Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Proto-Indo-European Lexical Aspect and Stem Patterns - Kocharov 2013
Proto-Indo-European Lexical Aspect and Stem Patterns - Kocharov 2013
Petr Kocharov*
opposition of stems from their common source. Thus, van de Laar (2000)
classified the Homeric verbs according to their stem patterns constructed by over
29 types of present stems, 13 aorist stems, and 6 perfect stems with some verbs
participating in more than one pattern.
It is likely that paradigmatic stem patterns replaced derivational models that
had been connecting these stems at earlier stages of the proto-language. Within
this approach, the grammatical meaning behind the derivational stem patterns
needs to be described predominantly in terms of aspectual semantics and with
respect to the reconstructed lexical aspectual features.
According to Karl Hoffmann (1970), the PIE tense-aspect system was close to
that of Greek and Indo-Iranian languages. The indicative mode had Present,
Aorist, Imperfect, and Perfect tenses. The Aorist and Imperfect shared the
preterite prefix (augment) and endings, while the Present and Imperfect shared
stems. Such distribution of markers unambiguously points to an aspectual
opposition between perfective (“aorist stem”) vs. imperfective (“present stem”) in
the preterite. The Perfect tense had a resultative meaning (“erreichte Zustand”;
this interpretation of the perfect stem goes back to neogrammarians (see
Brugmann 1913: 83). The perfect stem as such was another perfective marker,
while the perfect endings were reserved for one actional class only, namely that
of states. The assumption that perfect tense endings had the stative meaning
agrees with the fact that the present (primary) and preterite (secondary) endings
go back to one set of atemporal person markers still seen in the Vedic injunctive
and augmentless preterit forms in Homeric Greek. Hoffmann’s analysis suggests
that this atemporal inflection had the lexical features [+ dynamic] and [± telic] as
opposed to the perfect inflection which had the features [‒ dynamic] and [‒ telic].
The tense category developed after the free deictic particle i grammaticalized into
the hic et nunc affix in PIE, cf. the Hittite present tense endings; the preterite
tense category was further reinforced by the augment, probably only in part of the
late Indo-European dialects, ancestors of Indo-Iranian, Armenian, Phrygian, and
Greek2.
A different approach was proposed by Warren Cowgill (1973; 1974: 563) who
assumed that the perfect stem marked the actional class of states and not a
perfective cluster of aspectual meanings in late PIE after the break-off of the
Anatolian branch. This view is recognized in Sihler 1995: 564-68 and Fortson
2010: 104-05.
The difference between the perfective and stative interpretation of the perfect
stem is significant in that the [± dynamic] parameter, mostly related to lexical
features of the subject, is considered as being morphologically embedded in the
stem (Cowgill’s approach) or inflection (Hoffmann’s approach). Hoffmann’s
scenario suggests that there was a stage when PIE only had perfective and
imperfective stems that could take one and the same set of personal endings
except for one kind of perfective stems which was capable of taking a separate
stative inflection. One would know of the aspectual features of the original root
stems by their later distribution across stem patterns. Hoffmann’s binary
aspectual system predicts that verbs that belong to the actional class of states
would have root presents, while Cowgill’s system necessitates a special
explanation for stative predicates with root presents. Notice that prototypical
stative *h1es- ‘be’ had a root present and no traces of the perfect stem.
2 I argue that the PIE present tense endings evolved on the bases of verbs with the
inherent lexical feature [+ durative] but not necessarily [‒ telic] unlike the scenario
proposed in (Bartolotta 2009) since accomplishment verbs ([+ telic]) could, in principle,
have secondary imperfective stems before the rise of -i present tense marker.
A growing consensus is centered around the third possibility valid for the stage
of the proto-language close to Greek and Indo-Iranian - the three aspectual stems
expressed the following aspectual clusters: perfective (aorist stem), imperfective
(present stem), and resultative gradually turning into a true perfect and further
preterite in the daughter languages (perfect stem); see Kümmel 2000. There are
hints that the perfect system was centered on the subject-oriented and not object-
oriented resultatives, cf. perf. τέτοκα ‘have given birth’ always of female subjects
although pres. τίκτω ‘beget; give birth’ could be applied to both male and female
subjects in Homeric Greek (Clackson 2007: 121).
In fact, the aspectual meaning of the perfect stem could be more complex. The
perfecto-present verbs found in Homeric Greek, Vedic, and Avestan could
denote an aspectual meaning which cannot be described as “resultative” (cf. Gk.
ἄνωγα ‘command’, Ved. āha-, Av. ād- ‘say, declare’). The lexical distribution of
perfecto-present verbs (predicates of utterances, sound performance, sense
perception, cognition, psychological states), their observable decay in the history
of respective languages, and parallels in the Anatolian branch (cf. Hitt. wewakk-
‘ask’) allow us to assume that we are dealing here with an archaic Aktionsart
which can be provisionally labeled “immediate and continuous effect” apud
Maslov (1948) who described it for Modern Standard Russian. This feature
characterizes predicated situations which can be considered effective whatever
short the time of their fulfillment might be. The punctive construal of these verbs
expressed by the perfective stem is co-referential with the durative phase of their
processual or stative construals marked by the imperfective stem.
Taking into account the lexical aspectual features [± subinterval property],
[± durative], and [± telic]3, one can reconstruct the following primary and
secondary aspectual meanings as the central ones for the three aspectual clusters
of the Greco-Aryan system:
IPFV. PFV. RES.
States durative inchoative punctive
Activities progressive inchoative punctive
iterative limitative
habitual
Accomplishments progressive inchoative resultative
iterative limitative
habitual completive
Achievements iterative punctive resultative
habitual
The table above shows that the three types of stems had different aspectual
potential when derived from verbs of different actional classes. This trivial
phenomenon can be illustrated by Latin prefix co(m)- which normally has the
inchoative value for state and activity verbs, and completive value for
accomplishment verbs (Haverling 2000). Presumably, late PIE, like Modern
3 Other approaches to mapping the aspect of the PIE verbal lexemes have been employed.
Thus, García Ramón (2002: 110-112), based ultimately on (Ruipérez 1954), operates with
a different set of lexical features: [± durative], [± telic], [± transformative] (the latter
feature primarily refers to the lexical properties of the subject and not the purely aspectual
lexical feature of predicate).
(benefits)’, and Arm. aṙnum tr. ‘take’. Arm. aor. act. aṙi is ambiguous — its ṙ can
be either explained by analogy to the present stem where it can be explained by
the regular sound change before n, or it can be taken as a regular outcome of
*h2r̥ -s-. Note that if one assumes that by entering the stem pattern pres. *-new- :
aor. *-s- the root *h2er- was specified as [+ telic] within the Greco-Armeno-Indo-
Iranian domain, its perfective stem should be considered as the dominant stem of
the paradigm, and the hypothesis of the analogical leveling with the present stem
aṙnu- loses weight.
The case of PIE *dhers- ‘have courage’ is of a different sort. The perfect stem
*dhe-dhórs- (Goth. ga-dars, Skt. dadhárṣa, Gk. τεθαρσήκᾱσι) and root aorist
*dhers-, attested in Vedic participle dhr̥ ṣánt- ‘brave, daring’, should be probably
considered as a marker of the durative and inchoative aspects respectively. The
present *new-stem (Skt. dhr̥ ṣ-ṇó-ti, OPers. adạrš-nau-š, OCS drъz-noͅ -ti intr.
‘become encouraged’) marked the durative stage of the telic predicate (*dhers-).
Thus, aor. *dhers- was inchoative in relation to perf. *dhe-dhórs- and completive
in relation to pres. *dhr̥ s-new-. The place that *-new- takes within the stem
pattern of the root *dhers- is clearly consistent with its predisposition towards the
[+ telic] lexical features.
In Hittite, -nu- is a productive causative marker. There are few vestiges of the
origin of the type, cf. PIE *dhǝbh-new-: Hitt. tep-nu-zi ‘diminish’, Skt. dabhnóti
‘deceive’, GAv. dǝbǝnao- (Kloekhorst 2008: 869f.). Even though causative
semantics is involved here, the relation between the progressive phase of the
accomplishment verb, the completive event, and the resultant state remains the
same as in the case of *dhers- examined above. Here again, the suffix *-new- still
marks the [+ telic] imperfective. In principle, the causative function of Hittite -
nu- might have evolved due to the stable correlation between of the telic aspect
and the bounding effect of the direct object which is obligatory of the causative
verbs.
Taking *new-verbs as an example, one can observe the dynamics of
morphological change. It also shows that a certain nucleus of aspectual meanings
may be associated with a certain kind of stem within the larger grouping of
perfective, imperfective, and resultative aspectual clusters. The progressive phase
of accomplishments seems to be the locus for *new-stems, at least in the central
PIE branches.
5. PIE PREDICATES OF SLEEPING AND FALLING ASLEEP: LEXICAL ASPECT AND STEM
PATTERNS
stems. Similarly Cowgill (1974: 563) claimed that verbs with the root aorist were
“lexically telic” (accomplishments, achievements), while verbs with the root
present were “lexically atelic” (activities); therefore PIE *steh2- originally meant
‘stand up’ and not ‘stand’. The major problem of this approach however is the
fact that telicity often depends on the presence of an incremental argument (e.g.
arguments corresponding to the semantic roles of incremental theme, itinerary,
and quality; see Krifka 1998) so that a single lexeme can normally have both telic
and atelic readings depending on the context. In order to check how far we can
go with the reconstruction of aspectual lexical features and how secure the
semantic implications based on the reconstructed stem patterns are, one would
ideally want to reconstruct verbs together with their arguments. However, only
rarely one can confidently establish verbal arguments and therefore gain a more
precise aspectual reconstruction of a predicate. Thus, the well-known formula
*klewos n̥ dhgwhitom ‘imperishable fame’ can be taken as a piece of evidence in
favor of the lexical reconstruction intr. ‘perish (of fame)’ [+ telic] for PIE
*dhgwhey-4.
Another method of investigation of the aspectual lexical features through
lexical meaning is to compare stem patterns of basic vocabulary items. Let us
examine the verb ‘sleep’ which belongs to basic vocabulary and is stative
([‒ telic] and [+ durative]). In principle, its default stem should be either perfect
(within Cowgill’s system), or present (within Hoffmann’s system) in terms of the
late PIE morphology.
The stative predicate ‘sleep’ is logically bound to the change-of-state predicate
‘fall asleep’, which can be construed as either an achievement (‘fall asleep’) or
accomplishment (‘be falling asleep’). The change-of-state predicate, in its turn,
has the aspectual potential to form a resultative form ‘be asleep’. Unlike the
stative verb ‘sleep’ (antipassive), the change-of-state event allows for the
variation of additional semantic parameters, cf. ‘go to sleep’ (volitional
autocausative), ‘make asleep’ (causative), and ‘fall asleep’ (antipassive).
Languages differ in how the connected change-of-state event and state are
mapped in lexicon and morphology. For instance, English stative to know has to
get to know or to learn as its change-of-state pairs, while this relation can be
expressed by purely grammatical means in Spanish, cf. pres. yo sé ‘I know’ and
yo supe ‘I got to know’. In what follows, I will revise a number of PIE
reconstructions related to the predication of being or becoming asleep with
special focus on their stem patterns.
The following roots have been reconstructed for the predication of sleeping in
PIE: *swep- (Hittite, Indo-Iranian, Slavic, Italic, Germanic), *ses- (Hittite, Indo-
Iranian, and Celtic), *dreh1- (Old Indic) together with *drem- (Slavic, Italic) and
*derdh- (Greek), as well as *sleh1b- attested only in Germanic; see (Mallory &
Adams 1997: 526f.; LIV, s. vv.). Another candidate is PIE *(s)newdh- ‘sleep;
doze’, cf. Gk. νυστάζω ‘doze’, Lith. snū ́ ti ‘fall asleep, slumber’, Arm. nnǰem
4 In this case, the derived nasal present *dhgwhi-neh2- (Gk. φθίνω ‘parish’, Ved. kṣiṇāti
‘destroy’) denoted the progressive aspect of an accomplishment predicate. Therefore the
stem pattern pres. *-neh2- : aor. -ø- can be assigned to the lexical domain of
accomplishments [+ durative; + telic].
5 It does not exclude however that a number of contextual synonyms could actually exist.
In Homeric Greek, along with εὕδω and δραθεῖν ‘sleep; fall asleep’ (see below), one
finds: ἀωτέω (ὕπνος) ‘enjoy a sleep’; aor. ἄεσα, pres. ἰαύω, rare ἀέσκω (νύκτα) ‘spend the
night’; βρίζω ‘be sleepy, nod’.
6 Notice that PIE perfect stem *swe-swop- (suṣvāp-), if such a form existed, would be a
quasi-exact equivalent to *ses-. Presumably, *swe-swop-, unlike *ses-, implied the
reference to the inchoative event and therefore had the resultative connatation, cf. the
metaphorical use of suṣvāp- in the meaning ‘be dead’ in the Rig-Veda.
The verbal cognates of PIE *swep- are less decisive in other languages. Thus,
OCS usъnǫti ‘fall asleep’ < *u-sъp-nǫ-, demonstrating the [+ telic] morphology,
is coupled with sъpati ‘sleep’ [‒ telic], both from the same root (Lunt 2001: 119,
28). The Germanic cognates are ambiguous; note however that PGerm. *sufan-
‘sleep’ has the zero-grade present which is likely to be a continuant of the
mediopassive stem allomorph *sup- like Hitt. šupp- (Kroonen 2013: 489).
It remains to comment on the nouns *swop-no-s/*swep-no-s/*sup-no-s ‘a
sleep’ (PToch. *ṣw’äp(ä)ne, OInd. svápna-, Av. xvafna-, Gk. ὕπνος, Lat.
somnus, OIr. sūan, Lith. sãpnas, OCS sъnъ, Alb. gjumë, Arm. kʽun), *swop-r̥
‘dream’ (Hitt. denom. verb suppariya-, Gk. ὕπαρ ‘dream, vision’, Lat. sopor
‘deep sleep’), and *swop-n-(i)yo-m ‘dream’ (OInd. svápnyam ‘dreamy’, Gk.
ἐνύπνιον, Lat. somnium, Lith. sapny͂ s ‘sleep, dream’); see Mallory & Adams
1997: 170, 526f.; Adams 2013: 730. Barton (1985: 36) claimed that the noun was
“Aktionsart-indifferent”. However, if the underlying verbal root was strictly telic
and was lexically opposed in that way to atelic *ses- already in the proto-
language, one wonders why a noun would be formed from *swep-. I believe that
the reason is that *ses- originally meant spatial position and not a physiological
state for which *swep- was reserved.
Of marginal importance is Gk. (κατα-, ἐν-)εὕδω which is attested in Homer as
the thematic -ε/ο- and -σκε/ο- present stems with the stative meanings ‘sleep; to
have rest’ (Laar 2000: 153; Kölligan 2001). According to the textual analysis
carried out by Kölligan, εὕδω and the derived prepositional compounds could
mean both the state and inchoative event (cf. Il. 1.609ff.) although the stative
meaning was more common. Since Benveniste (1935: 156f.), *sew-d- was
compared to *sw-ep-; hesitantly (Laar 2000: 153). It is tempting to put the system
of root extensions in correlation with the opposition of the atelic vs. telic
predicates. If so, *sewd- (and not the suppletive *ses- as Jamison suggested)
would be the true stative counterpart of the inchoative *swep-. However this
internal reconstruction remains highly speculative.
Similarly to *ses- and *swep-, Jamison (against Benveniste) suggested the
actional suppletion of stative *ses- and inchoative *der-. Ved. drā- appears (first
in ŚB) with directive adverbs ní and áva and in the prepositional compound
nidrā ́ - (already in the Rig Veda). Although the internal morphological structure
of the underlying *drehx- remains unclear (resultative *dr-eh1- ?), it certainly
should be derived from *der-/*dr-. In LIV, *derdh- is hesitantly reconstructed as
a distinct root (‘einschlafen’) based on Gk. (παρα-, κατα-)δραθεῖν, it undoubtedly
goes back to PIE *der-, while -θ- of the Greek root may be tentatively interpreted
as a reflexive or autocausative marker, cf. perfective formations in *-dh- like the
passive aorist in *-dhē- (-ϑη-) in Greek. Kölligan (2001: 201-04) demonstrated
that the verb meant ‘go to sleep’ ([+ control]; e.g. Od. 5.471) and ‘sleep’ (e.g.
Od. 23.18, Od. 15.494), but not ‘fall asleep’ [‒ control]. The aorist forms thus
may have the limitative aspectual meaning along with the inchoative one. The
indicated polysemy of the aorist stem allows for the durative interpretation of the
nasal present stem δαρθάνειν. According to Kölligan, originally δραθεῖν was the
inchoative counterpart of stative εὕδω, and only later the preterite uses of these
two verbs, inchoative and limitative respectively, began to merge by the age of
Homeric Greek.
The variant *drem-, another extension of *der-/*dr-, probably existed already
in PIE with the stative meaning; see above on Latin and Slavic cognates (note
however that it is not attested in the Anatolian and Tocharian branches). If the
underlying root *der-/*dr- was punctive, one can speculate that -em- had
imperfectivising nuance whatever its origin, e.g. a nominal stem.
It is noteworthy that PIE *ses- and *swep-, the two basically stative verbs ‘stay
idle’ and ‘sleep’, had root present stems, just like PIE *h1és-mi, while perfect
stems evolved within a restricted dialectal area (Ved. suṣvap-) as a secondary
imperfective used to mark the resultative state or a temporary state co-referential
with its momentary construal. It seems that PIE root *swep-7 originally covered
the change-of-state punctive event together with resultant state, and only later its
use was reduced yielding a number of suppletion patterns in the daughter
languages, e.g. Vedic sas-/svap-.
This presented case studies illustrate that additional research is required to
have a better picture of how the lexical aspectual features of PIE verbs interated
with the multiple stem patterns of the proto-language, which in turn can shed new
light on the PIE verbal morphology.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams D. Q., 2013, A Dictionary of Tocharian B: Revised and Greatly
Enlarged, Amsterdam, New York, éd. Rodopi.
Bartolotta A., 2009, Root lexical features and inflectional marking of tense in
Proto-Indo-European, Journal of Linguistics 45, p. 505-32.
Barton Ch. R., 1985, PIE *suep- and *ses-, Die Sprache 31, p. 17-39.
Benveniste É., 1935, Origines de la formation des noms en indo-européen, Paris,
éd. Adrien-Maisonneuve.
Benveniste É., 1967, Un fait de supplétisme lexical en indo-européen, in
W. Meid (ed), Beiträge zur Indogermanistik und Keltologie, Julius Pokorny
zum 80. Geburtstag gewidmet, Innsbruck, Sprachwissenschaftliches Institut
der Universität Innsbruck, p. 11-15.
Breu W., 1998, Komplexe aktionale Verbklassen, insbesondere Inchoativa, in
von T. Berger & J. Raecke (eds), Slavistische Linguistik 1997. Referate des
XXIII. Konstanzer Slavistischen Arbeitstreffens Blaubeuren, 26.-28.8.1997,
Slavistische Beiträge n° 375, p. 55-80.
Brugmann K., 1913, Grundriß der vergleichenden Grammatik der
indogermanischen Sprachen, Strassburg, éd. Trübner.
Bybee J. L. & Dahl. Ö., 1989. The creation of tense and aspect systems in the
languages of the world, Studies in Language 13, p. 51-103.
Chantraine P., 1927, Histoire du parfait grec, Paris, Honoré Champion.
CHD S/2 = Güterbock H. G., Hoffner H. A. & van den Hout Th. P. J., 2005, The
Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
CHD S/3 = Güterbock H. G., Hoffner H. A. & van den Hout Th. P. J., 2013, The
Hittite Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago,
Chicago, Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.
Clackson J., 2007, Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction, Cambridge-New
York, Cambridge University Press.
Comrie B., 1976, Aspect: An Introduction to the Study of Verbal Qspect and
Related Problems, Cambridge-New York, Cambridge Univ. Press.
Cowgill W., 1973, The Source of Latin stāre, with Notes on Comparable Forms
Elsewhere in Indo-European, Journal of Indo-European Studies 1, p. 271-
303.
Cowgill W., 1974, More Evidence for Indo-Hittite: The Tense-Aspect System, in
L. Heilmann (ed), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Congress of
Linguistics, Bologna, Società Editrice il Mulino, p. 557-70.
Dik S. C., 1989, The Theory of Functional Grammar, Dordrecht, Holland,
Providence, RI, U.S.A., Foris Publications.
EWAia = Mayrhofer M., 1986-2001, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des
Altindoarischen, 3 vols, Heidelberg, C. Winter.
Filip H., 1999, Aspect, Eventuality Types, and Nominal Reference, New York,
Garland Pub.
Fortson B. W., 2010, Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction,
Chichester, U.K., Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell.
García Ramón J. L., 2002, Zu Verbalcharakter, morphologischer Aktionsart und
Aspekt in der indogermanischen Rekonstruktion, in H. Hettrich (ed),
Indogermanische Syntax. Fragen und Perspektiven, Wiesbaden, Reichert,
p. 105-36.
Gorbova E. V., 2010, Akcional’nost’ glagol’noj leksiki i aspektual’nye
grammemy: voprosy vzaimodejstvija (Actionality of verbal lexicon and
aspectual grams: issue of interaction), St Petersburg, St Petersburg State
University Press.
Haverling G., 2000, On sco-verbs, Prefixes, and Semantic Fnctions: A Study in
the Development of Prefixed and Unprefixed Verbs from Early to Late Latin,
Göteborg, Sweden, Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.
Hoffmann K., 1970, Das Kategoriensystem des indogermanischen Verbums.
Münchener Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft 28, p. 19-41.
Hoffner H. A. & Melchert H. C., 2008, A grammar of the Hittite Language
Winona Lake, Ind., Eisenbrauns.
Jamison S. W., 1982-1983, “Sleep” in Vedic and Indo-European, Zeitschrift für
vergleichende Sprachforschung 96, p. 6-16.
Kellens J., 1984, Le verbe avestique, Wiesbaden, Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Klein W., 1994, Time in Language, London-New York, Routledge.
Kloekhorst A., 2008, Etymological Dictionary of the Hittite Inherited Lexicon,
Leiden-Boston, MA, Brill.
Krifka M. 1998, The Origins of Telicity, in S. Rothstein (ed), Events and
Grammar, Dordrecht-Boston-London, Kluwer Academic Publishers, p. 197-
235.
Kroonen G., 2013, Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic, Leiden, Brill.
Kuryłowicz J., 1964, The Inflectional Categories of Indo-European, Heidelberg,
C. Winter.
Kümmel M., 2000, Das Perfekt im Indoiranischen: eine Untersuchung der Form
und Funktion einer ererbten Kategorie des Verbums und ihrer
Weiterentwicklung in den altindoiranischen Sprachen, Wiesbaden, Reichert.
Kölligan D., 2001, Suppletion und Defektivität in griechischen Verbum: εὕδειν
und δραθεῖν, Glotta 77, p. 198-216.
Kölligan D., 2007, Arm. nnǰem ‘to sleep’, International Journal of Diachronic
Linguistics and Linguistics Reconstruction 4, p. 25-35.
Laar H. van de, 2000, Description of the Greek Individual Verbal Systems,
Amsterdam-Atlanta, GA, Rodopi.
LIV = Rix H. et al. 2001, Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben: die Wurzeln
und ihre Primärstammbildungen, 2 Aufl., Wiesbaden, Reichert.
Lunt H. G., 2001, Old Church Slavonic Grammar, Berlin-New York, Mouton de
Gruyter.
Mallory J. P. & Adams D. Q., 1997, Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture,
Chicago-London, Fitzroy Deaborn Publishers.
Maslov Y. S., 1948, Vid i leksicheskoje znachenije glagola v sovremennom
literaturnom russkom jazyke (Aspect and the lexical meaning of the verb in
Modern Standard Russian), Izvestija Akademii Nauk 7, p. 303-16.
Mayrhofer M., 1965, Hethitisches und arisches Lexikon, Indogermanische
Forschungen 70, p. 245-57.
Mayrhofer M., 1986-2001, Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen,
Heidelberg, Universitätsverlag C. Winter.
Melchert C. H., 1998, Traces of a PIE Aspectual Contrast in Anatolian?, Incontri
Linguistici 20, p. 83-92.
Paducheva E., 2009, Telicity and incremental theme, Russian Linguistics 33,
p. 109-19.
Plungian V., 2011, Introducing Grammatical Semantics: Grammatical Values
and Grammatical Systems in the World’s Languages, Moscow, Russian State
University for the Humanities.
Sánchez Ruipérez M., 1954, Estructura del sistema de aspectos y tiempos del
verbo griego antiguo, análisis funcional sincrónico, Salamanca, Colegio
Trilingũe de la Universidad.
Seebold E., 1967, Sind got. nawis und sutis i-stämmige Adjektive?, Beiträge zur
Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 89, p. 42-53.
Sihler A. L., 1995, New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, New York,
Oxford University Press.
Strunk K. 1977, Überlegungen zu Defektivität und Suppletion im Griechischen
und Indogermanischen, Glotta 55, p. 2-34.
Tatevosov S., 2003, The parameter of actionality, Linguistic Typology 6, p. 317-
401.
Taylor B., 1977, Tense and continuity, Linguistics and Philosophy 1, p. 199-220.
Vendler Z., 1957, Verbs and times, The Philosophical Review 66, p. 143-60.
Wackernagel J., 1926-1928, Vorlesungen über Syntax: mit besonderer
Berücksichtigung von Griechisch, Lateinisch und Deutsch, Basel,
E. Birkhäuser.