On the origin of the Middle Indic future suffix -hi-.

• Author: Milizia, Paolo
• Position: Essay

1. MIDDLE INDIC FUTURE FORMATIONS

   Middle Indic future formations can be classified into the following three types:

   1) the future in -(i)ss-: e.g., P[a.bar]li karissati 'will do', P[a.bar]li dassati 'will give';

   2) the future in [degrees] CCh-: e.g., P[a.bar]li lacchati 'will obtain';

   3) the future in -hi-: e.g., P[a.bar]li k[a.bar]hiti (and k[a.bar]hati) 'will do'.

   The first two formations are clearly continuations of the Old Indic future in -sya-l-(i)sya-: e.g., OI d[a.bar]syati (d[a.bar]-) > MI dassati; OI kartryati (kr-) > MI karissati; OI lapsyati (labh-) > MI lacchati. On the other hand, the origin of the future in -h- is not transparent.

   As regards chronology and diffusion, the formation is already documented in the ASokan inscriptions (cf. Bloch 1950: 74f.), where it appears in texts written in the oriental variety (the so-called "chancellery language"): hoharpti (Delhi-Topra Pillar Edict VII) 'they will be'; dahamti (Pillar Edict IV) 'they will give'; ehatha 2p1. from i-'go' (Dhauli Separate Edict II); it also appears in the languages of the major Middle Indic textual traditions, i.e., Pali, Ardham[a.bar]gadh[i.bar], Jaina-M[a.bar]h[a.bar]r[a.bar]str[i.bar], M[a.bar]h[a.bar]r[a.bar]str[i.bar] (cf. Pischel 1900 [section] [section] 520-34), Apabhramga (cf. Tagare 1987: 36, 306-11), and Buddhist Sanskrit (cf. Edgerton 1953: 1490f.). (1) Moreover, in several New Indic languages (Bhojpuri, Maithili, Marwari, Awadhi, Bhili, Braj, Bundeli) there are future formations in -h- which are likely to be continuations of the Middle Indic -h- future (cf. Bloch 1965: 247, Masica 1991: 289). (2)

   According to common opinion, the element -hi- is a special development of the sequence -sya-. However, adopting this assumption makes it necessary to explain two unexpected formal peculiarities of the morph: i.e., the appearance of a thematic vowel -i- (in competition with the usual -a-), and the presence of the consonant -h- instead of -ss- (from -sy-).

2. THE HYPOTHESIS OF THE ORIGIN FROM THE PERIPHRASTIC FUTURE

   An attempt at a solution that does not involve the problematic development -sya- > -hi- is that offered by Vittore Pisani in his "Noterelle Pali" (1952: 285-87): according to him, the sement -h- of the suffix had been transferred from the 1st person singular of the 01 peri-phrastic future of the type hantaham (< hang-aham) 'I shall kill'. (3)

   However, Pisani's argumentation leaves unexplained why the element -h(a)- in h[a.bar]ntaham should have been reanalyzed as a tense marker: even if we admit that h[a.bar]ntaham was resegmented as hant[a.bar]ha-m (or as hant[a.bar]h-am), this reanalysis, per se, might simply create a 1st person allomorph -t[a.bar]h(a)- of a tense marker -t[a.bar]-. Significantly, in Middle Indic the 1st sg. of the indicative can show a special byform in -[a.bar]ham (cf. Oberlies 2001: 217f; von Hintiber 2001: 277f.), but such a formation is not associated with the future tense. It should also be noted that Pisani's proposal cannot explain the appearance of the thematic vowel -i-. In conclusion, the hypothesis advanced by Pisani is not satisfactory. but his idea that the -h- of the future must he "di ragione morfologica anziehe thnetican deserves consideration.

3. THE PRESENCE OF THE VOWEL i AND THE SO-CALLED MIDDLE INDIC SAMPRAS[A.bar]RANA

   The majority opinion (4) holds that the appearance of the vowel -i- has to be explained as the result of the so-called Middle Indic sampras[a.bar]rana--a sound change consisting of the transformation of a glide into a syllabic vowel. According to this assumption, the -i- in the suffix would he the continuation of the glide -v- contained in the original OI suffix -sect-. It should be noted, however, that the other future formations do not normally show the development -ya-> -i- even if they are indisputably continuations of the original type in -sya-. Indeed, among the other future formations, a thematic vowel -i- is found only in sporadic cases such as Moka va((I)dhi(s)siti (cf. Bloch 1950: 74), P[a.bar] gatichisilgacchisi, dakkhiti, sakkhinti (besides gatichasilgacchasi, dakkhasi, sakkh.ati; cf. Oberlies 2001: 248, 244 n. 1); as for the last three forms, moreover, it should be mentioned that, in competition with those, P[a.bar]li also shows double-suffixed or, more precisely. resuffixed forms like gacchiss ati, dakkhissati, sakkhis.vati (cf. Oberlies 2001: 248 n. 2; Bloch 1965: 227). so that the possibility cannot be ruled out that the type dakkhiti owes its 4-to the influence of the type dakkhissati.

   As we shall soon see, an attempt at explaining the absence of the samprasarat:ia ya > i in the other future formations was made by resorting to a particular relative chronology of the sound changes affecting y. On the other hand, it should be noted that the very assumption of a samprasurana ya > i is somewhat problematic. Indeed, while such a phenomenon is relatively well documented for the glide w, in the case of y the shift from glide to nucleus seems not to be an expected development. On this issue von Hithiber (2001: 129) writes "Das Samprasarana ya: i ist im Mi. auBer in Futurformen [...] nur selten nachweisbar: Skt. abhvantam > P abbhantara, aber Amg abbhintara; Skt. tirvak: Amg usw. tirikkha, aber: CDIAL 5823 tiras. In alien anderen, in der alteren Literatur hierher gestellten Fallen liegt Sandhi, Analogie, Suffixwechsel and Volksetymologie vor." Worth noticing is the fact that in Pali the existence of this phenomenon seems not to be demonstrable without making reference to the future stems.

4. THE ORIGIN OF h: THE DISSIMILATION HYPOTHESIS

   In his Zwei Probleme der mittelindischen Lautlehre (1955: 79), Hermann Berger tried to explain the presence of the consonant h by assuming that this sound is the result of a dis-similation process that would have originated in the 2nd person singular: a form like, e.g., *gamissisi would have developed into gamihisi in order to avoid the sequence [degrees] ssVs [degrees]; the stem gamihi-would then have been generalized to the whole paradigm. More recently \Tit Ruben& has also expressed himself in favor of such an explanation (1996: 105).

   Nevertheless the supposed dissimilation process has no exact parallels in Middle Indic; moreover, the assumption of an analogical generalization of the dissimilated stem is not so obvious from a psychological point of view: indeed, it may be thought that morphological analogy would have rather tended to restore the undissimilated form in the 2nd singular. To conclude, the dissimilation hypothesis is quite an ad hoc explanation and cannot be considered a satisfactory solution.

5. THE ORIGIN OF h: THE DEGEMINATION-DEBUCCALIZATION HYPOTHESIS

   Other scholars attempted to explain the -h- as the outcome of a geminated -ss- (which in turn is the expected MI outcome of the OI sequence -sy-) by assuming a series of two sound changes: 1) a degemination -ss- > -s-, and 2) a debuccalization -s- > -h-. But the fact that different scholars invoke different causes for the degemination process reveals the problematic nature of the assumption.

   Ralph L. Turner (1931: 531; cf. also 1927: 232ff.), followed by Luise Anna Schwarzschild (1953: 42) and Thomas Oberlies (2001: 245), maintained that "MI. -ss- as a component of a suffix or termination might have, and in most dialects did have, a special development into -s- and -h-"; such a statement, however, disregards the circumstance that, with the partial exception of Magadhi and Apabhramga (cf. Pischel 1900 [section] 366, and below), the geminate -ss- is in fact preserved in Middle Indic even in a terminational element like the genitive ending -assa < -asya. (5)

   It should be added here that, as regards Pali, metrical pressure has been held by Oberlies to be an additional factor favoring degemination: thus in the line adisv[a.bar] k[a.bar]lam | kariss[a.bar]mi Ubbarim (Ja III 161,14*) (6) the metrics require the second syllable after the caesura to be light (for other instances, see Oberlies 1996: 1151; 2001: 109, 245). Nevertheless, in our view cases of degemination forced by metrical necessity should not be considered as actual evidence with respect to the discussion of a phonological phenomenon: formal alterations that are due to metrics normally affect the textual tokens and can hardly involve the underlying phonological form of a word in such a way as to result in a true sound change. (7)

   Along a different line of reasoning, Manfred Mayrhofer (1951: 42f) hypothesized that the degemination of -ss- took place at first in stems in which the geminated consonant was preceded by a long vowel. Indeed, in this phonological environment, the process could be viewed as a means of complying with the MI two-mora law (on which see von Hiniiber 2001: 117-18). This solution has the advantage of resorting to a true phonological constraint of Middle-Indo-Aryan (for cases of -ss- degemination accompained by compensatory lengthening in Prakrits, see Pischel 1900 [section] 63), and it bears mentioning that it is true that the suffix -hi- appears with relatively high frequency in stems where it is preceded by a long vowel (for a different interpretation, see below).

   On the other hand, it should also be noted that forms that could be the intermediate stage of the assumed development -ss-> -s-> h--i.e., future forms with a degeminated s preceded by a long vowel are not as well documented as might be expected. Sporadic occurrences like the k[a.bar]sam (P[a.bar]li) attested in, Ja Iv 286,21 * . . . 287,15 * and vi 36,20 * (but cf. kassarn Th 381, S I 179,8; kass[a.bar]mi Th 1138-39; cf. Geiger 1916: 125f) or d[a.bar]s[a.bar]mo and esaipti (Ardham[a.bar]gadh[i.bar]) attested, respectively, in [A.bar]y[a.bar]rangasutta II 5, 11-13 and in S[u.bar]yagadangasutta I, 11, 29 (cf. Schwarzschild 1953: 43) are, in fact, a too meager corroboration. Indeed, the normal Middle Indic future stem from a base such as, e.g., d[a.bar]-'give' is dassa-(cf. Geiger 1916: 124 [section] 151) with...