¹ Cf. Chr. S. Stang, Das slavische und baltische Verbum 197 (Oslo, 1942).

² Op.cit. 20.

³ Cf. Sieg, Siegling, und Schulze, Tocharische Grammatik 341 ff., 363 ff. Abbreviated hereafter as SSS.

⁴ In SSS the type of tāk-, pek-, etc. (nonablauting ā-preterit) is called Ia, whereas the type of kalp-/kälp-, kalk-/kälk- (ablauting ā-preterit) is called Ib. W. Krause, Westtocharische Grammatik I (abbreviated WtG) reverses the subdivisions a and b. The latter order is followed also by W. Krause and W. Thomas, Tocharisches Elementarbuch I (abbreviated TElb.).

⁵ Cf. the detailed exposition WtG 10 ff., TElb. 43 ff.

⁶ So Krause in GGA 1943.25, but apparently no longer, cf. TElb. 53.

⁷ Actually the particular subjunctive form cited is not registered by Krause in WtG 241. While the basic meaning of the verb is ‘turn’, that of the noun appears to be secondary only: ‘Art, Funktion’ (WtG 50), ‘Art und Weise, Verhalten, Abwandlung, Modifikation’ (Toch. Sprachreste, Spr. B.l, p. 118).

⁸ Cf. Pedersen, Zur toch. Sprachgeschichte 43 f. (Copenhagen, 1944).

The other instance of Toch. o < PIE ā in A poke, B pokai (obl.) ‘arm’, is in my opinion due to u-umlaut (: Gk. pêkhus etc.).

⁹ The author cites no example but I suppose he has in mind the type of pres, triwetär' subj. triwātär (from triw- 'mix' intr.).

¹⁰ Cf. Pedersen, Tocharisch vom Gesichtspunkt der indoeur. Sprachvergleichung (Copenhagen, 1941) 226.

¹¹ I am not ready to accept many of J. Kurylowicz' brilliant but from the comparative point of view frequently unfounded hypotheses on the origin of lengthened-grade vowels as arising in the individual IE languages. Cf. Apophonie en indoeuropéen 308 ff., Proceedings of the Eighth International Congress of Linguists 228.

¹² On the ui-perfect, cf. Krause, Corolla linguistica: Festschrift F. Sommer 137–44.

¹³ Lg. 35.157–79, esp. 171 f., 179 (1959).

¹⁴ For the forms cf. WtG 70.

¹⁵ The abstr. II maṃsalyñe, which points to an ā-subjunctive, hardly counts, since we also have a nasal present mantsana(tär) beside the thematic meṃṣtär. The adherence of opt. makoymar and inf. makatsi ‘run’ to thematic present maś(c)e(r) is most uncertain. Cf. WtG 65.

¹⁶ Cf. the statistics op.cit. 130, and Lg. 35.169 ff.

¹⁷ WtG 140.

¹⁸ Fn. 13.

¹⁹ Op.cit. (fn. 1) 75 ff., 188 ff.

²⁰ After Maries, Rev. des études arm. 10.167 ff.

²¹ Op.cit. 189, bottom.

²² Fn. 13.

²³ MSL 16.300 ff. (1910–11).

²⁴ Grundriss ² 2.3.116 ff.

²⁵ Op.cit. 539 ff.

²⁶ Vergl. Gramm. d. kelt. Sprachen 2.354 f.

²⁷ Tochartisch 199. E. Adelaide Hahn, in her significant monograph Subjunctive and optative: Their origin as futures (New York, 1953), is in essential agreement with this view of the origin of the ā-subjunctive. She differs, however, in claiming that the so-called ‘injunctive’ as a mood is actually a fiction: ‘The injunctive is a creation of Delbrücks, christened by Brugmann’ (38). Miss Hahn goes on to demonstrate that the modal value lay not in the verb form, which was of course identical with the indicative (she would perhaps say ‘was indicative‘), but rather in the negative particle accompanying it, i.e. originally in the particle *mē > Gk. m, Skt. mā (41). The preference for the aorist aspect is of course to be expected in a prohibition.

I am in complete agreement with Miss Hahn in denying the existence of an injunctive as a separate mood. I can see no harm, however, in continuing the word for this specific use of an originally preterit indicative form. As for the explanation of the modal value as arising from the accompanying negative particle, I find it most enticing. In addition to the support which she has adduced (40 ff., 52 ff.), I would call attention to the use of Toch. B mā, A mar (= B mā ra ‘nor’, after negative) in prohibitions. For details, cf. W. Thomas, Zum Gebrauch des prohibitiven mā bzw. mar im Tocharischen, Cent. As. jour. 3.289 ff. (1958).

On the other hand, as I have often stated elsewhere, I do not consider the subjunctive an IE mood, at least not on a par with the optative, as Miss Hahn apparently does. In this I am in close agreement with Holger Pedersen.

It seems a pity that many of our colleagues, especially in Europe, have largely ignored Miss Hahn's monograph. Even if one does not agree with some of her conclusions, the book is invaluable as a history and a digest of research on the Indo-European subjunctive and optative, both formal and syntactic.

²⁸ Jaan Puhvel, Laryngeals and the Indo-European verb 59 (1960).

²⁹ Cf. Schwyzer, Griech. Gramm. 1.790; Brugmann, op.cit. 524 ff.