Proto-Indo-European desiderative

== {{Lang|ine-x-proto|s}}-presents ==

== {{Lang|ine-x-proto|s}}-presents ==

There is evidence of a class of athematic s-presents in Hittite that showcases {{Lang|ine-x-proto|CéC-ti ~ CØC-énti}} ablaut,{{Sfn|Kloekhorst|2009|p=246}} as reflected in terms such as {{Lang|hit|kane/išš-zi}}, which—according to Kloekhorst—derives from {{Lang|ine-x-proto|ǵnéh₃-s-ti ~ *ǵnh₃-s-énti}}.{{Sfn|Kloekhorst|2008|pp=434-435}} According to de Vaan, it is perhaps possible that the Latin term {{Lang|la|[[wikt:ignoro|ignōrō]]}} is an s-present that may continue the same pre-form as the Hittite word.{{Sfn|de Vaan|2008|p=297}} The linguist Reiner Lipp suggests that the athematic s-present class gave rise to the sigmatic desiderative of Ancient Greek, though—during the transition towards Greek—the paradigm underwent thematicization.{{Sfn|Lipp|2023|p=219}} Another Hittite s-present form, {{Lang|hit|tákšzi}} ("to devise, endeavor"), which possibly derives from {{Lang|ine-x-proto|[[wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/teḱ-|téḱ-s-ti]]}}, may parallel the Latin s-present {{Lang|la|[[wikt:texo|texō]]}} ("to weave").{{Sfn|Kloekhorst|2008|p=814}} These forms are collectively assigned to an earlier athematic s-desiderative by the [[Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben|LIV]],{{Sfn|Rix|2001|p=619}} which argues that the Hittite term underwent a semantic shift from "to desire to weave" to simply "to undertake, strive."{{Sfn|Pozza|2016|p=231}} However, according to the linguist [[H. Craig Melchert]], neither the Latin nor Hittite forms reveal any evidence for original desiderative semantics.{{Sfn|Melchert|2018|p=13}} Jasanoff contends that the original Hittite athematic s-present class entirely lacked a desiderative meaning, and it instead possessed inchoative semantics, akin to the class of {{Lang|ine-x-proto|sḱé}}-presents.{{Sfn|Jasanoff|2019|p=18}}

There is evidence of a class of athematic s-presents in Hittite that showcases {{Lang|ine-x-proto|CéC-ti ~ CØC-énti}} ablaut,{{Sfn|Kloekhorst|2009|p=246}} as reflected in terms such as {{Lang|hit|kane/iššzi}}, which—according to Kloekhorst—derives from {{Lang|ine-x-proto|ǵnéh₃-s-ti ~ *ǵnh₃-s-énti}}.{{Sfn|Kloekhorst|2008|pp=434-435}} Jasanoff alternatively reconstructs a type of Narten s-present characterized by {{Lang|ine-x-proto|ḗ ~ *é}} ablaut, citing the {{Lang|lt|-i-}} in Lithuanian dual and plural sigmatic verbs such as {{Lang|lt|[[wikt:duosime|dúosime]]}} ("to give"), Latin optative forms such as {{Lang|la|[[wikt:faxim|faxim]]}}, and certain Old Irish unreduplicated s-aorists as evidence.{{Sfn|Jasanoff|2019|p=18}} Kloekhorst, however, suggests none of the Hittite s-verbs display any evidence for acrostatic Narten ablaut, and instead, where the original ablaut pattern is recoverable, it always shows {{Lang|ine-x-proto|é ~ Ø}} alteration in {{Lang|hit|mi}}-verbs and {{Lang|ine-x-proto|ó ~ Ø}} gradation in {{Lang|hit|ḫi}}-verbs.{{Sfn|Kloekhorst|2008|p=249}}

According to de Vaan, it is perhaps possible that the Latin term {{Lang|la|[[wikt:ignoro|ignōrō]]}} is an s-present that may continue the same pre-form as Hittite {{Lang|hit|kane/iššzi}}.{{Sfn|de Vaan|2008|p=297}} The linguist Reiner Lipp suggests that the athematic s-present class gave rise to the sigmatic desiderative of Ancient Greek, though—during the transition towards Greek—the paradigm underwent thematicization.{{Sfn|Lipp|2023|p=219}} Another Hittite s-present form, {{Lang|hit|tákšzi}} ("to devise, endeavor"), which possibly derives from {{Lang|ine-x-proto|[[wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/teḱ-|téḱ-s-ti]]}}, may parallel the Latin s-present {{Lang|la|[[wikt:texo|texō]]}} ("to weave").{{Sfn|Kloekhorst|2008|p=814}} These forms are collectively assigned to an earlier athematic s-desiderative by the [[Lexikon der indogermanischen Verben|LIV]],{{Sfn|Rix|2001|p=619}} which argues that the Hittite term underwent a semantic shift from "to desire to weave" to simply "to undertake, strive."{{Sfn|Pozza|2016|p=231}} However, according to the linguist [[H. Craig Melchert]], neither the Latin nor Hittite forms reveal any evidence for original desiderative semantics.{{Sfn|Melchert|2018|p=13}} Jasanoff contends that the original Hittite athematic s-present class entirely lacked a desiderative meaning, and it instead possessed inchoative semantics, akin to the class of {{Lang|ine-x-proto|sḱé}}-presents.{{Sfn|Jasanoff|2019|p=18}}

Ringe additionally reconstructs a type of thematic s-present, for which he supplies the ablaut paradigm [[wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-seti|''*(é)-s-eti'' ~ ''*(é)-s-onti'']].{{Sfn|Ringe|2006|p=28}} There are a scant number of terms in the Indo-European languages that attest to this formation, though Fortson cites examples such as ''{{Lang|grc|[[wikt:ἀέξω|ἀέξω]]}}'' ("{{Grc-transl|ἀέξω}}").{{Sfn|Fortson|2010|p=100}} Kölligan and Jasanoff, however, explain this form as derived from an original sigmatic desiderative.{{Sfn|Kölligan|2018|pp=104-105}}{{Sfn|Jasanoff|2019|p=20}} Kölligan provides numerous other examples of supposed lexicalized desideratives, such as [[Old High German]] {{Lang|goh|blāsan}}, which he derives from a PIE form of the shape {{Lang|ine-x-proto|[[wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰleh₁-|bʰleh₁(s)-]]}}, though Kroonen alternatively ascribes the term to an original sigmatic aorist.{{Sfn|Kroonen|2013|p=68}} In certain cases, the lexicalized desiderative may have provided the basis of an entirely new root. For instance, the root {{Lang|ine-x-proto|[[wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱlews-|ḱlews-]]}} ("to hear") perhaps emerged via the reanalysis of the desiderative {{Lang|ine-x-proto|[[wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱléwseti|ḱléwseti]]}} ("to listen"), itself from the unextended root {{Lang|ine-x-proto|[[wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱlew-|ḱlew-]]}} ("to hear").{{Sfn|Kocharov|Shatskov|2018|p=219}}

Ringe additionally reconstructs a type of thematic s-present, for which he supplies the ablaut paradigm [[wiktionary:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/-seti|''*(é)-s-eti'' ~ ''*(é)-s-onti'']].{{Sfn|Ringe|2006|p=28}} There are a scant number of terms in the Indo-European languages that attest to this formation, though Fortson cites examples such as ''{{Lang|grc|[[wikt:ἀέξω|ἀέξω]]}}'' ("{{Grc-transl|ἀέξω}}").{{Sfn|Fortson|2010|p=100}} Kölligan and Jasanoff, however, explain this form as derived from an original sigmatic desiderative.{{Sfn|Kölligan|2018|pp=104-105}}{{Sfn|Jasanoff|2019|p=20}} Kölligan provides numerous other examples of supposed lexicalized desideratives, such as [[Old High German]] {{Lang|goh|blāsan}}, which he derives from a PIE form of the shape {{Lang|ine-x-proto|[[wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/bʰleh₁-|bʰleh₁(s)-]]}}, though Kroonen alternatively ascribes the term to an original sigmatic aorist.{{Sfn|Kroonen|2013|p=68}} In certain cases, the lexicalized desiderative may have provided the basis of an entirely new root. For instance, the root {{Lang|ine-x-proto|[[wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱlews-|ḱlews-]]}} ("to hear") perhaps emerged via the reanalysis of the desiderative {{Lang|ine-x-proto|[[wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱléwseti|ḱléwseti]]}} ("to listen"), itself from the unextended root {{Lang|ine-x-proto|[[wikt:Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/ḱlew-|ḱlew-]]}} ("to hear").{{Sfn|Kocharov|Shatskov|2018|p=219}}