littauischen Sprache 304–6, Halle, 1876; A. Leskien, Litauisches Lesebuch 195–7, Heidelberg, 1919.

⁴ C. Bartholomae, in Grundriss der iranischen Philologie 1. 58, Strassburg, 1901; -ā is found beside -mi thirteen times in the Vedic subjunctive (A. Macdonell, Vedic Grammar 314, note 2, Strassburg, 1910). The reverse is seen in Balčl -ā_n (astā_n ‘I am‘) = Sanskrit subjunctive -āni (W. Geiger, in Grundriss der iranischen Philologie, 1. 2. 243).

⁵ Meillet, in Indogermanisches Jahrbuch 1 (1913). 8, 13; S. Lévi and Meillet, in MSLP 18. 10.

⁶ Brugmann 540; cf. W. Vondrák, Vergleichende slavische Grammatik, 2. 132–4, Göttingen, 1908; Leskien, Grammatik der altbulgarischen (altkirchenslavischen) Sprache 190, Heidelberg, 1919; Meillet, Le Slave commun 262–3, Paris, 1924.

⁷ R. Pischel, Grammatik der Prākrit-Sprachen 322, cf. 239, Strasbourg, 1900; Geiger, Pāli 107, do. 1916; J. Beames, Comparative Grammar of the Modern Languages of India 3. 102, 105, London, 1879; A. F. R. Hoernle, Comparative Grammar of the Gaudian Languages 333, 334–5, do. 1880; J. Bloch, Formation de la langue marathe 233, Paris, 1920; G. A. Grierson, The Piśāca Languages of North-Western India 57, 58, London, 1906.

⁸ G. Dottin, La Langue gauloise 37–8, 122, 263, Paris, 1920.

⁹ Geiger, in Grundriss 1. 2. 243.

¹⁰ Pedersen, in Vollmöller's Kritischer Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der romanischen Philologie 9 (1905). 1. 210–11.

¹¹ Die Sprache der Hethiter 101, Leipzig, 1917.

¹² Caractère indo-européen de la langue hittite 91–2, Christiania, 1919.

¹³ See especially Brugmann, ‘Zur Bildung der 2. Person Singul. Akt. in den indogermanischen, insbesondere den baltischen Sprachen’, in IF 17 (1905). 177–86.

¹⁴ V. Miller, Sprache der Osseten 70, Strasbourg, 1903; Geiger, in Grundriss 1. 2. 365; Linguistic Survey of India 8. 2. 51, Calcutta, 1919.

¹⁵ The -s in Armenian (e.g. beres ‘bearest') is apparently on the analogy of es ‘art’ < ∗es-si (Meillet, Esquisse d'une grammaire comparée de l'arménien classique 88, Vienna, 1903).

¹⁶ Cf. Brugmann, Grundriss 1. 365, 1020, 2.3. 605–6.

¹⁷ Griechische Grammatik ⁴ 397–9, Munich, 1913, with bibliography.

¹⁸ Cf. Bezzenberger 222.

¹⁹ H. Hirt, Handbuch der griechischen Laut- und Formenlehre ² 486–7, Heidelberg, 1912; A. Meillet and J. Vendryes, Traité de grammaire comparée des langues classiques 301, Paris, 1924.

²⁰ On the disputed origin of this Lithuanian form see Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 609–10.

²¹ A. Thumb, Handbook of the Modern Greek Vernacular 22–3, 152, Edinburgh, 1912.

²² G. Meyer, Griechische Grammatik ³ 538, Leipzig, 1896; Brugmann, Grammatik 398; Hirt 487; R. Meister, Griechische Dialekte 2. 278, Göttingen, 1882–9; O. Hoffmann, Griechische Dialekte 1. 259, do. 1891–8; F. Bechtel, Griechische Dialekte 1. 430, Berlin, 1921–4; A. Thumb, Handbuch der griechischen Dialekte 295, Heidelberg, 1909; Meillet-Vendryes 301.

²³ Sprache 160–1.

²⁴ Caractère 143.

²⁵ ZDMG 76 (1922). 167.

²⁶ e.g. Meillet-Vendryes 301.

²⁷ Pedersen 2. 342–3.

²⁸ Cf. Meillet, in MSLP locc. citt.; Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 609; Leskien, Altbulgarische …Sprache 190–1; Vondrák 2. 134–5; Meillet, Slave 268–70. The Latin forms cupīs, facīs (Plautus, Curculio 264, Amphitryo 555) do not belong here (see W. Lindsay, Latin Language 475, Oxford, 1894; F. Sommer, Handbuch der lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre ² 504–6, 511, Heidelberg, 1914; Meillet-Vendryes 267–8.

²⁹ Grundriss 2. 3. 582; Griechische Grammatik 397–8; Handbuch 486–7; Grammaire comparée 303, 325 (cf. Meillet, Introduction 192). Regarding the Latin type pōnīt, sinīt, which does not belong here, see the preceding note.

³⁰ Thurneysen 54, 339; Meillet, Introduction 192; Pedersen 2. 343; Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 611, 614.

³¹ Litauische Sprache 197.

³² E. Berneker, Preussische Sprache 212, Strasbourg, 1896; R. Trautmann, Altpreussische Denkmäler 280, Göttingen, 1910, takes it as characteristic of bases in -āi.

³³ e.g. Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 615; Meillet, Introduction 192.

³⁴ Cf. Meillet, in Indogermanisches Jahrbuch 1. 8, 9; Lévi and Meillet, in MSLP 18. 8. Lydian fe_nnsλibid (for λ instead of u_n cf. Buckler, Sardis 6.2. xiii) ‘destroys’ is perhaps an optative, cf. varbtokid ‘may he take vengeance’ (see E. Littmann, Lydian Inscriptions = Sardis : Publications of the American Society for the Excavation of Sardis, 6. 35, 40, Leyden, 1916).

³⁵ See Dottin 37, 45, 122, 242, 265.

³⁶ Sprache 161.

³⁷ Caractère 91.

³⁸ On the relation of - and - cf. Brugmann, Grammatik 118; Meillet-Vendryes 61–2.

³⁹ Lindsay 526; Sommer 489.

⁴⁰ Cf. also O. Wiedemann, Beiträge zur altbulgarischen Conjugation 11–23, Petrograd, 1886; for Slavic -t beside -ti see Meillet, ‘La Désinance -t du vieux slave’, in MSLP 18. 232–8, and Slave 270–2.

⁴¹ Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 638.

⁴² Originally there may also have been forms in ∗-ē, ∗-ō if we may draw an inference from the corresponding plurals ∗-mē, ∗-me, ∗-mō, ∗-mo.

⁴³ The final -ě is probably influenced by the pronoun vě ‘we two’ (Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 639).

⁴⁴ See Wiedemann 25.

⁴⁵ Dottin 122.

⁴⁶ Grammatik 257, 323; cf. also Hoernle 335–6; Beames 3. 105–6. Sindhī has its plural in -ū_n, Marāthī in -ū_n or -o_n, and Uriyā in-u_n; Hindi shows -ē_n (<∗-ahi_n?), Panjābī has -ye, Gujarātī -(i)ye, and Bengālī -i

⁴⁷ Geiger, Pāli 107.

⁴⁸ Geiger, in Grundriss 1.2. 220.

⁴⁹ Hrozný 155; cf. Marstrander 91.

⁵⁰ Grundriss 2. 3. 618; cf. also Hirt 488; Meillet, Introduction 141–2, 193; Meillet-Vendryes 309.

⁵¹ Marstrander 151–2.

⁵² Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 621; W. Braune, Althochdeutsche Grammatik ³ 253–4, Halle, 1911; W. Streitberg, Urgermanische Grammatik 321, Heidelberg, 1896; F. Hartmann, in F. Dieter, Laut- und Formenlehre der altgermanischen Dialekte 505–6, Leipzig, 1900; O. Behagel, Geschichte der deutschen Sprache ³ 266–7, Strasbourg, 1911; F. Kluge, Urgermanisch ³ 186, do. 1913; R. Kögel, in Beitrāge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 8 (1882). 126–34. The rare forms in -mas represent an internal dialectic change, those in -mus (found five times) are probably miswritings, and those in -men apparently arise from a wrong interpretation of the final ¯- in Old High German manuscripts (Kögel 130–1).

⁵³ Braune 254.

⁵⁴ Wiedemann 7–8.

⁵⁵ Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 622; Vondrák 1. 138, 2. 138; Meillet, Slave 265–8.

⁵⁶ Whether the Old West German dative Vatvims, Runic Norse lorumR∗ ‘to the sons’ really belongs here, or whether we have an instrumental used as a dative, is uncertain (Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 2. 257–8, 262; Streitberg 232; R. Bethge, in Dieter 546–7; Kluge 197; A. Jóhannesson, Grammatik d. urnordischen Runeninschriften 49, 52, Heidelberg, 1923).

⁵⁷ Cf. Meillet, Esquisse 89. For an interesting explanation of -k’ as a plural ending both in nouns and in verbs (< ∗-tva-, i.e. a neuter abstract used as a plural for nouns and then transferred analogically to verbs) see A. Zanolli, ‘Qualche osservazioni sulla formazione del plurale nell’ antico armeno', in Huschardzan 275–8, Vienna, 1912.

⁵⁸ On the Old High German forms, including the difficult Monsee type of zimbrit ‘ye build’ (perhaps by analogy with the second and third persons singular), see Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 625–6; Bethge, in Dieter 332–3; Braune 255; Kögel 135–9.

⁵⁹ G. Meyer, Kurzgefasste albanesische Grammatik 32, Leipzig, 1888.

⁶⁰ Cf. Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 625; Sommer 489–90; Lindsay 529; F. Stolz and J. Schmalz, Lateinische Grammatik ⁵ 305, Munich, 1926; R. von Planta, Grammatik der oskisch-umbrischen Dialekte 2. 283, Strasbourg, 1897; J. Wackernagel, in IF 31 (1913). 260, note. Meillet-Vendryes 310, 326 also hold that Latin -tis is for ∗-tes, which may have been Indo-European.

⁶¹ Thurneysen 340 offers no explanation for this form; Pedersen 2. 344, because of the Brythonic forms (Middle Welsh carewch, Cornish careugh ‘ye love'), derives it from ∗berete es, ∗es being the personal pronoun of the second plural. The first person singular is, however, lenited in other Celtic dialects (Middle Welsh, Cornish caraf, Middle Breton caraff ‘I love'; but note Old Breton rannam, ‘partior‘).

* The b of this word should be a crossed letter.

⁶² Hrozný 152, 155; Marstrander 91.

⁶³ Lévi and Meillet, in MSLP 18. 10.

⁶⁴ Geiger, in Grundriss 1. 2. 220, 396; Linguistic Survey of India 8. 2. 37; Miller 69–70. For the Lithuanian and Lettish reflexive and the Old Prussian forms, of minor interest in the present connexion, see Brugmann, Grundriss 2.3. 626; Trautmann 274.

⁶⁵ Brugmann, Grammatik 400–4; Hirt 488–90; G. Meyer, Griechische Grammatik 343–5; Meillet-Vendryes 304–6.

⁶⁶ This form is, however, not beyond suspicion (see especially Lindsay 530).

⁶⁷ Dottin 122, 243.

⁶⁸ On -t beside -ti in Slavic see Vondrák 2. 140–1; Leskien Altbulgarische … Sprache 191; Wiedemann 23–5; Meillet, in MSLP 18. 232–8, and Slave 272–4.

⁶⁹ Von Planta 2. 280–2, 290 sqq., 315 sqq.; C. Buck, Grammar of Oscan and Umbrian 71–3, 80–1, 152, Boston, 1904. Lydian vqbape_nnt (formerly read vqbahe_nnt) ‘may they destroy’ may be a similar formation (ef. Littmann 37, 69).

⁷⁰ See, in general, Brugmann, Grundriss 2.1. 130–1, 255–6, 298–9.

⁷¹ For this -f > ∗-nts see Buck 107, 112; von Planta 1. 508–10.

⁷² Hrozný 82, 89; Meillet, in Indogermanisches Jahrbuch 1. 9.

⁷³ Bechtel 1. 180, 2. 120, 250, 400, 1. 353, 2. 484, 61–2, 342, 25, 427.

⁷⁴ Grammatik 323–4; for h < s cf. Apabhra_néa Prākrit nīsarahi, Sanskrit nihsarasi ‘goest forth’ (ib. 183); see also Beames 3. 103–4; Hoernle 336–7, Bloch 234–5.

⁷⁵ The vernacular imperfect termination () is aoristic in origin ().

⁷⁶ Einleitung in die neugriechische Grammatik 110–12, Leipzig, 1892.

⁷⁷ For the material see Bezzenberger 197.

⁷⁸ Catechism of Daukšas (1595), ed. E. Wolter 24, Petrograd, 1886, and Lietùviška Chrestomatija 58, do. 1903–04.

* The l of this word should be a crossed letter.

⁷⁹ Deliciae Prussicae, oder preussische Schaubühne, ed. W. Pierson 141, Berlin, 1871 (‘wie an, doch dass das n nicht deutlich sey, sondern gleichsam durch die Nase gezogen‘).

⁸⁰ Grundriss 2.3. 615–6, 637, note.

⁸¹ R. M. Dawkins, Modern Greek in Asia Minor 53, cf. also 179, Cambridge, 1916.

⁸² Thumb, Modern Greek 151–2, 156.

⁸³ W. Whitney, Sanskrit Grammar 70, Boston, 1891; Thumb, Handbuch des Sanskrit 130–1, Heidelberg, 1905; cf. Macdonell 68, 69; R. Gauthiot, La Fin du mot en indo-européen 148–51, Paris, 1913.

⁸⁴ KZ 30 (1890). 119–20 (note).

⁸⁵ Meillet, in Revue celtique 28. 370–1; Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 587–9; cf. also Thurneysen 327, and, for an entirely different theory, deriving the absolute from the conjunct by suffixing pronouns (e.g. berid < ∗bheret is), Pedersen 2. 340–1.

⁸⁶ Brugmann, Grundriss 2. 3. 60; Meillet Introduction, 151–2. In Teutonic and Balto-Slavic athematic verbs analogy has destroyed the apophonic alternations.

⁸⁷ Cf. G. Meyer, ‘Das Verbum Substantivum im Albanesischen’, in Philologische Abhandlungen Martin Hertz …dargebracht 81–93, Berlin, 1888.

⁸⁸ For the accentuation or non-accentuation of verbs see Brugmann, Grundriss 1. 953–4, 957, 965–7, 972–3; B. Delbrück, Vergleichende Syntax der indogermanischen Sprachen 3.58–64,76–85, Strasbourg, 1900; Hirt, Der indogermanische Akzent 169–206, 304–9, do. 1895.

⁸⁹ Brugmann, Grammatik 315–6, 320, 331, 334, 339; Hirt, Griechische Sprache 499–500.