# All Indo-European: Reduplication for *dō-



## Flaminius

I am interested in how Proto-Indo-Europrean *dō- (to give) with reduplication has evolved in as many Indo-European languages as possible.  For example, Latin uses the reduplicated _ded-_ to form perfect conjugations, whereas for Latvian, present tense is the domain for the reduplicated _dod-_.

I have already confirmed that there is no Romance language whose cognate for Latin _dare_ (to give) resorts to reduplication for conjugation.  Could I prevail upon the fellow WRians who speak Indo-Iranian, Slavic or Germanic languages where reduplication is used in conjugation of the verb that descend from PIE *dō- to ask to provide with representative stems for the verb?

For the above mentioned two languages, the sample stems would be as follows.
*Latin:*
1st sg. present; do
1st sg. perfect; dedi
*Latvian:*
infinitive; dot
1st sg. present; dodu
1st sg. past; devu


----------



## linguist786

I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but here is the same thing for Gujarati/Hindi/Urdu (I can see a link here somewhere..!)

*Gujarati:*
1st sg. present: _oo do_ (I give)
1st sg. perfect: _mai didhu_ (I gave)

*Hindi/Urdu:*
1st sg. present: _mai deta hoon_ (I give/am giving)
1st sg. perfect: _maine diyaa_ (I gave)


----------



## karuna

I think that Russian has at least in the future tense in plural:

infinitive: дать (dat')
1st pl future: дадим (dadim)
2nd pl future: дадите (dadit'e)
3rd pl future: дадут (dadut)


----------



## diegodbs

Greek:

<δίδωμι>   give   -- /dídomi/


----------



## Flaminius

Diegod,
Does <δίδωμι> use the reduplicated stem for all the conjugation?
Could you show which tense uses reduplication and which does not?


----------



## diegodbs

Flaminius said:
			
		

> Diegod,
> Does <δίδωμι> use the reduplicated stem for all the conjugation?
> Could you show which tense uses reduplication and which does not?


 
Present and imperfect use the reduplicated stem, but not future and aorist. I don't remember now the passive or the middle voice.

Here's the conjugation of didomai


----------



## Whodunit

Flaminius said:
			
		

> I have already confirmed that there is no Romance language whose cognate for Latin _dare_ (to give) resorts to reduplication for conjugation.


 
What about the Spanish "*d*a*d*o" (past participle of "dar")?


----------



## diegodbs

Whodunit said:
			
		

> What about the Spanish "*d*a*d*o" (past participle of "dar")?


 
I wouldn't say that's a real reduplication but a coincidence since all participles in Spanish end in -ado, -ido.


----------



## modus.irrealis

diegodbs said:
			
		

> Present and imperfect use the reduplicated stem, but not future and aorist. I don't remember now the passive or the middle voice.


Anything based on the present stem has the reduplicated stem (with vowel i), so present, imperfect, present subjunctive, present optative, present imperative, present infinitive, and present participle for both the active and mediopassive voices (I hope I got all the forms ).

The perfect forms also have a reduplicated stem (with vowel e), e.g. δέδωκα, but I don't think this is what Flaminius wants, since this occurs with all verbs in the perfect -- there's nothing special about "give."

(Vedic) Sanskrit also seems to have reduplicated forms (not surprising I guess). I can't say much, but I notice forms like _dadati_ "he gives" in the present tense but aorist and future forms don't seem to show reduplication.

Thymios


----------



## Whodunit

diegodbs said:
			
		

> I wouldn't say that's a real reduplication but a coincidence since all participles in Spanish end in -ado, -ido.


 
I know, but do you really it is a coincidence? There are not many Romance language that have copied the word "dare" in some way. But talking about Romance languages: What about the Romanian word "a da" and its 2nd plural present form *daţi*?


----------



## brian

diegodbs said:
			
		

> Present and imperfect use the reduplicated stem, but not future and aorist. I don't remember now the passive or the middle voice.
> 
> Here's the conjugation of didomai


It looks like that link only gives the verb forms for the passive.  "Didomai" means "I am given."

The thing with ancient Greek is that more often than not, the present tense _is_ the irregular form.  The main stem of the verb often comes from either a pre-existing adjective/noun or another tense of the verb, like the aorist or future.  In the case of didomi/διδωμι, we have, for 1st person:

_Active_
*present:* 'didomi/διδωμι
*future:* 'doso/δωσω
*aorist: *'edoka/εδωκα
*perfect: *'dedoka/δεδωκα

_Passive
_*present: *'didomai/διδομαι
*future: *do'thesomai/δοθησομαι
*aorist:* 'edothen/εδοθην
*perfect:* 'dedomai/δεδομαι

In Greek, past tenses can be made either by reduplication (such as adding δε- or κε- if the main stem begins with δ- or κ-, respectively) or augmentation (adding an epsilon/ε in front of the "present" tense; _perfect_ is considered a present tense...so one can augment the present to get imperfect, and augment the perfect, which has already been reduplicated, to get the pluperfect (past perfect)).  It's kind of confusing.

But in short, I would definitely consider the perfect tense of didomi as having been reduplicated, which is typical of Greek perfect tenses, and the present tense as being an irregular present reduplication, possibly off of the aorist.  The -μι ending has nothing to do with the verb to give since there is a whole list of Greek "-μι" verbs.

Also, Sanskrit has _dadami_ for present 1st person.


Brian


PS--how do you get accent marks (and can you get smooth/rough breathing marks...) for the Greek font?


----------



## robbie_SWE

Whodunit said:
			
		

> I know, but do you really it is a coincidence? There are not many Romance language that have copied the word "dare" in some way. But talking about Romance languages: What about the Romanian word "a da" and its 2nd plural present form *daţi*?


 
True, Romanian does have the *"a da".* It's conjugated like this: 

Infinitive: *a da* 

Present: 
_dau_
_dai _
_da_
_dam_
_dati_
_dau_

Imperfect:
_dadeam_
_dadeai_
_dadea_
_dadeam_
_dadeati_
_dadeau_

Can somebody explain this subject please!? I'm sorry to say it, but I don't really get it  ?? 

robbie

dau


----------



## Whodunit

robbie_SWE said:
			
		

> Can somebody explain this subject please!? I'm sorry to say it, but I don't really get it  ??


 
The imperfect and 2nd singular present of Romanian is important to this topic. The old Indo-European stem *dō- was once - who knows when! - double. It can still be found in several languages (Latin: dedi; Lativian: dodu; _see the other posts_). It seems that this phenomenon is also present in Romanian.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Whodunit said:
			
		

> The imperfect and 2nd singular present of Romanian is important to this topic. The old Indo-European stem *dō- was once - who knows when! - double. It can still be found in several languages (Latin: dedi; Lativian: dodu; _see the other posts_). It seems that this phenomenon is also present in Romanian.


I think for *daţi*, that the *ţi* is just the ending and so there's no reduplication. The imperfect forms are interesting because they do look like reduplication but they can't be inherited from Proto-Indo-European because the Latin imperfect didn't have reduplication, with forms like dabam, dabas, etc., unless the Romanian forms have some different source.


----------



## brian

I should also add that the only _true_ surviving reduplication in English, to my knowledge, occurs in the word "did."  _I do_ vs. _I did_.  This has nothing to do with PIE *_do_-, however, since English _do_ comes from PIE *_dhe-_.

The Latin reduplication of _do_ into _dedi_ is certainly irregular and there aren't all that many examples (a lot to be listed, to be sure, but still relatively uncommon).  Some other examples:

_Tango  tetigi (touch)
Disco  didici (learn)
Fallo  fefelli (deceive)
Pello  pepuli (drive)_

All the examples of reduplication for "to give" seem to be _initial_ reduplications.  I wonder if there are any examples of final or internal reduplication, though I guess most examples based of PIE _*do-_ would be initial.  Also interesting is an analysis of full vs. partial reduplication.


Brian


----------



## Outsider

Whodunit said:
			
		

> What about the Spanish "*d*a*d*o" (past participle of "dar")?


I would guess that that past participle (also _dado_ in Portuguese, and I believe _dato_ in Italian) comes from Latin _da*t*um_ (or _da*t*us_?)


----------



## Whodunit

Outsider said:
			
		

> I would guess that that past participle (also _dado_ in Portuguese, and I believe _dato_ in Italian) comes from Latin _da*t*um_ (or _da*t*us_?)


 
You may be right. FYI, both datum and datus are correct (data is correct, too). The difference is just that datum is the neuter form and datus is masculine.


----------



## cajzl

The Italian passato remoto: *diedi, diede, diedero* (from Latin dedi, dedit, dederunt)

Spanish *dado* is from the Latin supin *datum *(no reduplication).

In the Slavic languages the present stem was originally *dad-*

for example: 1. sg. *dam* < *dadm *


----------



## Pivra

<p>In Sanskrit its da- and &quot;dan&quot; means alm.</p>


			
				modus.irrealis said:
			
		

> (Vedic) Sanskrit also seems to have reduplicated forms (not surprising I guess). I can't say much, but I notice forms like dadati "he gives" in the present tense but aorist and future forms don't seem to show reduplication.


This reminds me of the verb si- which turns into "sete" when conjugated too for middle voice third person singular. 

 Does the duplication here depend on whether the verb is thematic or a thematic?


----------

