# The most suppletive words



## Dymn

Hi,

This thread is about the most suppletive words in your language, i.e. the words whose inflections come from the most diverse roots.

----

In *English*, the most suppletive word I can think of comes from three or four roots.

_Be:_

The _b- _forms (_be, been, being_) derive from PIE _*bʰúHt_ ("to become")
The _w- _forms (_was, were_) derive from PIE _*h₂wes-_ ("to dwell, stay")
Forms like _is _and _am _come from PIE _*h₁ésti_ ("to be")
According to Wiktionary _are _is ultimately from PIE _*er-_ ("to rise, move") but I think Etymonline claims it comes from the third root.
There's also _good_:

_Good_
_Well_, from Proto-Germanic _*wela _("as wished", cf. _will_)
_Better/best_, which apparently already was the suppletive comparative at the time of Porto-Germanic, ultimately from PIE _*bhAd-_
_-----
_
In *Catalan*, I think _ésser/ser _("to be"; conj here) could have from three to four roots:

The _-s- _forms come from PIE _*h₁ésti_, like English _is_
The _f- _forms come from PIE _*bʰúHt_, like English _be_
The participle _estat _comes from the verb _estar _("to be (temporarily), stay"), from Latin _stare _("to stand"), from PIE _*steh₂-_
I don't know whether the _er- _forms, which date back to Latin _essere_, are ultimately suppletive. Any etymologist 'round here?
Other highly suppletive words are:

_Anar_ "to go" (conj here):

The _an- _forms come from Latin _ambulare _("to walk")
The _v- _forms are from Latin _vado_
The _anir- _stem of the future and conditional tenses seems influenced by Latin _ire, _in fact some dialects still use _iré _instead of _aniré _("I'll go")
_Dolent _"bad":

_Dolent_, used after nouns, initially meant "hurting", from Latin _dolere _("to hurt")
_Mal_, used before nouns, Latin _malus _("bad")
_Pitjor_, the comparative form, Latin _peior _("worse")
----

In *Spanish* the verb _ser _"to be" (conj here) is also highly suppletive, with at least the infinitive _ser_ coming from Latin _sedere _"to sit", the _-s- _and the _f- _forms, and the possible _er-_? So three or four different roots.

The verb _ir _"to go" (conj here) has three distinct roots too (_i-_, _v-_, _f-_), instead of forms coming from _ambulare_, it has _f- _forms from _ser _(the past simple of _ser _and _ir _are the same).

----

I know, long post , anyway, how about your language(s)?


----------



## Ghabi

This is rare in Arabic. I'm only aware of a few examples:

امرأة imra2a "woman" ~ نساء nisaa2 "women"
خلد khuld "mole" (the animal) ~ مناجذ manaajidh "moles"
جاء/يجيء jaa2/yajii2 "he came/comes" ~ تعال ta3aala "Come!"


----------



## Red Arrow

Dymn said:


> H_Be:_
> 
> The _b- _forms (_be, been, being_) derive from PIE _*bʰúHt_ ("to become")
> The _w- _forms (_was, were_) derive from PIE _*h₂wes-_ ("to dwell, stay")
> Forms like _is _and _am _comes from PIE _*h₁ésti_ ("to be")
> According to Wiktionary _are _is ultimately from PIE _*er-_ ("to rise, move") but I think Etymonline claims it comes from the third root.


Same with Dutch:
1. ben, bent
2. was, waren, waart, wees, geweest
3. is
4. zijn, zij, zijt, zijnde (apparantly also from PIE _*h₁ésti)_



> There's also _good_:
> 
> _Good_
> _Well_, from Proto-Germanic _*wela _("as wished", cf. _will_)
> _Better/best_, which apparently already was the suppletive comparative at the time of Porto-Germanic, ultimately from PIE _*bhAd-_


Same with Dutch:
1. Goed, goede, goeie
2. Welterusten (Good night, literally 'rest well'), vaarwel (Farewell)
3. Beter, best


----------



## apmoy70

Greek has so many I wonder from where to start, and the pattern is highly irregular and (mostly) unexpected & arbitrary (the pattern in athematic verbs is somewhat easier to decipher). Let me give you a couple of verbs and a couple of nominals:

Thematic v. *«οἶδα» o̯îdă* --> _to know, perceive_ identical with Skt. वेद (veda), _to know_ < PIE *u̯eid- _to see, look, know_.
Present participle: *«ἔγνως» égnōs* identical with Goth. weitwoþs, _witness_.

Athematic v. *«δίδωμι» dídōmĭ* --> _to give_ identical with Skt. ददाति (dadāti), _to give_, Avestan dadāiti (idem) < PIE *deh₃-dh₃- _to give_.
Aorist (active): *«ἔδωκα» édōkă* corresponding directly to the Skt. अदत् (adat) < PIE *h₁e-dōt-
Aorist (medial): *«ἐδόμην» ĕdómēn* (1st p. sing.), *«ἔδοτο» édŏtŏ* (3rd p. sing.) corresponding directly to Skt. आदिता (ádita) < PIE *dh₃-to-

Adj. *«καλός» kălós* --> _beautiful, noble, good_ (with unexplained etymology).
Comparative: *«βελτίων» bĕltíōn* < possibly from PIE *bel- _strong_ cf Skt. बल (bala), _force, stamina_, Rus. большой, _great, important_ & *«καλλίων» kăllíōn* < *καλjος < καλ-
Superlative: *«βέλτιστος» béltistŏs* < *bel- + *-ist(h₂)o- cf Proto-Germanic *-istaz > Ger. -st, Eng. -est & *«κάλλιστος» kắllistŏs*

Adj. *«μέγας» mégas* --> _great, big, large_ < PIE *meǵ-h₂- _much, many_
Comparative: *«μείζων» me̯ízōn* < *μεγjων < μέγας
Superlative: *«μέγιστος» mégistŏs* < *meǵ- + *-ist(h₂)o-


----------



## Dymn

@apmoy70 ,
Are your 2nd and 4th examples really suppletive?


----------



## Messquito

Japanese: 2

ある(has/exist):
1. most of the inflections comes from the infinitive 
2. the negative forms ない & なくて comes from ない, meaning no.

する
1. most of the inflections comes from the infinitive 
2. the potential form できる itself is an infinitive itself meaning "be able to do..."

For more insight, see here.


----------



## Encolpius

I can recall:
Latin, Czech and Ancient Greek: Zeus, Genitive: Dia
Latin verb: feró, past tense: tulí
Czech verb: hnát (to drive) - present tense: ženu, ženeš, žene...
Hungarian verb: jönni (to come) imperative: gyere!
But I think the roots are the same in some cases (I am not a linguist )


----------



## apmoy70

Dymn said:


> @apmoy70 ,
> Are your 2nd and 4th examples really suppletive?


Well maybe they're not the "most" suppletive but they're definitely irregular, for one the athematic verbs lose their reduplication in the perfect tense, which is retained in present tense (thematic verbs work the exact opposite, reduplication is common in perfect tense, it consists of the repetition of the root, either complete or abbreviated).
As for the second adjective, you may have a point I should have used the example given by Encolpius:
*«Ζεύς» Ze̯ús* (masc. nom. sing.) --> _(god) Zeus_ < PIE *die̯u- _heaven, daylight_ cf Skt. द्यु (dyu), _heaven_, Hitt. šiu- _god_, Lat. Iovis (masc. gen. sing. of Iūpiter). 
*«Διός» Dĭós* (masc. gen. sing.) < *Διϝός, perfectly corresponds to Skt. दिवः (diváh), & *«Ζηνός» Zēnós* (masc. gen. sing.) < PIE *die(u)m-


----------



## bibax

Encolpius said:


> Czech verb: hnát (to drive) - present tense: ženu, ženeš, žene...
> ...
> But I think the roots are the same in some cases (I am not a linguist )


Both forms are from the same root: 

infinitive stem forms: **gen-* >  *gъn-a-ti, gъn-a-lъ, etc. > Cz. hnáti, hnal, etc.
present stem forms: **gen-* > *žen-ѫ, žen-e-š, etc. > Cz. ženu, ženeš, etc.

(ъ is a back wovel, e is a front wovel, hence the difference g/ž; ѫ was pronounced [ ɔ̃] - nasal o)

If Czech were a Romance language the spelling would be _gnati, genu._


----------



## ger4

German:  'to be'



Dymn said:


> 1. The _b- _forms (_be, been, being_) derive from PIE _*bʰúHt_ ("to become")


_bin_ -1.SG, present indicative


Dymn said:


> 2. The _w- _forms (_was, were_) derive from PIE _*h₂wes-_ ("to dwell, stay")


_war_ - 1.SG, preterite indicative
+ all derived forms of _war_, including _gewesen_, past participle, _wäre_, conditional (so-called 'Konjunktiv II')
(alternation s <> r)


Dymn said:


> 3. Forms like _is _and _am _come from PIE _*h₁ésti_ ("to be")


_ist_ - 3.SG, present indicative
_sind_ - 1.PL, 3.PL present indicative
_seid_ - 2.PL pres ind, imperative PL
_sein_ - infinitive
_sei_ - imperative sg, subjunctive ('Konjunktiv I')

_bist_ - 2.SG, present indicative - is thought to be a combination of roots 1 and 3


----------



## ilocas2

Encolpius said:


> I can recall:
> Latin, Czech and Ancient Greek: Zeus, Genitive: Dia
> Latin verb: feró, past tense: tulí
> Czech verb: hnát (to drive) - present tense: ženu, ženeš, žene...
> Hungarian verb: jönni (to come) imperative: gyere!
> But I think the roots are the same in some cases (I am not a linguist )



Hello, the forms I highlighted are from the same root.


----------



## Encolpius

Yes, I had the same feeling and Francis would say and prove my Hungarian examples bad, too. There are regional variants of jönni egy gyere which could prove they are of the same root (jönni (gyönni), gyere (jer)]


----------



## Kotlas

In Russian, there are a number of suppletive words, and it's hard to choose the "winner" in this contest.
I think the contenders might be:
the verb to go *идти*: its past tense form is *шел* (similar to English go - went)
the numerals *один - первый* (one - first), *два - второй* (two - second)
the imperfective and perfective aspects of the verbs
*брать — взять          *(to take - to have taken)
*ловить — поймать*   (to catch - to have caught)
*класть — положить*    (to put - to have put).


----------



## Gavril

The word for "person" has a tendency to be suppletive: see this thread.

I also think that _*often*_ (adverb) vs. _*frequent*_ (adjective) and _*frequency*_ (noun) might qualify as an example of suppletion.


----------



## Kotlas

Some linguists claim that the terms for male/female animals and their young of some species may qualify, too.
For example, these Russian words:
бык — корова — теленок    (bull - cow - calf);
баран — овца — ягнёнок    (ram/tup - ewe - lamb);
кабан — свинья — поросёнок  (boar - sow - piglet);
конь — кобыла — жеребёнок (horse/stallion
- mare - foal);
петух — курица — цыплёнок (rooster - hen - chicken).


----------



## franknagy

Encolpius said:


> I can recall:
> 
> Hungarian verb: jönni (to come) imperative: gyere!
> But I think the roots are the same in some cases (I am not a linguist )


Hungarian
To be: Infinitive: *lenni*, Present* van,* Past* volt*, Future *lesz*.


----------



## Kotlas

Russian:
Country: *Германия* [ɡʲɪrˈmanʲɪɪ̯ə] Germany
Person (born or living in Germany): *немец* [ˈnʲemʲɪt͡s] German


----------



## franknagy

гитлерист, фриц


----------



## Frieder

franknagy said:


> гитлерист, фриц


Hitlerist and Fritz? Really?


----------



## Dymn

Gavril said:


> I also think that _*often*_ (adverb) vs. _*frequent*_ (adjective) and _*frequency*_ (noun) might qualify as an example of suppletion.





Kotlas said:


> бык — корова — теленок (bull - cow - calf);
> баран — овца — ягнёнок (ram/tup - ewe - lamb);
> кабан — свинья — поросёнок (boar - sow - piglet);
> конь — кобыла — жеребёнок (horse/stallion
> - mare - foal);
> петух — курица — цыплёнок (rooster - hen - chicken).





Kotlas said:


> Country: *Германия* [ɡʲɪrˈmanʲɪɪ̯ə] Germany
> Person (born or living in Germany): *немец* [ˈnʲemʲɪt͡s] German



I'm not sure if the concept of suppletion can be applied so airily to derivations, as opposed to inflections.


----------



## Kotlas

Dymn said:


> I'm not sure if the concept of suppletion can be applied so airily to derivations, as opposed to inflections.


Probably you are right, but I guess some linguists interpret this concept way too broadly.



Frieder said:


> Hitlerist and Fritz? Really?


During WW Two, Russian soldiers often referred to Germans as фрицы (and I believe Germans sometimes referred to a Russian as Iwan). Another term used by Russians was гитлеровцы "hitlerites" (not гитлеристы - I've never heard that one). However, гитлеровцы _hitlerites_ was only the fourth choice, after немцы Germans and фашисты fascists. But that was during the war and probably in some early postwar years. I think that now even war veterans in Russia refer to Germans as немцы while reminiscing about those days.


----------



## Gavril

Dymn said:


> I'm not sure if the concept of suppletion can be applied so airily to derivations, as opposed to inflections.



From what I've read, it's not settled whether there is an absolute line between inflection and derivation to begin with (i.e. whether the distinction between inflection and derivation is "either/or", as opposed to a continuous scale).

I think "suppletion" is any situation where affixation/infixation involves substitution of a different base.


----------



## elroy

Ghabi said:


> جاء/يجيء jaa2/yajii2 "he came/comes" ~ تعال ta3aala "Come!"


يجيء is rare, like جئ.

The following are common:
جاء، أتى
يأتي
تعال

ائت is also rare, except for the structure ائتني بكذا (“Bring me x.”)

For the active verbal participle, جائٍ is … well, I guess rare, but I’ve never actually encountered it used.  آتٍ is what I’ve always encountered/used.

On the other hand, for the gerund, مجيء is super common, while إتيان is rare.

“come” is a mess in Arabic! 



Ghabi said:


> خلد khuld "mole" (the animal) ~ مناجذ manaajidh "moles"


I had no idea!!!  That’s bizarre. 

*Polish*:

This is the present tense conjugation of jesteć, to be:

jestem
jesteś
jest
jesteśmy
jesteście
*są   *


----------



## Penyafort

Dymn said:


> In *Catalan*, I think _ésser/ser _("to be"; conj here) could have from three to four roots:
> 
> The _-s- _forms come from PIE _*h₁ésti_, like English _is_
> The _f- _forms come from PIE _*bʰúHt_, like English _be_
> The participle _estat _comes from the verb _estar _("to be (temporarily), stay"), from Latin _stare _("to stand"), from PIE _*steh₂-_
> I don't know whether the _er- _forms, which date back to Latin _essere_, are ultimately suppletive. Any etymologist 'round here?



In response to 4, I don't think it is. To me, that is just a case of rhotacism (/z/→/r/). Past *_esam_ and future *_eso_ being from the same root as _est_ but becoming _eram_ and _ero _due to change of intervocalic s into r. This pattern was kind of regular in Old Latin (_flōs_ _flōsis _→ _flōs_ _flōris, etc_).

A claim for a possible PIE _*h₁er- _root is probably unnecessary.


----------



## Awwal12

Kotlas said:


> In Russian, there are a number of suppletive words, and it's hard to choose the "winner" in this contest.
> I think the contenders might be:
> the verb to go *идти*: its past tense form is *шел* (similar to English go - went)
> the numerals *один - первый* (one - first), *два - второй* (two - second)
> the imperfective and perfective aspects of the verbs
> *брать — взять *(to take - to have taken)
> *ловить — поймать* (to catch - to have caught)
> *класть — положить* (to put - to have put).


I'm afraid suppletiveness is about different *forms* of the *same* word using different roots, and this thread has largely drifted into a wrong direction; in particular,  most of the verbs above are pretty much different verbs that share a common semantic basis but have different aspects (perfective/imperfective). And, of course, "to have caught" and other similar explanations translate pretty much nothing: perfectives aren't perfects (even though occasionally they can be used as such).

I suppose "to be" still holds the record in Russian: *by*- (in the infinitive and the past tense), *bud*- (in the imperative and the future tense; essentially from the same PIE root, but with a nasal infix which wasn't productive already in Proto-Slavic) and *yest' *(in the present tense; not conjugated and normally omitted as a copula, but used in the existential sense and as an auxiliary verb in some constructions).


Kotlas said:


> Country: *Германия* [ɡʲɪrˈmanʲɪɪ̯ə] Germany
> Person (born or living in Germany): *немец* [ˈnʲemʲɪt͡s] German


To note, I'm afraid no, it doesn't work like that. Немец is basically an ethnic German, whatever country he comes from (e.g. Switzerland or Austria - or Russia, to that matter). For a German national there's германец [ɡʲɪrˈmanʲɪt͡s], though since Germany is almost monoethnic and you rarely need to specify that some person comes from Germany but not from other German-speaking country, it isn't used very often (plus it may bring up unnecessary associations with Germanic peoples in general).


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

Slovene is interesting in this regard. The verb iti 'to go' is conjugated as grem, greš, gre and so on. Past tense is šel. However, if the verb is constructed from prefix and the verb iti in infinitive, then the conjugated verb iti has forms of idem, ideš, ide, which would be natural conjugation. Idem, ideš, ide... forms are present in Slovene dialects.

We have najti 'to find'

It's not najgrem, but najdem


----------



## apmoy70

In Greek the suppletives are in the hundreds and are mostly verbs, here's a small sample:

*«Ἀγορεύω» ăgŏreúō* --> _to speak in the assembly, proclaim_ (Present indicative).
The verb has as Aorist indicative: *«εἶπον» eîpŏn*, Perfect indicative: *«εἴρηκα» eírēkă*, Pluperfect indic.: *«εἰρήκειν» eirḗkein *(for their etymology see «λέγω» below).

*«Βλέπω»* [ˈvle̞.po̞] (MoGr v.) --> _to see < _Classical v. *«βλέπω» blépō* --> _to see, look, perceive_ (of unknown etymology. Beside «βλέπω» exists also «γλέπω» glépō which has survived in some MoGr dialects as «γλέπω» [ˈɣle̞.po̞] or «γλιέπω» [ˈɣʎe̞.po̞]. The variation was taken to suggest an IE origin with labiovelar *gʷ with irregular development, but the variation β/γ is rare. It rather points to substrate origin).
The verb borrows its perfective forms (Aorist (perfective past), Future (perfective non-past)) from the ancient deponent v. *«εἴδομαι» eídŏμαι* --> _to appear, seem, resemble_ (PIE ueid- _to see_), thus:
Perfective past (Aorist): *«είδα»* [ˈi.ða] < Classical Aorist II indicative form *«εἶδον» eîdŏn*, perfective non-past form *«δω»* [ðo̞] (aphetism of the ancient zero-grade Aorist II subjunctive *«ἴδω» ídō*).

*«Ὠνέομαι/ὠνοῦμαι» ōnéŏmai* (uncontracted)/*ōnoûmai* (contracted) --> _to buy, purchase_ (Present indicative). It's a deponent verb with the suppletive Aorist form *«ἐπριάμην» ĕprĭámēn*, borrowed from the archaic verb (found only in Aorist mediopassive infinitive with present active meaning) *«πρίασθαι» príăstʰai* --> _to buy_ (PIE *kʷreih₂- _to buy_ cognate with the Skt.  क्रय (kraya), _to buy_, ToB karyor/ToA kuryar, _to_ _purchase_).

*«Λέ(γ)ω»* [ˈle̞.ɣo̞] and (more common) [ˈle.o̞] (MoGr verb) --> _to say _< Classical v. *«λέγω» légō* --> _to collect, gather, count, recount, say_.
The verb follows the ancient pattern and borrows its perfective past (Aorist) from the ancient Αorist II form *«εἶπον» eîpŏn* > MoGr *«είπα»* [ˈi.pa], and has the perfective non-past form *«πω»* [po̞] (aphetism of the ancient Aorist II active subjunctive *«εἴπω» eípō*).
The ancient verb *«λέγω» légō* had also suppletive Perfect & Pluperfect tenses: *«εἴρηκα» eírēkă* (Prf.) --> _to have spoken_, *«εἰρήκειν» eirḗkein* (Plprf.) --> _to had spoken_. The verb *«εἴρω» eírō* --> _to say, tell_ supplied these forms to «λέγω». *«Εἴρω»* is IE (*uerh₁- with cognates the Rus. врать, _to lie_, Eng. wray).

*«Εἰμί» eimí* --> _to be, exist_. It has suppletive Perfect & Pluperfect tenses, the verb *«γίγνομαι» gígnŏmai* --> _to come into being, become_ supplied the two tenses: *«γέγονα» gégŏnă* --> _to have been_, *«ἐγεγόνειν» ĕgĕgónein* --> _to had been_.

*«Έρχομαι»* [ˈe̞r.xo̞.me̞] (deponent MoGr v.) --> _to come_, has the perfective past (Aorist) suppletive form *«ήλθα»* [ˈil.θa] & with dissimilation *«ήρθα»* [ˈir.θa] < Classical Aorist II *«ἦλθον» êltʰŏn* which is also the suppletive Aorist of the ancient verb *«ἔρχομαι» érkʰŏmai* --> _to come, go_. The rare verb *«ἐλεύθω» ĕleútʰō* --> _to arrive_ (PIE *h₁ludʰét, _to arrive_ < *h₁leudʰ- _to grow up, come out_ cf. Proto-Germanic *leudaną > Is. loðinn, _hairy_, loðna, _hairiness_; Swe. luden, _hairy_) supplied the form. The perfective non-past form of «έρχομαι», *«έλθω»* [ˈe̞l.θo̞] & dissimilated *«έρθω»* [ˈe̞r.θo̞], clearly suggests the syncopic stem *«ἐλθ-» ĕltʰ-* < *«ἐλευθ-» ĕleutʰ-*.

Apologies for my late edit, I corrected some serious mistakes and added more information


----------



## Panceltic

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> Slovene is interesting in this regard. The verb iti 'to go' is conjugated as grem, greš, gre and so on. Past tense is šel. However, if the verb is constructed from prefix and the verb iti in infinitive, then the conjugated verb iti has forms of idem, ideš, ide, which would be natural conjugation. Idem, ideš, ide... forms are present in Slovene dialects.
> 
> We have najti 'to find'
> 
> It's not najgrem, but najdem



Also worth mentioning that the imperative of _iti_ is _pojdi_ (sg), _pojdiva, pojdita_ (du), _pojdimo, pojdite_ (pl). It is also the only verb that has two future forms, a regular _bom šel_ etc., and another: _pojdem, pojdeš_ etc.

In some dialects there is also imperative _idi_ etc., a more regular and expected form.

(Also, it would be »nagrem« in your example, as the -j- is part of the stem, a variant of i- in iti).


----------



## Panceltic

elroy said:


> *Polish*:
> 
> This is the present tense conjugation of jesteć, to be:
> 
> jestem
> jesteś
> jest
> jesteśmy
> jesteście
> *są   *



Not _jesteć_ (no such word), but *być* 

However, this is not suppletion. The original PIE forms (> Proto-Slavic) were:

h₁ésmi (>esmь)
h₁ési (> esi)
h₁ésti (> estь)
h₁smós (> esmъ)
h₁sté (> este)
h₁sénti (> sǫtь)


----------



## elroy

jesteć/być was a _Denkfehler_. 
The other stuff I didn’t know!


----------



## Panceltic

elroy said:


> jesteć/być was a _Denkfehler_.
> The other stuff I didn’t know!



If you look at Slovene, we have _sem, si, je, smo, ste, so (+ sva, sta, sta_ for dual), but in Serbian/Croatian you have both short forms (_sam, si, je, smo, ste, su_) and long/emphatic ones (_jesam, jesi, jest(e), jesmo, jeste, jesu_) so you can see how it all works out in context  Polish seems to have decided not to go for something like _jesą_ which would technically be possible.


----------



## elroy

What about _jes*t*ą_?
Why is _je_ so different from the others?


----------



## Awwal12

Panceltic said:


> However, this is not suppletion.


At least on the synchronous level it may be considered as such.


----------



## se16teddy

Irish boasts only 11 irregular verbs - though arguably this claim places the bar for “irregular” a bit high. 

All 11 are “suppletive”: Irregular Verbs in Irish - Nualéargais

Téigh (= go) is perhaps the champion, with 4 roots that seem entirely unrelated, at least to anyone who has not closely studied their distant etymology. 
Téim - I go
Chuaigh mé - I went 
Ní dheachaigh mé - I did not go
Rachaidh mé - I will go.


----------



## Uncreative Name

I think English "do" is a pretty good example, since it has two future tense forms, "will" and "shall"; neither of which is related to the infinitive.

In Spanish, the best example I can think of is "ir" ("to go"):
1st present "voy" [βoʝ]
1st past "fui" [ɸu̯i]
1st future "iré" [iɾˈe]
1st subjunctive "vaya" [βaʝa]
Progressive "yendo" [ɟ͡ʝendo]

In most Indo-European languages, the first person singular pronoun has a Nominative form completely unrelated to the other forms (English "I" vs. "me" and "my"; Spanish "yo" vs. "me" and "mi"), while other persons often do not (English "thou" and "thee" are related, as are Spanish "tú," "te," "ti," and "tu").  Most popular PIE reconstructions defend this by saying that pronouns don't decline the same as nouns, but the first person singular are the only ones that appear to be completely unrelated roots.

Pretty much all languages have some suppletion or irregularity in the copula (except those languages that have no copula), as well as other commonly-used words like "to go."


----------



## Red Arrow

Uncreative Name said:


> I think English "do" is a pretty good example, since it has two future tense forms, "will" and "shall"; neither of which is related to the infinitive.


This is the first time I hear someone say that to do, to will and to shall are one verb.


----------



## Uncreative Name

Red Arrow said:


> This is the first time I hear someone say that to do, to will and to shall are one verb.


I might actually be wrong about that.  I've heard them analyzed as forms of the same verb before (and not without reason, since they have essentially the same meaning, with different tense information), but they might just be unrelated words.


----------



## pimlicodude

se16teddy said:


> Irish boasts only 11 irregular verbs - though arguably this claim places the bar for “irregular” a bit high.
> 
> All 11 are “suppletive”: Irregular Verbs in Irish - Nualéargais
> 
> Téigh (= go) is perhaps the champion, with 4 roots that seem entirely unrelated, at least to anyone who has not closely studied their distant etymology.
> Téim - I go
> Chuaigh mé - I went
> Ní dheachaigh mé - I did not go
> Rachaidh mé - I will go.


And the verbal noun of that verb is "dul".


----------



## se16teddy

pimlicodude said:


> And the verbal noun of that verb is "dul".


Oops, yes I forgot that! The Irish “verbal noun” roughly speaking performs the functions of both the English -ing form and the English infinitive.


----------

