Gothic (Indo‑European, Germanic)

The small class of so-called preterite present verbs have present tense forms which are morphologically (and diachronically) past tense forms.

1 Background

Present and preterite (past) tenses are distinguished by a number of morphological characteristics.

• In one class of verbs (the weak verbs), the preterite has suffix (a dental consonant), e.g. haba 1sg.prs.ind ~ habaida 1sg.pret.ind 'have'.
• In the other class of verbs (the strong verbs), there is a stem vowel alternation (ablaut) between present and preterite, e.g. greipa 1sg.prs.ind ~ graip 1sg.pret.ind 'grip'. In addition, there is ablaut between the the singular and plural forms of the preterite indicative, e.g. graip 1sg.pret.ind ~ gripum 1pl. pret.ind 'grip'.
• The endings of the indicative are quite distinct between present and preterite (see below).
• The vowel of the subjunctive endings are largely distinct.

2 Deponency in Gothic

The so-called preterite present verbs have present tense forms which are morphologically identical to the preterite of strong verbs. (In the preterite, they are treated as weak verbs.)

• The reflex of the preterite dental suffix in witan (-s-) is the result of a Common Germanic sound change (dental + t → ss); Wright 1910: 66-67)
• The 2nd singular preterite indicative ending of witan is -eis, corresponding to the weak subjunctive, rather than the expected -es. Since there is only one attestation of this form, it's not clear whether this was systematic (Birkmann 1987: 100). Other preterite presents show the expected ending: kunþes 'you knew'

The following are the preterite presents with the most extensively preserved paradigms, illustrated with a few key forms:

The patterns of vowel ablaut in the present forms of the first 6 verbs match those found in the preterites of strong verbs; thus wait ~ witum like baiþ ~ bidum 'awaited', and skal ~ skulum or þarf ~ þarbum like band ~ bundum 'bound' (note that a ~ u and a ~ au represent the same alternation: graphic au (representing /o/) is an allophone of u before root-final -r (Birkmann 1987: 93)).

3 Diachrony

The preterite is a reflex of the Indo-European perfect, a present tense (or tenseless) form typically with a stative-resultative value, and in some cases with an intensive or iterative value (Szemerényi 1989: 317). In Germanic, it developed into a simple past tense. The preterite presents presumably represent lexicalized relics of functions of the perfect which predated its development. This is fairly obvious in the case of witan 'know', related to the Indo-European root 'see' ('I have seen' = 'I know') (Birkmann 1987: 66-67); parallel formations are found in most branches of Indo-European (Jasanoff 2003: 228-233). In the case of the other verbs one can only speculate about the semantic justification for the perfect form, but in any case, plausible arguments can be made (Birkmann 1987: 68-85)

All the Germanic languages retain a distinct class of verbs that corresponds to the preterite presents, typically specialized as modals. However, the preterite presents and regular preterites have drifted apart in the modern languages. For example, in West Germanic, the preterite presents remain unaffected by certain innovations undergone by the preterites, e.g. the new 2nd singular ending -e / -i of Old English and Old High German, or the loss of singular~plural ablaut (in Modern German). In Icelandic, the vocalic portion of the preterite present endings now matches that of the normal presents. This affects the 2nd and 3rd plural: thus kunnⁱð 'you can', kunn^a 'they can' like gjaldⁱð 'you pay', gjald^a 'they pay', not guld^uð 'you paid', guld^u 'they paid' (Enarssson 1945: 96, 103). This shows that the preterite presents are no longer morphologically derivable from the preterites.

References

Birkmann, Thomas. 1987. Präteritopräsentia. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

Einarsson, Stéfan. 1945. Icelandic. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Jasanoff, Jay. 2003. Hittite and the Indo-European verb. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Szemerényi, Oswald. 1989. Einführung in die vergleichende Sprachwissenchaft. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

Wright, Joseph. 1910. Grammar of the Gothic language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.