Although an equation between archeological and linguistic evidence cannot be established with certainty, the Proto-Italic language is generally associated with the Terramare (1700–1150 BC) and Proto-Villanovan cultures (1200–900 BC).[2]
On the other hand, work in glottochronology has argued that Proto-Italic split off from the western Proto-Indo-European dialects some time before 2500 BC.[3][4] It was originally spoken by Italic tribes north of the Alps before they moved south into the Italian Peninsula during the second half of the 2nd millennium BC. Linguistic evidence also points to early contacts with Celtic tribes and Proto-Germanic speakers.[2]
Development
A list of regular phonetic changes from Proto-Indo-European to Proto-Italic follows. Because Latin is the only well-attested Italic language, it forms the main source for the reconstruction of Proto-Italic. It is therefore not always clear whether certain changes apply to all of Italic (a pre-PI change), or only to Latin (a post-PI change), because of lack of conclusive evidence.
Sequences of palatovelars and *w merged with labiovelars: *ḱw, *ǵw, *ǵʰw > *kʷ, *gʷ, *gʷʰ
*p...kʷ > *kʷ...kʷ, a change also found in Celtic.
Labiovelars lose their labialisation before a consonant: *kʷC, *gʷC, *gʷʰC > *kC, *gC, *gʰC.
Obstruent consonants become (unaspirated) voiceless before another voiceless consonant (usually *s or *t).
Voiced aspirates become fricatives. Word-initially, they become voiceless, while they are allophonically voiced word-medially. Judging from Oscan evidence, they apparently remained fricatives even after a nasal consonant. In most other Italic languages they developed into stops later in that position.
*bʰ > *f (medially *β)
*dʰ > *θ (medially *ð)
*gʰ > *x (medially *ɣ)
*gʷʰ > *xʷ (medially *ɣʷ)
*s was also allophonically voiced to *z word-medially.[5]
*θ, *xʷ > *f. Found in Veneticvhagsto/hvagsto (compare Latin faciō). The voiced allophones *ð and *ɣʷ remained distinct from *β in Latin and Venetic, but also merged in Osco-Umbrian.
The laryngeals are a class of hypothetical PIE sounds *h₁, *h₂, *h₃ that usually disappeared in late PIE, leaving coloring effects on adjacent vowels. Their disappearance left some distinctive sound combinations in Proto-Italic. In the changes below, the # follows standard practice in denoting a word boundary; that is, # at the beginning denotes word-initial.[10] H denotes any of the three laryngeals.
The simpler Italic developments of laryngeals are shared by many other Indo-European branches:
*h₁e > *e, *h₂e > *a, *h₃e > *o
*eh₁ > *ē, *eh₂ > *ā, *eh₃ > *ō
*H > *a between obstruents
Laryngeals are lost word-initially before a consonant.
More characteristic of Italic are the interactions of laryngeals with sonorant consonants. Here, R represents a sonorant, and C a consonant.
#HRC > #aRC and CHRC > CaRC, but #HRV > #RV
CRHC > CRāC, but CRHV > CaRV
CiHC and probably CHiC > CīC
Morphology
General loss of the dual, with only a few relics remaining.[11]
[ŋ] was an allophone of /n/ before a velar consonant.
The voiced fricatives [β], [ð], [ɣ], [ɣʷ] and [z] were in complementary distribution with word-initial voiceless fricatives [ɸ], [θ], [x], [xʷ] and [s], and were thus originally simply allophones of each other. However, at some point in the Proto-Italic period, the allophony was somewhat disrupted by the loss of the voiceless allophones [θ] and [xʷ], which merged with [ɸ]. Scholars[who?] disagree on whether to reconstruct Proto-Italic with the phonemes /θ~ð/ and /xʷ~ɣʷ/ still present (hence assuming that the merger with [ɸ] was a later areal change that spread across all extant dialects, possibly occurring simultaneous with or after the loss of the corresponding voiced fricatives), or to reconstruct Proto-Italic with the phonemes' voiceless allophones merged into /ɸ~β/, and their voiced allophones becoming independent phonemes /ð/, /ɣʷ/. Both of these sounds are relatively uncommon cross-linguistically, and eventually they were eliminated in all later languages, but differently in each.
/ə/ was perhaps not a true phoneme, but was inserted before consonants as a prop vowel. It can be reconstructed based on the outcome of the Proto-Indo-European syllabic nasals *m̥ and *n̥, which appear in Latin as *em, *en or *im, *in, but also as *am, *an in Osco-Umbrian alongside *em, *en. Thus, it appears necessary to reconstruct /ə/ as a distinct sound. However, Meiser reconstructs a nasal vowel /ẽ/ as this prop vowel, citing how Old French/ẽ/ evolved to modern French /ɑ̃/ as a parallel.[13]
Osthoff's law remained productive in Proto-Italic. This caused long vowels to shorten when they were followed by a sonorant and another consonant in the same syllable: VːRC > VRC. As the long diphthongs were also VːR sequences, they could only occur word-finally, and were shortened elsewhere. Long vowels were also shortened before word-final *-m. This is the cause of the many occurrences of short *-a- in, for example, the endings of the ā-stems or of ā-verbs.
Prosody
Proto-Italic words may have had a fixed stress on the first syllable, a stress pattern which probably existed in most descendants in at least some periods. In Latin, initial stress is posited for the Old Latin period, after which it gave way to the "Classical" stress pattern. However, fixed initial stress may alternatively be an areal feature postdating Proto-Italic, since the vowel reductions which it is posited to explain are not found before the mid-first millennium BC.[14] Furthermore, the persistence of Proto-Indo-European mobile accent is required in early Proto-Italic for Brent Vine's (2006) reformulation of Thurneysen-Havet's law (where pre-tonic *ou > *au) to work.[15]
Grammar
Nouns
Nouns could have one of three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. They declined for seven of the eight Proto-Indo-European cases: nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, dative, ablative and locative. The instrumental case had been lost. Nouns also declined for number in singular and plural. The dual number was no longer distinguished, although a few remnants (like Latin duo, ambō) still preserved some form of the inherited dual inflection.
o-stems
This class corresponds to the second declension of Latin, basically divided into masculine and neuter nouns. It descends from the Proto-Indo-European thematic declension. Most nouns in this class were masculine or neuter, but there may have been some feminine nouns as well (e.g., names of plants such as Latin "papyrus").
The genitive singular in *-ī is of unknown origin, but is found in both Italic and Celtic. It mostly ousted the older inherited genitive in *-osjo in Latin. The older form is found in a few inscriptions, such as popliosio valesiosio on the Lapis Satricanus, likely rendered as Publii Valerii in classical Latin.[19] It is also continued in some pronominal genitives, such as cuius < *kʷojjo-s < PIE*kʷosjo, with *-s added by analogy with the consonant stem genitive in *-os.[20] In Osco-Umbrian, neither ending survives, being replaced with *-eis, the i-stem ending.
The nominative plural was originally *-ōs for nouns and adjectives, and *-oi for pronominal forms. The distribution in Proto-Italic is unclear, but both endings certainly still existed. The *-ōs ending was replaced altogether in Latin in favour of *-oi, whence the classical -ī. In Osco-Umbrian, the reverse happened, where *-oi was replaced with *-ōs, whence Oscan -ús, Umbrian -us.
In Old Latin, the genitive plural was still generally -om, later -um. It was then reformed based on the ā-stem form *-āzom, giving the classical -ōrum.
Neuter o-stems also had a dual ending -oi (< *-oyh₁), surviving in some Latin relics like caelum "sky", frēnum "bridle" and rāstrum "rake", whose plurals end in -ī instead of -a.[21]
ā-stems
This class corresponds to the first declension of Latin. It derives primarily from Proto-Indo-European nouns in *-eh₂-, and contained mostly feminine nouns, and maybe a few masculines, such as names of jobs in Classical Latin, some of them being loanwords from Ancient Greek (e.g., incola, nauta, poeta).
The accusative singular ending would have been *-am originally, due to shortening of long vowels before final *-m. However, a long vowel is found in the attested forms. This long vowel most likely arose by analogy with the other endings that have a long vowel.[23]
The genitive plural ending was originally a pronominal form, PIE *-eh₂-soHom.
The genitive singular in -s, still used in Old Latin, went extinct in Classical Latin except in the fixed expression "Pater familias".
Consonant stems
This class contained nouns with stems ending in a variety of consonants. They included root nouns, n-stems, r-stems, s-stems and t-stems among others. It corresponds to the third declension of Latin, which also includes the i-stems, originally a distinct class.
Masculine and feminine nouns declined alike, while neuters had different forms in the nominative/accusative/vocative.
Nouns in this class often had a somewhat irregular nominative singular form. This created several subtypes, based on the final consonant of the stem.
For most consonant stem nouns, the ending of the nominative/vocative singular was -s for masculine and feminine nouns. This ending would cause devoicing, delabialisation and/or hardening of the stem-final consonant, as seen in *sniks above. Neuter nouns had no ending.
n-stems generally had the ending *-ō, with the infix *-on- (or maybe *-en-) in the other cases; e.g., PIt *sermō, sermōnes, in which *-mō derives from PIE *-mō < **-mons. On the other hand, neuters had *-ən in the nom/voc/acc singular, while the stem of the remaining forms is unclear. An example is *kreimən, *kreimənVs, from PIE *kréymn̥, in which -mn̥ is related to **-mons.
r-stems had *-ēr, alternating with *-(e)r-. The alternation in vowel length was lost in Latin, but is preserved in Oscan.
s-stems had *-ōs (for masculines and feminines) or *-os (for neuters). This alternated with *-ez- (or maybe *-oz- in some masculine/feminine nouns) in the other forms.
The r/n-stems were a small group of neuter nouns. These had *-or in the nominative/vocative/accusative singular, but *-(e)n- in the remaining forms.
Other notes:
The genitive singular had two possible endings. Both are attested side by side in Old Latin, although the ending -es/-is may also be from the i-stems (see below). In Osco-Umbrian, only the i-stem ending -eis is found.
The Latin masculine nominative plural ending -ēs (with a long vowel) was taken from the i-stems.
The neuter nominative/vocative/accusative plural originally had short *-a as the ending, or lengthening of the vowel before the final consonant. Already in Italic, this was replaced with the o-stem ending *-ā.
The dative (and ablative/locative?) plural ending would have originally been added directly to the stem, with no intervening vowel. In Latin, there is an intervening -e- or -i-, while in Osco-Umbrian the ending is replaced altogether. It's not clear what the Proto-Italic situation was.
i-stems
This class corresponds to the nouns of the Latin third declension that had the genitive plural ending -ium (rather than -um). In Latin, the consonant stems gradually merged with this class. This process continued into the historical era; e.g. in Caesar's time (c. 50 BC) the i-stems still had a distinct accusative plural ending -īs, but this was replaced with the consonant-stem ending -ēs by the time of Augustus (c. AD 1). In Proto-Italic, as in the other Italic languages, i-stems were still very much a distinct type and showed no clear signs of merging.
Masculine and feminine nouns declined alike, while neuters had different forms in the nominative/accusative/vocative.
There were apparently two different forms for the genitive singular. The form -eis is found in Osco-Umbrian. However, -es appears in early Latin, while there is no sign of *-eis. This could reflect the consonant-stem ending, but it could also come from *-jes.[30] Compare also *-wos of the u-stems, which is attested in Old Latin, and may represent a parallel formation.
The original form of the neuter nominative/vocative/accusative plural was *-ī, from PIE *-ih₂. Already in Italic, this was extended by adding the o-stem ending to it, thus culminating into either *-īā or *-jā.
u-stems
This class corresponds to the fourth declension of Latin. They were historically parallel to the i-stems, and still showed many similar forms, with j/i being replaced with w/u. However, sound changes had made them somewhat different over time.
The neuter nominative/vocative/accusative singular must have originally been short *-u, but in Latin only long -ū is found. It is unclear what the origin of this could be. It may be a remnant of a dual ending, considering that neuter u-stems were rare, and the few that survived tended to occur in pairs.[34]
Like the i-stems, the u-stems had two possible types of genitive singular ending, with an unclear distribution. *-ous is found in Oscan, and it is also the origin of the usual Latin ending -ūs. However, the Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus inscription attests senatvos, and the ending -uis (from *-wes) is also found in a few sources.[35]
The masculine/feminine nominative/vocative plural is not securely reconstructable. Latin -ūs seems to reflect *-ous, but from PIE *-ewes the form *-owes (Latin *-uis) would be expected. The ending is not attested in Osco-Umbrian or Old Latin, which might have otherwise given conclusive evidence.[36]
The original form of the neuter nominative/vocative/accusative plural was *-ū. Already in Italic, this was extended by adding the o-stem ending to it, like in the i-stems, thus culminating in either *-wā or *-ūā.
Adjectives
Adjectives inflected much the same as nouns. Unlike nouns, adjectives did not have inherent genders. Instead, they inflected for all three genders, taking on the same gender-form as the noun they referred to.
Adjectives followed the same inflectional classes of nouns. The largest were the o/ā-stem adjectives (which inflected as o-stems in the masculine and neuter, and as ā-stems in the feminine), and the i-stems. Present active participles of verbs (in *-nts) and the comparative forms of adjectives (in *-jōs) inflected as consonant stems. There were also u-stem adjectives originally, but they had been converted to i-stems by adding i-stem endings onto the existing u-stem, thus giving the nominative singular *-wis.
From Proto-Indo-European, the Proto-Italic present aspect changed in a couple of ways. Firstly, a new past indicative suffix of *-β- was created. This likely occurred due to the elision of word-final *i within the Indo-European primary verb endings (E.g. PIE Present Indicative *h₁ésti > PIt *est, but also PIE Past Indicative *h₁ést).[citation needed] The PIE dual person was also lost within Proto-Italic verbs just as it was in Proto-Italic nouns.[citation needed]
Sigmatic forms
Proto-Italic may have developed a type of sigmatic future formation, which is itself possibly reflected in the Old Latin and Sabellic sigmatic futures. For instance, compare the Old Latin sigmatic future form faxō to the standard Classical Latin non-sigmatic future faciam.[40] The ultimate source of the sigmatic forms is unclear.[41] The linguist Reiner Lipp suggests that the s-infix future in Proto-Italic continued an originally athematic paradigm, arguing that the Old Latin sigmatic aorist subjunctive forms (i.e. faxim, faxis, etc) reflect the Proto-Indo-European athematic optative infix *-ih₁-.[42][43] The possibly s-future forms in Sabellic also may display athematic inflectional endings, such as in the Oscan and Umbrian future form fust,[42] which Lipp argues may reflect an older Proto-Italic from *fū-s-ti.[44] Despite the possible athematic origins of certain forms, the sigmatic future paradigm in Old Latin was broadly thematic, perhaps indicating that it underwent a partial thematicization process in Proto-Italic,[45] before eventually becoming completely thematicized during the transition into Old Latin.[46] However, the linguist Tobias Søborg argues that the Sabellic s-future could have emerged due to the syncope of an earlier thematic paradigm, thereby allowing for a stronger connection between the two Italic subbranches. In support of his theory, Søborg cites the Umbrian future form eest, which he derives from an earlier thematic term *h₁éyset(i).[47]
Synchronically, sigmatic futures can be understood as the combination of the stem of the perfect passive participle, the s-infix, and the inflection endings (e.g. ius-sus and iussō).[48] Newer sigmatic futures may have formed according to this model. For instance, the verb rumpō produces the sigmatic future rupsō, which perhaps lost the -m- due to the influence of the participle ruptus.[49] Lipp argues that this pattern must have begun producing innovative formations already by the pre-Proto-Italic period. For instance, the Old Latin sigmatic future term noxō may derive from the medial syncope of an earlier form *noke-s-, itself possibly formed from Proto-Italic *nokeō.[50] However, the Sabellic s-future may have been formed directly to the present stem and not to a stem deprived of any markers of present tense. For example, the Oscan s-future didest was possibly formed from the stem of Proto-Italic *didō. Thus, the Sabellic and Latin sigmatic futures may reflect separate Proto-Italic paradigms, although Lipps suggests that the s-futures in Sabellic derive from the same source as the Latin sigmatic forms and merely underwent a post-Proto-Italic remodeling.[51]
The linguist Michiel de Vaan posits that the source for both the Latin and Sabellic sigmatic futures may have been Proto-Indo-European suffix *-(e)s-, which perhaps could form either athematic hysterokinetic zero-grade presents or athematic lengthened e-grade aorists.[52] According to de Vaan, the sigmatic form faxō may reflect a pre-form *fak-es-, which de Vaan suggests is also attested in Latin facessō.[53] In Sabellic, this suffix may have become generalized as the standard future-forming morpheme affixed to the present stem of a verb, perhaps resulting in terms such as Oscan pertemest and Umbrian ferest.[52][54] Based on this model, the linguist Frederik Kortlandt postulates that the Osco-Umbrian term fust reflects Proto-Italic *fu-es-/*fu-s-,[55] although Lipp argues that this paradigm should regularly produce *fuw-es-t in Sabellic. Furthermore, the existence of such a suffix in Proto-Indo-European is contentious due to a lack of comparative evidence.[56]
The Old Latin sigmatic future has been related to a Proto-Indo-European s-desiderative suffix.[40] There is semantic precedent in other Indo-European languages for a shift from a desiderative to a future meaning—compare the Ancient Greek s-future, such as in the Ancient Greek future form δήξομαι ("dḗxomai"),[57][58] which may derive from the desiderative suffix *-(h₁)seti.[59] However, the philologist Wolfgang de Melo argues that a desiderative origin should produce a simple future tense without aspectual markers.[60] Lipp suggests that the Old Latin sigmatic future tense may have been characterized by the terminative aspect, meaning that it potentially described actions which were to be completed in the future (e.g. "will get it done").[41] According to Lipp, the terminative meaning of the Latin sigmatic future may have naturally evolved from the Proto-Indo-European desiderative,[40] which possibly described motion towards the completion of an action (e.g. "going to do").[41] Morphologically, a derivation from the suffix *-(h₁)seti is problematic: Søborg notes that the Latin terms show no evidence of the laryngeal, although this irregularity could itself be explained if the paradigm was generalized based on terms in which the laryngeal was lost due to the presence of obstruents in the stem.[59] Furthermore, non-aoristic sigmatic formations in other Indo-European language generally require the e-grade of the root, whereas the Latin s-future often shows the zero-grade.[61]
No other Indo-European cognates provide a clear morphological match for the sigmatic future in Latin.[62] In Old Irish and Vedic Sanskrit there is evidence for a thematic zero-grade paradigm with initial reduplication and a sigmatic suffix (see Sanskrit cíkitsati), although de Melo argues that the lack of reduplication in Latin and the indications of an originally athematic paradigm complicate a possible connection between these terms.[63] Kortlandt argues that the Old Irish s-subjunctive holds athematic origins and thus may serve as a parallel to the Latin s-future. Moreover, Kortlandt connects the future forms in East Baltic, which he argues to have derived from an earlier subjunctive paradigm,[64] and the Tocharian s-future, which may represent a thematicized class of formerly athematic sigmatic verbs.[65] The linguists Jeremey Clackson and Geoffrey Horrocks argue that the sigmatic future and aorist in Latin may simultaneously derive from aorist and desiderative formations, whose morphology and semantics were merged and levelled as their origins were obfuscated by extensive phonological shifts.[66]
The sigmatic future indicative may have derived from the subjunctive of a Proto-Indo-European sigmatic aorist, and the Latin sigmatic aorist subjunctive may have derived from the optative of a Proto-Indo-European sigmatic aorist.[51] If this theory is accepted, then the first sigmatic forms may have emerged prior to the aorist-perfect merger in Latin.[67] Certain verbs in Latin such as serpō contain both sigmatic perfects and futures, perhaps indicating that—at least with these terms specifically—the s-futures are older formations that may have been modeled after the Proto-Italic aorist.[49] However, the Proto-Indo-European sigmatic aorist required the lengthened e-grade, whereas Latin sigmatic perfects generally reflect the zero-grade.[68][69] For instance, the most frequently attested Latin sigmatic future, faxō, derives from the root *dʰeh₁-k-, whose expected sigmatic aorist *dʰḗh₁kst would regularly produce Proto-Italic *fēks- not *faks-.[61] Additionally, the verb faciō has a perfect form fēcī that itself most likely reflects a root aorist. It is possible that Proto-Italic may have preserved both an s-aorist and a root aorist; such a development would not be unparalleled in Indo-European as other languages such as Ancient Greek can also continue both types of aorist. Nevertheless, de Melo still argues that it is unlikely Latin would continue both root and sigmatic aorists.[69]
The conflict between sigmatic forms such as faxō and perfects based on older root aorists such as fēcī may also be resolved if the former type was an innovative formation not directly based on a Proto-Italic aorist.[70] Alternatively, de Melo proposes that lengthened grade aorists (i.e. "*dḗyḱst"), which also had a secondary full-grade stem (i.e. *déyḱsn̥t"), may have shortened according to Osthoff's law, thereby removing the distinguishing feature between the aorists and full-grade thematic presents (i.e. Proto-Italic *deikō). This hypothetical development could have caused the aorists to be reanalyzed as sigmatic forms belonging to the present stem. Consequently, when new sigmatic terms were created—such as faxō—they utilized the present stem, and not the aorist.[71] Lipp suggests that the form faxō may have emerged via the addition of the s-suffix to the stem fac- found in the term factus, which is the perfect passive participle to the term faciō.[48]
Lipp disputes the aoristic explanation for the Latin sigmatic future, arguing that the sigmatic forms lack a connection to perfectivity that would be expected should the terms have originated from the aorist.[72] In particular, Lipp cites two passages: "opsecro, ne quid in te mali faxit ira percita." which he translates as "I beseech thee, lest blind rage do in thee some evil," and "ne boa noxit," which he translates as "may a varicose vein not hurt."[73] However, de Melo argues that—in subordinate clauses—the Latin sigmatic future may have functioned similarly to the future perfect tense, which marked actions as occurring prior to a specified point in the future.[60] De Melo notes that—like future perfects—sigmatic forms are typically positioned in conditional clauses dependent upon a main clause with a simple future tense.[74] Furthermore, sigmatic forms are often utilized in tandem with future perfect terms. For example, Plautus writes "Si hercle tu ex istoc loco digitum transvorsum aut unguem latum excesseris aut si respexis," which de Melo translates "By Hercules, if you shall have gone a finger's or a nail's breadth from your place, or if you shall have looked back." In this passage, the future perfect form "excesseris" is situated nearby the sigmatic form "respexis," perhaps implying a similar temporal value.[74] According to de Melo, this future perfect meaning is semantically more easily traceable to the perfective aspect of the Proto-Indo-European aorist rather than any desiderative meaning.[60] Nevertheless, the linguist Davide Bertocci argues that the future perfect meaning of the sigmatic forms contradicts a direct derivation from the Proto-Indo-European aorist, as the expression of anteriority is not exclusively concerned with aspect.[68] Henceforth, Bertocci explains the s-infix as a preterital marker and not an aoristic morpheme.[68]
The sigmatic aorist subjunctive and perfect subjunctive also frequently appear in statements that express specifically prohibitive commands (e.g. "Ne dixis istuc," "do not say that"[75]), although they are not used for other types of hortatory statements. De Melo suggests that this similarity could be explained if the sigmatic and perfect subjunctives shared a common origin. Since the perfect in Latin was most likely produced as a merger of the Proto-Indo-European aorist and stative, and because its usage in non-past prohibitions aligns with the semantics of the aorist, de Melo also postulates an aoristic source for the sigmatic forms in Latin.[76] According to de Melo, the future perfect and perfect subjunctive forms may have once not necessarily expressed anteriority. In support of this theory, de Melo notes the existences of set phrases such as "nē fēcerīs" ("do not do [it]"), which appears to lack a past meaning and instead merely convey a perfective meaning.[77] De Melo postulates that the shift of the future perfect towards expressions of anteriority occurred due to the semantic influence of the standard perfect tense, which usually functioned as a preterite.[76] Nevertheless, de Melo argues that once the future perfect had evolved a specifically anterior meaning, the sigmatic future and aorist forms were—due to their perfective origins—were repurposed to describe non-specifically anterior perfective meanings.[78] According to this theory, the development must have occurred after the Proto-Italic stage, as the standard Classical Latin future perfect tense and perfect subjunctive are both marked by infix -er- (i.e. dīxerō), a suffix of ultimately unclear origin that —due to its absence from Sabellic—certainly could not have appeared before the Proto-Latino-Faliscan stage.[79]
Sample conjugations
First conjugation
This conjugation pattern was derived from the PIE suffix *-eh₂-yé-ti, and formed primarily denominative verbs (I.e. deriving from a noun or an adjective).
The bulk of Proto-Italic verbs were third-conjugation verbs, which were derived from Proto-Indo-European root thematic verbs. However, some are derived from other PIE verb classes, such as *linkʷō (PIE nasal-infix verbs) and *dikskō (PIE *sḱe-suffix verbs).
This conjugation was derived from PIE *ye-suffix verbs, and went on to form most of Latin 3rd conjugation io-variant verbs as well as some 4th conjugation verbs.
Example Conjugation: *gʷen-jo/je- (to come),[84] from earlier *gʷəmjō
Tense
1st. Sing.
2nd. Sing.
3rd. Sing.
1st. Plur.
2nd. Plur.
3rd. Plur.
Present Active Indicative
*gʷenjō
*gʷenjes
*gʷenjet
*gʷenjomos
*gʷenjetes
*gʷenjont
Present Passive Indicative
*gʷenjor
*gʷenjezo
*gʷenjetor
*gʷenjomor
*gʷenjemenai
*gʷenjontor
Past Active Indicative
*gʷenjoβam
*gʷenjoβas
*gʷenjoβad
*gʷenjoβamos
*gʷenjoβates
*gʷenjoβand
Past Passive Indicative
*gʷenjoβar
*gʷenjoβazo
*gʷenjoβator
*gʷenjoβamor
*gʷenjoβamenai
*gʷenjoβantor
Future Active Indicative
*gʷenjesō
*gʷenjeses
*gʷenjest
*gʷenjesomos
*gʷenjestes
*gʷenjesont
Future Passive Indicative
*gʷenjesor
*gʷenjesezo
*gʷenjestor
*gʷenjesomor
*gʷenjesemenai
*gʷenjesontor
Present Active Subjunctive
*gʷenjōm
*gʷenjе̄s
*gʷenjе̄d
*gʷenjōmos
*gʷenjе̄tes
*gʷenjōnd
Present Passive Subjunctive
*gʷenjōr
*gʷenjе̄zo
*gʷenjе̄tor
*gʷenjōmor
*gʷenjе̄menai
*gʷenjōntor
Past Active Subjunctive
*gʷenjesōm
*gʷenjesе̄s
*gʷenjesе̄d
*gʷenjesōmos
*gʷenjesе̄tes
*gʷenjesōnd
Past Passive Subjunctive
*gʷenjesōr
*gʷenjesе̄zo
*gʷenjesе̄tor
*gʷenjesōmor
*gʷenjesе̄menai
*gʷenjesōntor
Active Optative
*gʷenjojam
*gʷenjojas
*gʷenjojad
*gʷenjojamos
*gʷenjojates
*gʷenjojand
Passive Optative
*gʷenjojar
*gʷenjojazo
*gʷenjojator
*gʷenjojamor
*gʷenjojamenai
*gʷenjojantor
Present Active Imperative
*gʷenje
*gʷenjete
Passive Active Imperative
*gʷenjezo
Future Active Imperative
*gʷenjetōd
Participles
Present
Past
Tense
*gʷenjents
*gʷentos
Verbal Nouns
tu-derivative
s-derivative
Type
*gʷentum
*gʷenjezi
Athematic verbs
Only a handful of verbs remained within this conjugation paradigm, derived from the original PIE Root Athematic verbs.
Example Conjugation: *ezom (copula, to be)[85][86]
Tense
1st. Sing.
2nd. Sing.
3rd. Sing.
1st. Plur.
2nd. Plur.
3rd. Plur.
Present Active Indicative
*ezom
*es
*est
*(e)somos
*(e)stes
*sent
Past Active Indicative
*fuβam
*fuβas
*fuβad
*fuβamos
*fuβates
*fuβand
Future Active Indicative
*fuzom
*fus
*fust
*fuzomos
*fustes
*fuzent
Present Active Subjunctive
*ezom
*ezes
*ezed
*ezomos
*ezetes
*ezond
Past Active Subjunctive
*fuzom, *essom
*fuzes, *esses
*fuzed, *essed
*fuzomos, *essomos
*fuzetes, *essetes
*fuzond, *essond
Active Optative
*siēm
*siēs
*siēd
*sīmos
*sītes
*sīnd
Present Active Imperative
*es
*este
Future Active Imperative
*estōd
Participles
Present
Past
Tense
*sēnts
Verbal Nouns
tu-derivative
s-derivative
Type
*essi
In addition to these conjugations, Proto-Italic also has some deponent verbs, such as *ōdai (Perfect-Present), as well as *gnāskōr (Passive-Active).
Examples of verb derivation from PIE in Proto-Italic
During the transition from Proto-Indo-European into the Sabellic and Latino-Faliscan languages, the aorist and perfect merged into a single tense,[87] referred to as the perfect in Latin and Sabellic grammar.[88] In Latin and Sabellic, the perfect tense of a verb is formed via a unique perfect stem to which the inflectional endings are affixed. To form these perfect stems, both Italic branches often reused original aorist or perfect stems.[89] In addition, there were some new innovations within the perfective aspect, with the -v- perfect (in Latin amō, amāvī) and the -u- perfect (moneō, monuī) being later innovations, for example.[citation needed] Latin more typically preserved original sigmatic aorists, such as in the case of dīx-, whereas Sabellic often preserved original root aorists.[89] However, neither Italic branch exclusively preserved one type of aorist or perfect stem:[90] The Latin perfect stem dīx- continues the Proto-Indo-European s-aorist *dḗyḱst,[91] but the perfect stem peper- continues the Proto-Indo-European reduplicated perfect *pepórh₃e,[92] and the perfect stem iēc- continues the full-grade k-aorist *(H)yéh₁kt.[90][93] Moreover, the chosen stems in the two Italic branches are usually opposite: Where Latin continues an original perfect form, Sabellic typically preserves an aorist, and vice versa.[94] According to Rix, if a verb stem is present in both the Latino-Faliscan and Sabellic branches, the present stem is identical in 90% of cases, but the perfect in only 50% of cases.[86]
Due to the vast array of morphological distinctions between the perfect in Sabellic and Latino-Faliscan, it is generally held in the field of Italic linguistics that the aorist-perfect merger was completed independently in the Italic daughter languages, thereby preventing the branches from inheriting one unified system common to Proto-Italic.[88][86] Furthermore, since Latino-Faliscan and Sabellic consistently continue opposite perfect and aorist stems, the linguist Gerhard Meiser argues that most Proto-Italic verbs likely had both perfect and aorist forms. Meiser concludes that—in Proto-Italic—these stems may not have differed significantly in meaning, and thus, a given form was selected for preservation in the daughter languages based on morphology rather than meaning.[94] However, the linguist Reuben Pitts proposes that Old Latin, Faliscan, and the Sabellic languages shared far more morphological similarities than linguists such as Meiser suggest.[95] If these theories are accepted, then this may indicate a later date for the divergences between the Sabellic and Latino-Faliscan perfect systems.[96]
Pitts argues that both Italic clades likely opted for s-aorists in situations where a reduplicated perfect was not phonotactically permissible, particularly forms that lack a syllabic nucleus. For instance, the verb "coquō" bears the s-perfect stem cox- instead of the inadmissible reduplicated perfect form *kʷokʷkʷ-.[97] Similarly, Oscan kúmbened may preserve a thematic aorist, as opposed to the zero-grade reduplicated perfect *gʷegʷn-, which likely would have produced *bobn-. a form without a syllabic nucleus.[98] The Latin verb fingō, though it bears an s-perfect stem finx-, may have once utilized a reduplicated perfect, as shown by the closely related Faliscan term fifiked.[96] Furthermore, long-vowel perfect stems such as ēg- and frēg- also appear in situations in which factors such as vowels or fricatives may have ensured that any reduplicated perfect would be phonologically unacceptable.[99] The Latin verb faciō, which formed a long-vowel perfect stem fēc-, is known to have at one point held a reduplicated perfect stem, as the Praeneste fibula attests to a form fhefhaked. However, this term may have eventually become phonotactically impermissible in Latin, perhaps—according to Pitts—due to rules within Latin concerning fricative reduplication.[100]
Pitts cities further similarities in the long-vowel perfect formations of Sabellic and Latin. In Latin, long-vowel perfects typically display variation between short /ă/ in the present (i.e. faciō) and long /ē/ in the perfect, which—in some cases—regularly derived from a Proto-Indo-European form (i.e. fēc- < "*fēk-" < "*dʰeh₁-k-" ).[101] However, this pattern extended to verbs where the long /ē/ would not have regularly emerged from Proto-Indo-European, such as in the Latin verb capiō, which bears the long-vowel perfect cēp- instead of the expected form "*cāp-." According to Pitts, it is likely that these unusual forms were refashioned after terms such as faciō.[102] Pitts argues that this same sort of analogical remodeling may have affected Oscan, where the long-vowel perfect hipust contains an unexpected /p/ instead of the expected /b/, perhaps due to the influence of a stem like cēp-. He concludes that the presence of similar influences in both Oscan and Latin suggests to a common origin for this shared type of long-vowel perfects.[99]
The linguist Michael Weiss postulates that some Latin long-vowel perfects may originate from Narten-type presents in Proto-Indo-European.[103] In support of the Narten theory, the linguist Jay Jasanoff notes that many long-vowel perfects in Latin derive from roots that form Narten-type presents.[104] For instance, the Old Latin perfect form "surrēg-" attests to an original long-vowel perfect for the verb "regō," which itself derives from the root "*h₃reǵ-," for which a Narten present may be attested in Sanskrit "rā́ṣṭi."[105] An alternative hypothesis holds that long-vowel perfects derive from reduplicated forms in Proto-Indo-European. For instance, the Latin perfect stem ēd- is sometimes interpreted as a descendant of Proto-Indo-European *h₁e-h₁ód-e, although Jasanoff argues instead for a derivation from a Narten present.[106] According to Jasanoff, the reduplication theory is sufficient to explain the Latin forms, although it does not properly explain the existence of other long–ē preterites in the rest of the Indo-European family, thereby implying that a different form served as the common origin.[107]
Future perfect
Outside of the perfect indicative, the perfect system in Latin is marked by an infix -er- before vowels (i.e. dūxerō) and -is- before consonants (i.e. dūxissem).[108] The Sabellic languages, however, utilize the morpheme *-us- to mark their future perfect, which in Umbrian becomes -ur- antevocalically.[108] Both forms are of unclear origin, and both have competing explanations designed to explain their provenance. Traditionally, the Latin morpheme -is- has been related to the iṣ-aorist of Sanskrit (i.e. akāṣīt),[109] although this connection has since been rejected as the Sanskrit form is now regarded as resulting from the interaction an s-suffix and a stem ending in a laryngeal.[110] According to the philologist Helmut Rix, both the Sabellic and Latin morphemes may derive from the univerbation of the Proto-Indo-European suffix *-wós and the verb *ezom. If this theory is accepted, then the Sabellic suffix may be connected to the Oscan future form fust; verbs such as Oscan tribarakattuset may derive from earlier *trēb-ark-ā-t-us-ed, itself possibly from *trēb-ark-ā-t-wos fust.[111] However, the linguist Nicholas Zair notes that this theory relies on the presumed sound change of *-usfust into *-ust, which is otherwise unattested.[112] Furthermore, Søborg argues if such univerbation did occur then, in Latin, the morpheme *-es- should have been retained in medial closed syllables.[113] Rix proposes that *-es- was weakened to *-is- prior to univerbation (i.e. *portāwos izom. not *portāwos ezom), which may explain this discrepancy.[114]
Jasanoff instead compares the Osco-Umbrian future perfect to the future perfect of Ancient Greek, which can be morphologically analyzed as a product of the affixation of the sigmatic marker to the perfect stem. For instance, the Ancient Greek future perfect form τεθνήξω (tethnḗxō) is merely an s-extension of the perfect form τέθνηκᾰ (téthnēkă).[115] According to Jasanoff, it is likely that this type of sigmatic perfect was a common Italic form and probably underlies both the Sabellic and Latin future perfect paradigms.[116] Jasanoff argues that Oscan fust probably originates as a dereduplicated form from earlier *fefust, whose stem may also be attested in Umbrian fefure.[115] However, the identification of fefure as a future perfect term is not uncontroversial, and the word may instead constitute a third-person plural future or a third-person singular imperfect subjunctive form.[117] Regardless, Jasanoff argues that the stem *fefu- was likely inherited from Proto-Indo-European, and it may relate to Sanskrit babhū́va.[115] Alternatively, Kortlandt compares fefure and Oscan fifikus to reduplicated future formations in Old Irish, such as -didsiter.[118] If fefure and fust reflect the same Proto-Sabellic term, then the dereduplication in Oscan may be paralleled by terms such as dicust, which may derive from earlier *dedik-.[119] However, Zair argues that it is unlikely such a development would affect a perfect stem *fefu- as this shift would render the future and future perfect forms identical, thereby encouraging speakers to retain the initial reduplication as a distinctive marker.[120]
According to Jasanoff, the perfect form *fefu- was then suffixed with the sigmatic marker, creating a new future tense with stative value. The new future perfect form *fefust would have—according to Jasanoff—been paralleled by the simple perfect *fefed, which itself may have derived from earlier *fefwed. The *-w- in the latter form may have contributed to a reanalysis of *fefust in which the *-u- was no longer considered part of the stem. Consequently, the ending may have spread to other forms and gradually become generalized as the Osco-Umbrian future perfect marker. If this development is accepted, then perhaps earlier sigmatic futures would have consisted of terms such as *dedikst, which may have then been replaced by new forms such as *dedikust, itself possibly the precursor to Umbrian dersicust.[115] Similarly, Jasanoff proposes that the Latin future perfect emerged from the combination of an s-suffix and the perfect stem followed by the addition of epenthetic*-i- to minimize morphological confusion. For instance, pre-Latin *deikō—which held an s-perfect stem *deiks-—would have formed a future perfect stem *deiks-s-, which would have been modified into *deiksis- to differentiate the term from the identical perfect stem. Afterwards, the term would have evolved into the attested Classical Latin future perfect stem dīxer-. Once this pattern was established, the epenthetic *-i- may have spread to other paradigms that did not originally necessitate the distinguishing marker.[121] Thus, terms such as tangō, whose archaic perfect stem was *tetag-, would have originally held a future perfect stem *tetags-, which may have then been analogically reshaped into *tetagis-, whence tetiger-.[122]
Zair agrees that the Sabellic perfect was likely—within Proto-Sabellic—formed from the addition of a sigmatic suffix to the perfect stem. However, Zair suggests that the sigmatic marker was—at least in certain cases—added onto a perfect stem previously extended by the suffix *-ō, a development which occurred during the post-Proto-Italic period.[123] According to Zair, roots of the shape *C(R)eH- will provide stative forms of the shape *CeC(R)oH-,[124] whose final sequence *-oH may produce Proto-Italic *-ō, which was then reanalyzed as a component of the perfect stem.[123] Thus, terms such as Oscan ϝουρουστ may derive from the reduplicated stative *we-wróh₁-e, itself belonging to the root *wreh₁-.[125] This suffix may have then spread to other forms, such as Umbrian dersicust, which may derive from a pre-form *de-dik-ō-s- that possibly displaced the original perfect form *de-doik-e. The eventual completion of the aorist-perfect merger and the generalization of the aorist inflectional endings to the entire perfect tense in Oscan and Umbrian may have concealed the existence of the ō-perfect class, ensuring that the only remnants of this type survived in the future perfect paradigm.[123] However, South Picene may have uniquely continued the original ō-perfect class, perhaps explaining the existence of South Picene forms such as opsút.[126]
Bertocci argues that the Latin future perfect most likely originated from the sigmatic forms. According to Bertocci, the eventually emergence of the Latin split between the present and perfect systems orphaned the sigmatic forms, which could not be easily assigned to either category.[68] Consequently, the sigmatic terms underwent a reanalysis in which—due to their anterior meaning—they were reassigned to perfect stems, perhaps giving rise to terms such as *fēk-s-, itself modeled after the perfect stem fēc-. This new stem may have been further augmented by the addition of -i-, which Bertocci suggests to have been related to the second-person singular perfect ending -isti. The result of these hypothetical developments would have been forms such as *fēk-i-s-, which may have eventually developed into the future perfect endings.[127]
Conjugation of the aorist
The aorist in Proto-Italic is characterized by the PIE secondary endings connected to the aorist stem by the appropriate thematic vowel. These endings are best attested in Sabellic, where aorist endings generally ousted the perfect ones;[88] Latin instead generalized the perfect endings to its aorist-derived perfects.[88] However, Faliscan preserved the original third-person plural active aorist ending *-ont, which eventually became the third-person plural active perfect ending in Faliscan. The Latin third-person plural active perfect ending, -ērunt, has likewise been interpreted as mix of -ēre and *-ont. Though, Fortson doubts this argument, citing the lack of any inscriptional evidence for the ending *-ont in Early Latin.[89] Minor attestation for the Proto-Italic aorist imperative may appear in the Latin term "cedō," whose latter component, "*dō," presumably reflects a Proto-Italic form that itself derives from the Proto-Indo-European aorist imperative "*déh₃." Likewise, "cette," the plural form of "cedō," may reflect a Proto-Italic form "*-date," itself from the Proto-Indo-European second person plural aorist imperative "*dh₃té."[128]
The following stem formations for the aorist are known:
The simple root aorist, formed by simply attaching aorist endings to an unsuffixed root. If ablaut is available for a root, the root is in the e-grade in the singular and zero-grade in the plural.
The s-aorist, where the root in the e-grade is suffixed with -s- to make the aorist stem.
Aorist conjugations in Proto-Italic
Person and number
Endings
Root aorist *fēk-/*fak- "did, made"
s-aorist *deiks- "said"
1st Sing.
*-om
*fēkom
*deiksom
2nd Sing.
*-es
*fēkes
*deikses
3rd Sing.
*-ed
*fēked
*deiksed
1st Plur.
?
?
?
2nd Plur.
?
?
?
3rd Plur.
*-ond
*fakond
*deiksond
Conjugation of the perfect
The other main type of perfective formation in Italic was the perfect, which was derived from the Proto-Indo-European stative and had its own set of endings.
Perfect stems are created by a reduplication process where a copy syllable consisting of the first consonant of the verb root followed by e is prefixed to the root. In Italic, Vine believes that the root either is in the zero grade or has the same vowel as the present stem, but De Vaan identified at least two perfects with o-grade in the root syllable. Latin and Sabellic also both attest a tendency in which if a root has a semivowel in the middle, this semivowel replaces e in the copy syllable. If a verb root begins in *s followed by a stop consonant, both consonants appear in the copy syllable and the root syllable loses the *s.
Perfect stem formation in Italic
Root
Copy syllable
Root syllable
Perfect stem
Notes
*deh₃- "to give"
*de-
*d-
*ded-
Widely attested across Italic. Zero-grade root *-dh₃- resolves as non-syllabic when preceding a vowel.
*perh₃- "to bring forth"
*pe-
*par-
*pepar-
Reduplication with *e in the copy syllable. Vine claims that the *a in the root syllable is taken from the present stem *parj-;[129] but this is unnecessary, as zero-grade *-prh₃- would yield *-par- anyhow.[92]
*pewǵ- "to prick"
*pu-
*pug-
*pupug-
Semivowel instead of *e in the copy syllable.
*dʰeyǵʰ- "to form"
*θi-
*θiɣ-
*θiθiɣ-
*telh₂- "to bear"
*te-
*tol-
*tetol-
Reduplication with *e in the copy syllable, but oddly, o-grade in the root syllable.
*deḱ- "to take (in)"
*de-
*dok-
*dedok-
Another perfect with o-grade in the root syllable. Corresponding Latin didicī has the copy syllable vowel replaced by i by analogy with present discō "I learn".[130]
The perfect endings in Italic, which only survive in the Latino-Faliscan languages, are derived from the original PIE stative endings, but with an extra -i added after most of them.[131]
An additional suffix -is- of difficult-to-trace origin was added in the evolution of Latin to the 2nd-person endings.
↑ Appears in Plautus, remodelled with -t from the present endings. Replaced by short-vowel -it derived from the aorist endings otherwise.
1 2 Ending reshaped after the present active endings.
↑ Extended by *-ond from the aorist endings to form the usual ending -ērunt.
Post-Italic developments
Further changes occurred during the evolution of individual Italic languages. This section gives an overview of the most notable changes. For complete lists, see History of Latin and other articles relating to the individual languages.
*x debuccalises to [h]. *ɣ similarly becomes [ɦ] between vowels, but remains elsewhere. This change possibly took place within the Proto-Italic period. The result, whether [h] or [ɦ], was written h in all Italic languages. Initial *xl, *xr are reflected (in Latin at least) as gl, gr
*θ(e)r, *ð(e)r > *f(e)r, *β(e)r in all but Venetic. Compare Venetic louder-obos to Latin līber, Faliscan loifir-ta, Oscan lúvfreis.
*β, *ð> Latin b, d. In Osco-Umbrian the result is f (probably voiced) for both. In Faliscan, *β remains a fricative.
*ɣʷ > *gʷ in Latin, which then develops as below. > f in Osco-Umbrian.
*dw > b in classical Latin, although still retained in the archaic (see Duenos inscription)
*kʷ, *gʷ > p, b in Osco-Umbrian. They are retained in Latino-Faliscan and Venetic. In Latin, *gʷ > v[w] except after *n.
*z > r in Classical Latin and Umbrian, but not in Old Latin or Oscan.
Final -ā (fem. sg. nom., neut. pl. nom./acc.) > [oː] in Osco-Umbrian,[a][132] but becomes short -a in Latin.
Final *-ns (acc. pl. of various noun classes), *-nts (masc. nom. sg. of participles), and *-nt (neut. nom./acc. sg. of participles) developed in complex ways:[133]
PItal
Pre-O-U
Oscan
Umbrian
Pre-Latin
Latin
*-ns
*-ns
-ss
-f
*-ns
-s
*-nts
*-nts
-ns
*-nt
*-nts
-ns
—
Latin vowel reduction, during the Old Latin period. This merged many of the unstressed short vowels; most dramatically, all short vowels merged (usually to /i/) in open medial syllables. Furthermore, all diphthongs became pure vowels except for *ai and *au (and occasionally *oi) in initial syllables.
↑ M. de Vaan, Etymological Dictionary of Latin, 2008, Brill, p. 9; B. Vine, 2006: “On ‘Thurneysen-Havet’s Law’ in Latin and Italic”; Historische Sprachforschung 119, 211–249.
↑ Written o in the Latin alphabet, but ú in the native Oscan alphabet, and u or sometimes a in the native Umbrian alphabet. See Sihler 1995:266.
Bibliography
Bakkum, Gabriël C.L.M. (2009), The Latin Dialect of the Ager Faliscus: 150 Years of Scholarship:Part I, Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, ISBN978-90-5629-562-2
Fortson IV, Benjamin W. (2017). "The dialectology of Italic". In Joseph, Brian; Fritz, Matthias; Klein, Jared (eds.). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. De Gruyter.
Jasanoff, Jay (1988), Bammesberger, Alfred (ed.), "PIE* ǵnē–'recognize, know'", Die Laryngaltheorie und die Rekonstruktion des indogermanischen Laut- undFormensystems, Heidelberg
Jasanoff, Jay (2012), "Long-vowel preterites in Indo-European", in Melchert, C. (ed.), The Indo-European Verb
Meiser, Gerhard (2018). "The phonology of Italic". In Brian Joseph; Matthias Fritz; Jared Klein (eds.). Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics. De Gruyter.
Silvestri, Domenico (1998), "The Italic Languages", in Ramat, Anna Giacalone; Ramat, Paolo (eds.), The Indo-European languages, Taylor & Francis Group, pp.322–344
Wallace, Rex (2017). "Italic". In Mate Kapović (ed.). The Indo-European Languages (2nded.). London, New York: Routledge. pp.317–351. ISBN978-1-315-67855-9.
Weiss, Michael L. (2009). Outline of the historical and comparative grammar of Latin. Ann Arbor: Beech Stave Press. ISBN978-0-9747927-5-0.
Weiss, Michael (2012). "Italo-Celtica: Linguistic and Cultural Points of Contact between Italic and Celtic". In Stephanie W. Jamison; H. Craig Melchert; Brent Vine (eds.). Proceedings of the 23rd Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Bremen: Hempen. pp.151–173.
Heidermanns, Frank (2002). "Nominal Composition In Sabellic And Proto–Italic". Transactions of the Philological Society. 100 (2): 185–202. doi:10.1111/1467-968X.00096. ISSN0079-1636.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
Category