Remarks on the Vedic intensive.

• Author: Lubotsky, A.

This book, which represents a revised version of Christiane Schaefer's 1989 doctoral dissertation, addresses various problems of the intensive, a fascinating, but rather neglected category of the Vedic verb. It consists of two parts of more or less equal length: the general part (I. "Vorbemerkungen," pp. 11-14; II. "Morphologie," pp. 15-71; III. "Semantik," pp. 72-100) and the discussion of the forms arranged in accordance with the verbal root (IV. "Monographischer Teil," pp. 101-208). The book is concluded by indices and a bibliography.

The emphasis of the book lies on the semantics of the intensive. Not only in chapter III, which is dedicated to this subject, but also in the discussion of the separate intensive formations, S. primarily deals with meaning. She conclusively shows that the Vedic intensive has no demonstrable intensive or affective meaning at all and that in the majority of instances it displays an iterative or repetitive function. This result is very important and is one of the major achievements of the book.

Whereas the semantics of the intensive is treated fully and adequately in S.'s book, the morphological analysis can be refined in several aspects. In the following, I shall take up a few morphological and etymological points where I disagree with S.'s position or where, in my opinion, we can reach a little farther.

MORPHOLOGY

The Subjunctive

S. convincingly shows that the intensive subjunctive had zero grade in the root in Indo-Iranian (cf. also GAv. voiuuidaiti/e Y 30.8). The only serious exception to this rule in Vedic(1) is the subjunctive of [square root of han-] 'to slay', viz., janghanas, janghanat, etc. S. explains these forms by Sievers' Law, but I do not think that Sievers' Law was ever operative with the nasals. In order to understand properly the origin of janghanat, it should be borne in mind that the first n of *nCn clusters was regularly lost already in Indo-Iranian times.(2) The Avestan intensive to this root is (ni-)jaynente, (auua-)jaynat, etc., with the expected loss of the first -n-. The Vedic speakers presumably considered the heavy reduplication essential to the formation, so that this n was reintroduced into the reduplication syllable. Since the cluster -nghn- was still awkward, the zero grade of the root ghn- was replaced by -ghan- (note that -ghan- may also be a reflex of the zero grade, e.g., in the pf. ptc. jaghanvan, with *n > an before a resonant).(3)

The fact that the subjunctive has zero grade in the root is of considerable importance. First of all, we get rid of the "thematic" intensives, which can now be explained as subjunctives. Secondly, it becomes clear that 1sg. dedisam (RV 8.74.15) is a subjunctive and consequently, that -am can function as a 1sg. subjunctive ending, which was already proposed by Insler (1966: 228). As indicated by S., zero grade subjunctives are very rare in Vedic, but they point to the great antiquity of the formation. Apart from the intensive, zero grade in the subjunctive is only regular with roots in -a in the reduplicated present (dadah, dadhah, dadat, dadhat, dadhan, dadhase, dadhate, Av. dadat). We find several zero grade subjunctives in the perfect (jujuvat, susuvat vs. susavama, vavrdhate, vavrdhati, jujusan vs. jujosah), but these forms are incidental and are hardly old.

The Reduplication

S. treats the reduplication on pp. 22-35 (synchronic analysis) and pp. 52-71 (the historical development). She correctly remarks that, historically speaking, the "heavy" reduplication of the intensive involves repetition of the second consonant of the root. In a synchronic analysis, she distinguishes four types which largely depend on the structure of the root:

Type I Ka-: root structure [K.sub.1](R)a[K.sub.2] ([K.sub.1] = any consonant, [K.sub.2] = an obstruent), e.g., nanad- : [square root of nad-], sasvas- : [square root of svas-].

In this category there is some overlapping with the perfect formations which sometimes show long reduplication. In order to distinguish between the two, we can use the accent, since the intensive normally has initial accentuation, in contradistinction to the perfect where we find final accentuation. This is not an absolute criterion, however. On the one hand, we find initially accented perfect forms, and intensives with final accentuation, on the other. For instance, sasadana-, which seems to belong to the system of the perfect (sasaduh, sasadre), has initial accentuation. This word has probably exerted influence on susujana- (book x, twice) used in the same context (tanva susujana- at the end of the line vs. tanva sasadana- in the same position in RV 1.123.10a, 124.6c). Two more perfect medial participles have initial accentuation, viz., susuvana- and tutujana- (next to tatujana-).

Forms with unambiguous intensive reduplication, but with final accentuation, must be considered intensive perfects, e.g., badbadhe, sarsre, badbadhana-, marmrjana-. S.'s attitude towards these forms is ambivalent. For instance, badbadhe is called 3sg. pf. middle in the table on p. 18, but on p. 156 it appears as 3sg. present, although in the discussion she says that these forms are "ihrer Funktion nach Perfekta." On the contrary, badbadhanaon p. 156 is labeled "ptc. pf." but on p. 18 "ptc. pres." As to marmrjana, S. calls it a present ptc. both on p. 18 and on p. 167f., where the root mrj- is treated, in spite of the fact that this is no doubt a participle of the intensive perfect, not only because of its accentuation, but also because of its passive meaning 'cleaned' - cf. the perfect middle mamrje, which always displays this meaning when used without preverbs.

In a similar fashion, vavasana- and vavasre can belong to the medial perfects of the intensive (as opposed to the plain perfect vavasire). See further below.

It is clear that for some isolated formations the choice between the perfect and intensive perfect is difficult. A case in point is raraksana- ([square root of raks-] 'to protect'). It is unclear to me how S. interprets this form. On p. 18, raraksana- appears in the table among the intensives, but it is not treated in the "Monographischer Teil," and in the discussion of the reduplication (p. 27ff.) raraks- is mentioned a few times without a clear statement on the matter. Considering the fact that raraksana- (4.3.14b) is used in the same stanza with vavrdhana- (4.3.14d), which is a perfect participle, we can safely assume the same interpretation for raraksana-.

Yet another ambiguous case is avavacit, which can be taken as an intensive or as a pluperfect of [square root of vac-]. S. opts for an intensive, which is a possible choice, but forgets to mention the form in the discussion of the ambiguous formations (note that Macdonell [1910: 364] and Leumann [1952: 24], for instance, take avavacit to be a pluperfect).

Type II Ke/o-: root...