¹ This article does not deal with all Slavic ne-presents from older je-presents, but— provisionally—only with the principal type, the intransitives from consonant roots. Ne-verbs from vowel roots, and transitive ne-verbs from consonant roots, which in part probably also replace older je-presents, are only briefly considered here (§19 and §56).

I am indebted to Professor G. Vernadsky for advice on Old Russian matters.

Following Fortunatov and Trubetzkoy, the glagolitic signs usually rendered by jǫ (ją) and ju (which are not, graphically, composed of j and ǫ or u) are here transcribed by ǫ and ü.

Abbreviations:

(a) Old Church Slavic codices: Ass (emanianus), Cloz (ianus), Euch(ologium), Ev(angels) (in general), Mar (ianus), Ps(alterium) Sin(aiticum), Sav(vina kniga) (Sava Ev.), Sup(rasliensis), Zo(graphensis).

(b) Literature:

v. Arnim = B. von Arnim, Studien zum altbulgarischen Psalterium Sinaiticum (Veröffentlichungen des slavischen Instituts . . . Berlin, Vol. 3); Berlin, 1930.

Beaulieux = L. Beaulieux, Grammaire de la langue bulgare (Collection de grammaires de l'Institut d'études slaves iv); Paris, 1933.

Berneker = E. Berneker, Slavisches etymologisches Wörterbuch; Heidelberg, 1908–13.

Boehme = E. Boehme, Die Actiones der Verba Simplicia in den altbulgarischen Sprachdenkmälern; Leipzig, 1904.

Diels = P. Diels, Altkirchenslavische Grammatik; Heidelberg, 1932.

Jagić = V. v. Jagić, Beiträge zur slavischen Syntax, Denkschriften der Wiener Akademie, Phil.-hist. Klasse, Vol. 46 (1900).

Kul'bakin, VSl. = S. M. Kul'bakin, Le vieux slave; Paris, 1929.

Leskien = A. Leskien, Handbuch der altbulgarischen Sprache⁵; Weimar, 1910.

Leskien, Skr. = A. Leskien, Grammatik der serbo-kroatischen Sprache; Heidelberg, 1914.

Meillet, Ét. = A. Meillet, Études sur l'étymologie et le vocabulaire du vieux slave; Paris 1902/5.

Meillet-Vaillant = A. Meillet and A. Vaillant, Le slave commun²; Paris, 1934.

Miklosich (Mikl.) = F. Miklosich, Lexicon palaeoslovenico-graeco-latinum emendatum auctum; Wien, 1862–5.

Sreznevskij (Srezn.) = I. Sreznevskij, Materialy dlja slovarja drevnerusskago jazyka . . .; St. Petersburg, 1890–1912.

Stang = Chr. S. Stang, Das slavische und baltische Verbum, Skrifter . . . Akademi i Oslo, Hist.-filos. Klasse, 1942, No. 1.

Trautmann (Tr.) = R. Trautmann, Baltisch-Slavisches Wörterbuch; Göttingen, 1923.

Vondrák, Aksl. = W. Vondrák, Altkirchenslavische Grammatik²; Berlin, 1912.

Vondrák, Vergl. Gramm.² = W. Vondrák, Vergleichende slavische Grammatik²; Göttingen, 1924.

Vondrák-Grünenthal = 2d vol. of preceding title; Göttingen, 1928.

Vostokov (Vost.) = A. Vostokov, ь Slovarь cerkovno-slavjanskago jazyka; St. Petersburg, 1858–61.

Wiedemann = O. Wiedemann, Beiträge zur altbulgarischen Conjugation; St. Petersburg, 1886.

van Wijk = N. van Wijk, Geschichte der altkirchenslavischen Sprache; Berlin und Leipzig, 1931.

² So, according to Vondrák, Vergl. Gramm.² 1.710, the theory of Endzelin, Russkij filologičeskij vestnik 1912, 4.370–2.

³ Vondrák, Vergl. Gramm.² 708–9, thought of another starting-point of the thematic inflection of the n-present: in the nā-stems, the weak-grade 1st pl. IE *-nə-mos (cf. Gk. δάμναμϵν) would (‘wenn überhaupt solche Verba bis ins Slavische erhalten blieben‘) have given *-na-mos and, after the change a > o, *-no-mь, thus coinciding with the former thematic 1st pl. in *-omь (later on replaced by the -emь of the je-stems).

That nā-presents reached down into Slavic is very likely, but what I cannot accept is the continuation of the weak grade of the suffix. In Indic, the weak grades -nī- and -nu-of the nā- and no-presents were replaced by the full grades as early as Pāli (about 3d century b.c.), and in Slavic itself, the neu-presents also seem early to have carried through the full grade -nov-; for, although otherwise the past participle is, and the derived imperfective formerly was, a weak-grade category, the past participle and derived imperfective from the n-present, drьznov-enь and minovati (cf. next paragraph), already show the full grade -nov- (not *-nv- or *-nьv-, or, in the imperfective, *-nyv-). It is, therefore, entirely unlikely that an IE *-nə-mos continued in Slavic down to the time of the change a > o.

⁴ Somewhat differently Stang 56–7. According to Machek, Zeitschr. f. slav. Phil. 15.85–92 (1938), -n ǫ- started from the pass. ptc. in *-n ǫtь. However, this is only the latest of the nǫ-forms, not yet attested in Old Church Slavic.

⁵ So Vaillant, Rev. ét. sl. 14.78 ff. Cf. Gk. ‘to incline’ from beside Av. sri-nu-.

⁶ Lewis–Pedersen, Concise Comp. Celtic Gram. 336; Walde–Pokorny 2.241.

⁷ Vondrák-Grünenthal, Vergl. Gramm.² 2.181.

⁸ Erroneously Meillet, Ét. 179, and Walde–Pokorny 1.470.

⁹ But cf. §59 below.

¹⁰ That is the type of Lith. tinkù ‘to fit’ (pret. tikaũ), tunkù ‘to become fat’ (tukaũ), and prantù ‘to become used to’ (prataũ). Roots with internal long vowel or ending in two consonants, on the other hand, form the intransitive with -sta-, cf. Lith. dýg-stu ‘to germinate’ (pret. dýg-au), trúk-stu ‘to be torn’, spróg-stu ‘to sprout’, link-stù ‘to be bent’ (pret. link-aũ), tirp-stù ‘to become torpid’.

¹¹ That has of course long been recognized; cf. e.g. van Wijk 246: ‘Obgleich bei vielen Verben auch das -ne/no-Formans im Präsens und das -ng- des Infin. verhältnismäßig jung sind, gehen sie doch im allgemeinen in diesen Kategorien auf die vorliterarische Zeit zurück.‘ We shall soon see that the second part of this statement is not correct.

¹² Cf. e.g. Meillet–Vaillant 287–8: 'Beaucoup des présents en -nǫ sont . . . perfectifs . . . Mais d'autres verbes de cette série sont imperfectifs ... Ce type de présents est trop peu représenté hors du slave pour que l'origine des valeurs perfective et imperfective puisse s'expliquer dans le détail. La valeur perfective peut s'expliquer, en partie, parce que ces verbes ont souvent l'aoriste radical; un aoriste comme -sьxь . . . était naturellement perfective.¹ (But Slav, sьxne- is imperfective.) Mazon, Morphologie des aspects du verbe russe 13 (1908), also attributed the aspect of the perfective ne-verbs to their root aorist. But the inchoatives had a root aorist exactly like the perfectives (even more so because the perfectives have already largely nǫ-aorist, see below): čez-> gas-, gręz-, gyb-, kys-, fop-, sęk-, top-, vyk-, zęb-, all imperfective (although the ne-simplexes are mostly attested only after Old Church Slavic), all have documented root aorists.

¹³ Mazon, Morphologie 13; Vondrák–Grünenthal 2.183. Mazon tended to underrate this difference.

^13a Especially the compounds, cf. Mazon, Gramm. ... russe 164.

¹⁴ For explanation, cf. §57 below. A further difference between the two types, in accent, is dealt with in §58.

^14a Exactly speaking, Leskien attributed to gybne- the meaning ‘zugrunde gehen, verderben’, but to gyble-, ‘zugrunde richten, verlieren’. But this is erroneous; the two formations are completely synonymous, cf. next section.

¹⁵ The English version (here and in the following) has been somewhat modernized.

^15a True, the n-present sьx-ne- also has an extra-Slavic correspondence, although not with an n-suffix, but only with an n-infix: Lith. sųsù. But this is a modern form, and as the n-infix intransitives are a productive type in Baltic (§4 end), it need not be old.

¹⁶ As a derived imperfective, *pogyblje- exists in Slovenian, cf. below §35.

¹⁷ When (in 1937) I took up the problem of pogyble-, I made these collocations (as far as Old Church Slavic goes) myself. But I saw afterwards that v. Arnim had already done this in 1930. However, v. Arnim did not recognize the historical relation of the two present stems.

¹⁸ In Zogr.b.

¹⁹ Appears twice.

²⁰ Including the special Sava occurrence (not listed above) pogybnetь Matt. 18.12 = , where Mar. and Zogr.b have zablǫditь.

²¹ Not including the duplicates.

²² Gybǫštee is a later development of *gybljǫšteje (= Zo. gyblˆǫštee), with loss of l and depalatalization, at least of the vowel. The same stage appears in Ps. kapǫšt- ‘dropping’ for Ev. kaplǫšt-, from the present kaple- = *kaplje- (v. Arnim 234). These forms represent either *gybjǫšt- and *kapjǫšt-, with the labial still palatalized, as in Standard Mod. Bg. 1st sg. kápja, or even *gybǫšt- and *kapǫšt-, already completely depalatalized like Cz. kapu. (Before e, Modern Bulgarian also has already complete depalatalisation: the 3d sg. is kape, just as in Czech.)

²³ Jagić, Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der altkirchenslavischen Evangelientexte (Evangelium Bucovinense), Abhandl. Wiener Akad. 1916/1.16.

²⁴ I have not now at my disposal the Later Church Slavic texts necessary for a further pursuit of the matter.

²⁵ Rešetar, Elementar-Grammatik der kroatischen (serbischen) Sprache 179. He gives the following example: nas nèprijatelji ùbiše ‘let us flee, brothers, otherwise the enemies will slay us’.

²⁶ Karinskij, in his re-examination of the Sava text in Izvestija Otdel. Russk. Jaz. 19/3.206–16 (1914), did not object to izgybajǫ.

²⁷ Did confusion of cyrillic l and a perhaps occur already in Old Church Slavic times? Then Sava pogybajǫtъ Matt. 26.52 for Mar., Zo., Ass. pogybnǫtъ may have originated from the misreading by the scribe of Sava of a *pogybljǫtъ of an (already cyrillic) fore-text. But of course the scribe may also have altered the original, because he conceived the idea as present.

²⁸ The texts and variants of the Later Church Slavic Psalters dealt with are found in Jagić' Psalterium Bononiense (1907).

^28a Pogybǫtъ = *°bjötъ from *°bljǫtъ.

²⁹ Yet ultimately Meillet's view of the ne-presents was correct: the ne-presents are really originally only perfective—for the later imperfectives are original je-stems; the Gospels really almost lack the imperfective type gybne- —for at that time the later gybne- was still gyble-.

³⁰ The scribe did not replace the older present by the later one (that would have been *isъxnǫtъ), but simply put the familiar x for the strange š; the first ǫ (sǫx-) is a Middle Bg. inverse writing: ǫ was already pronounced ъ.

³¹ No variant of Tolstoj is noted for either passage; probably the forms (according to Jagić' statement, Ps. Bon. x) agree with Bol.

³² Cf. §23 end, §45, and §48 end.

³³ cf. Beaulieux 229.

³⁴ Trávníček, Historická mluvnice československá 402.

³⁵ Bol. and Sof. prilъpi is to Sin. prilъpli as Bol. and Sof. korabi ‘ships’ to Sin. korabli; yet prilъpi might also be referred to the verb prilъpěti, attested from the Sup. on.

³⁶ He says: ‘Ob in prilъpli . . . das zweite l künstlich, Reproduktion des ersten oder berechtigt ist, lasse ich unentschieden.‘

³⁷ Only main texts are considered; of the Evangels, in general only the forms of Marianus are noted.

³⁸ Those from roots in liquids and nasals, and in vowels, are of different character.

³⁹ Namely, ob-rět- ‘to find’ and sъ-rět- ‘to meet’, pres. -ręštǫ, aor. -rětъ, ptc. -rětъ and -rělъ, inf. -rěsti, an old nasal-infix verb, where the je-present is only secondary.

⁴⁰ The three other je-presents: isęče-, prilъple-, and υъskrъše-, had not been noticed.

⁴¹ However, exactly speaking, the Sanskrit and Slavic thematic aorists probably do not go back to an IE prototype *suse-, but are independent parallel developments from an IE athematic root aorist *saus-/*sus-.

^41a M. Weingart, Rukovět' jazyka staroslověnského.

⁴² However, the morphological situation offered only the possibility for the transfer; the cause of the transfer was probably another factor, cf. §60.

^42a Trávníček, Historická mluvnice 400–2.

⁴³ A derived imperfective is (in general) a derived verb whose compounds are imperfective.

⁴⁴ For the short derived imperfective cf. Wiedemann 79–80; Meillet, Ét. 44–5; Meillet–Vaillant 296; van Wijk, Aksl. 249 and Tauta ir Žodis 4.80.

⁴⁵ OSerb. riskanije and u~ ‘cursus’ (Miklosich, Lex. Palaeoslov.) and Russ. rýskatъ ‘to run fast’ beside ristátъ point to origin of rište- from *rišče- (Miklosich, Etym. Wb. 279), which may as well be old *riske- as *risk-je-; rištǫ (ptc. pri-rištǫšte Ev.) may be an innovation for *riskǫ like ištǫ beside iskǫ from iskati ‘to seek’; the infinitive ristati would be for *riskati.

⁴⁶ Meillet, Ét. 44, and Meillet-Vaillant 278 and 296 regard dviže- as an old je-verb.

⁴⁷ Not to be confused (as in Słoński's Index) with ležę, ležęšte from ležati ‘to lie’.

⁴⁸ ‘Afin que je remonte de la profondeur de mes iniquités‘—Jean Frček, Euchol. Sin., Patrologia Orientalis 25/3.494 (1939).

⁴⁹ Two verbs nik- are posited e.g. by Miklosich, Etym. Wb. 215; Sreznevskij 2.450; Vondrák, Aksl. 549; and similarly Trautmann 198–9, sub *nīka- and *ninkō. (Differently Vaillant, Rev. ét. sl. 22.26 [1946].)

⁵⁰ So also Rešetar, Elementar-Grammatik der kroatischen (serbischen) Sprache 179 (1922).

⁵¹ In the other languages we have different words: Russ. vsxodit, Pol. weszło, Cz. vzešlo, Slov. poganja (‘drives‘).

⁵² This strange simplex nikne- ‘to pass away, vanish’ has perhaps arisen in the following way. The compound iz-níkne- is in Bulgarian the regular perfective to níkne- ‘to germinate’; SCr. ìznići (ìzniknuti), ìzniknēm pf. likewise means ‘to shoot up, germinate’. But in Slovenian, zníkniti has two meanings, which are diametrically opposite: (1) ‘aufkeimen, to germinate’, and (2) ‘vergehen, verschwinden, to pass away, vanish’. The same double meaning appears in Russian: izníknutъ means (1) 'vynikatь (to shoot up), podnimatь-sja (to rise up), vyxoditь iz čego-libo (to come forth from something), pojavljatь-sja (to arise)' and (2) 'propadatь (to perish, vanish), isčezatь (to wane), uničtožatь-sja (to pass away)' (Dal). In Polish, finally, zniknąć means only 'to vanish, pass away' (‘to shoot up’ being wyniknąć), and Cz. zniknouti is only ‘entfliehen, to flee’ (‘to come forth’ being vzniknouti, and ‘to vanish, perish’ zaniknouti).

This Russ.-Pol.-(Czech)-Slov. *iznikne- ‘to pass away, vanish’ probably is not a different verb from Bulg.-SCr.-Slov.-Russ. iznikne- ‘to shoot up’, but a different turn of the base meaning: 'to shoot out' became, on the one hand, 'to shoot out (of the ground) into existence', but on the other, ‘to shoot out of existence’. Now since the simplex nikne- ‘to shoot’ was from the outset the imperfective to iznikne- ‘to shoot up’, and since the correspondence of a perfective iz-compound and an imperfective simplex is generally common (cf., for Polish, zginąć pf. / ginąć impf. ‘to perish’, zgasnąć pf. / gasnąć impf. ‘to be extinguished’, etc.), the simplex nikne- also became the imperfective of iznikne- ‘to pass away, vanish’, and adopted these definite compound meanings. (On the imperfective simplex's adoption of different compound meanings cf. Meillet–Vaillant §§318 end and 319 end, and now Vaillant, Rev. ét. sl. 22.5–45 [1946], with different interpretation of nik-.)

Lith. nykti (nykstù, nykaũ) ‘schwinden, abnehmen, vergehen, von Kräften kommen, zu Grunde gehen’ (Niedermann–Senn–Brender, Wörterbuch) and Latv. nìkstu and nĩkstu ‘vergehen’ (Endzelin, Lett. Gramm. 582) are probably loans respectively from Polish and White Russian (which latter also has niknuć ‘schwinden, to pass away’: Miklosich, Etym. Wb. 215); the genuine Baltic correspondent of Slavic nik- is seen in Lith. -nìkti, -ninkù, e.g. ap-nìkti ‘über jemanden herfallen’, dárbą ‘sich in die Arbeit stürzen’ (Trautmann 199).

⁵³ Leskien 129; Vondrák, Aksl. 563; van Wijk 247.

⁵⁴ Cf. fn. 58.

⁵⁵ Jagić 82; Meillet, Ét. 23; Boehme 31; Trautmann 183.

⁵⁶ Russ. pomérknet, Pol. się zaćmi, Cz. se zatmí, Slov. otemni, SCr. će pomrčati, Bg. šte potъmněe.

⁵⁷ It should be noted, however, that the coexistence of an imperfective je-simplex with a perfective ne-simplex, although definitely excluding a verb from the type gybne-, does not necessarily imply that the verb is an old ne-verb, of the type drъzne-. Rather we have to consider on principle the possibility of its belonging to the type kaplje-/ka(p)ne-, a primary je/a-verb with secondary ne-perfective.

In the case of mrъk- there are three arguments against this possibility: (1) the lack of Modern Slavic perfective je-compounds (future *pomrъče- parallel to future pokaplje-); (2) the early (1076) simplex imperfective with -aje- mrъcaje- (see below); (3) the early (at least 1307) perfective ne-compound pomrъkne- (see below).

Yet there is a strange case which falls under the pattern of kap-. An Old Russian Ecclesiastes passage (12.3), contained in the Annunciations (oglašenija) of Cyril of Jerusalem of the 13th century, has a perfective pomrъčutъ (Miklosich 620b, Srezn. 2.1173): pomrъčutъ ględajuščei vъ dupliixъ ‘σκοτάσουσιν αἱ βλέπουσαι ἐν those that look out of the windows will be darkened’. But this single case does not assign mrъk- to the type kap-. Rather it is probably analogical, either to the type kap—perfective *pomrъčetb: *mrъčetъ as perfective *pokapljetъ (Russ. pokápljet): kapljetъ—or (perhaps as a Genuine Old Russian text alteration [§54 end]) to the type gyb-: perfective *pomrъčetъ beside pomrъknetъ (so ORuss. Ev. of 1307) as perfective *pogybletъ (dialectally probably still alive in Genuine Old Russian [§54]) beside pogybnetъ.

⁵⁸ No simplex imperfective is given by Vuk or Leskien, Skr. 494. But Vuk quotes a present mr͂čē under the inf. mr͂ći 385b, as perfective. This is probably a mistake: the present mr͂čē (not to be confused with the aorist mr͂če) can only be imperfective. The same applies to his examples of mrče under mr͂knuti, mr͂knē pf. (384): mrče mi svijest ‘animus me relinquit‘ is clearly imperfective.

⁵⁹ This meaning also in Czech and in Lith. mérkti.

⁶⁰ Impf. mrka se also ‘dämmern, Abend werden’; but ‘dämmern’ pf. is .

⁶¹ Polish has an altered mierzchnąć ‘to grow dark’ (the usual word is ciemnieć).

⁶² ‘To grow dusk’ is smérknutъ-sja pf., smerkátъ-sja, -áet-sja impf. (and temnétъ, pf. zatemnétъ).

⁶³ Meillet, Ét. 23; Boehme 34; Berneker 519; Trautmann 136; Diels 259.—In Lithuanian, there corresponds the pair klykiù, klykiaũ, klỹkti ‘kreischen’ and klinkù, klikaũ, klìkti ‘plötzlich aufkreischen’ (Trautmann), probably by loan, cf. §59 end.

⁶⁴ From the type kaplje-/ka(p)ne- (original je/a-verb), klik- seems again to be separated (1) by the lack of a perfective je-compound (a perf. *υъskliče-), and (2) by the old frequent ne-compound. True, Old Russian has a perfective us-ptc. mnogo klicavъ ‘πολλἀ κατακράας‘ in the Sinai Paterik of the 11th century (Srezn. 1.1222), which does not fit in a derived imperfective, but would seem to point to a primary je/a-verb; however, this form may be analogical to the latter type.

^64a For simplification, both Russian Church Slavic and Genuine Old Russian are here comprised under the term ‘Old Russian’ (as in Sreznevskij's Dictionary). That is not quite exact. But the precise character of each passage appears at once from the quotation. Incidentally, almost all passages dealt with are Church Slavic; one case in Genuine Old Russian is especially emphasized (§§53–4). (The same applies to ‘Old Serbian’.)

⁶⁵ Op. = Opisanie slavjanskich rukopisej moskovskoj sinodalьnoj biblioteki (A. Gorskij, K. Novostrujev); Moskva, 1855–59.

⁶⁶ The reasoning is as follows. Op. i. 1–163, according to Miklosich' list on p. xv, contains Biblia of 1499, 1558, and the 16th century. Now the same page of Opisanie, 1.85, is referred to in Miklosich' article prozębati with another quotation: zemlju prozębajuščju cvětъ ‘αὐξάνϵιν, augere’. This, however, is apparently a variant of the passage ěko zemlju prozjabljušču cvětъ (), quoted by Sreznevskij 2.1530 as Isaiah 61.11. It is, therefore, very likely that our passage with prozębljutъ is also from Isaiah, somewhere around chapter 61. Now the equivalent of aky trava, ὡς βοτἀνη or ὡς χόρτος, appears, according to the Septuaginta Concordance by Hatch and Redpath, in the whole Septuagint only combined with the future of ἀνατέλλω. The passages are Is. 44.4 ώς άνἀ μέσον vδατος χόρτος and 66.14 ὡς βοτάνη (as variant also 58.12.A τὰ ὀστα̑ σου ὡς β. ἀ.). As 66.14 is nearer to 61.11, this is probably the passage.

^66a °ze° with Serb. e = ę.

⁶⁷ Nom. pl. neut. for fem.

⁶⁸ Cf. Lith. grimstù, grimzdaũ (root grimzd-), Trautmann 97.

⁶⁹ °ve° SCr. for °vę°.

⁷⁰ -ě SCr. gen. -ē for -y.

⁷¹ SCr. generalized nom. pl.

⁷² Leskien 128 cites vycati, vyčǫ for Sup. (without reference), Vondrák, Aksl. 563, generally; Kul'bakin, VSl. 338–9, gives vycati with the implication of a present vyčǫ; van Wijk 247 shows na-vycati, -vyčǫ. I find *vyca- or *vyče- neither in Meyer's Suprasliensis index, nor in the indexes to Mar., Ps., Euch., and Cloz. All that Suprasliensis has (according to Meyer) is the compound derived imperfective navycaje- ‘to learn’ (1st pl. -ajemъ once).

⁷³ As to the instances of nik- ‘to bend, klonitъ-sja, se curvare’, I think we had better set them up, with Sreznevskij, as a separate verb.

⁷⁴ Cf. fn. 65.

^74a Cf. Alb. marθ ‘frost’, Trautmann 187.

⁷⁵ Addition. This is the same Psalter commentary which goes with the Middle Bulgarian and Old Serbian Psalters, and of these also three have ž-forms in this passage: we have Pog. drъžǫštamъ (for *mrъž°), Sof. mrъžǫštam', and Buch. (Serb.) mrъžuštamъ (Jagić, Psalt. Bon. 690); Bol. has mrъzęštamъ, from mrъzěti, no doubt an alteration. The proto-text had *mrъž-. This is remarkable, since this text can hardly belong to the oldest stratum.

^75a I am greatly indebted to Professor G. Vernadsky for showing me this document in full, in Pamjatniki istorini Velikago Novgoroda 62 [Pamjatniki Russkoj istorĭni no. 800].

⁷⁶ We now use sóxnutъ as our example, and not mérznutъ, because *mъrz- seems to have rising vowel, cf. Russ. moróz ‘frost’ and SCr. mr͂znuti (but Bulgarian has the aorist mrъznáx).

⁷⁷ *drъz- does not survive in Serbo-Croatian.

^77a Cf. Matt. 8.25 Goth. fraqistnam = OCS (Zo.) pogybnemъ, Luke 5.37 fraqistnand = pogybnǫtъ, etc.; John 15.6 gaþaúrsniþ = (Ass.) isъxnetъ.

⁷⁸ ne-present attested? I know only aor. and ъš-ptc. (Ps. and Sup.).

⁷⁹ Cf. P. Diels, Die Slaven 7–8 (Aus Natur und Geisteswelt, No. 740).

⁸⁰ Diels, op.cit. 9–10.

⁸¹ Diels, op.cit. 11.

⁸² Streitberg, Got. Elementarbuch^5–6 5, 6, 12.

⁸³ Hoops, Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde s.v.

⁸⁴ That has in Germanic been replaced by -ne-, we know from a transitive: Goth. fraíhnan ‘to ask’ replaces IE (Skt. pṛccháti, Lat. posco); so Marstrander according to Feist, Got.³