# Iranian and Germanic superlative suffix -ista



## CyrusSH

Do they relate to each other? Is it a general IE suffix?


----------



## fdb

A superlative with the IE suffix *-isto- is found in Greek, Germanic and Indo-Iranian (with unexplained aspiration in Skt. -iṣṭha-), but not apparently in the other branches.


----------



## CyrusSH

Thanks, what is the Greek one, also _-ista_?


----------



## fdb

CyrusSH said:


> Thanks, what is the Greek one, also _-ista_?



-istos.


----------



## CyrusSH

In Iranian there is also _-išta_, what is the reason of _s_>_š_ sound change? Compare to Modern Persian _behešt_ "best, paradise" and _naxost_ "first".


----------



## fdb

Have a look at what we discussed here: PIE *geus- & its Persian cognate
esp. no . 7.

MP wahišt is a borrowing from (or at least influenced by) Avestan vahišta-.


----------



## CyrusSH

OK, why the Avestan suffix is -_išta_?


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> OK, why the Avestan suffix is -_išta_?


Ruki sound law - Wikipedia


----------



## fdb

IE -is regularly becomes -iš in Indo-Iranian (ruki law).


----------



## CyrusSH

So the Persian one is actually irregular, of course in this case there could be a Greek influence.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> So the Persian one is actually irregular, of course in this case there could be a Greek influence.


Greek influence on Avestan? That sounds like a very remote possibility.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> Greek influence on Avestan? That sounds like a very remote possibility.



No, on Persian. As fdb said Greek suffix is _-istos_, _š_>_s_ was a regular sound change in Greek.


----------



## fdb

As I wrote in the mentioned link:

"In Middle Persian there is a sporadic (not regular) shift of etymological non-initial -št- to -st-"

It is difficult to imagine how Greek could have had anything to do with this.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> _š_>_s_ was a regular sound change in Greek.


There never was a sound shift _š_>_s_ in Greek. Greek never had _š_.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> As I wrote in the mentioned link:
> 
> "In Middle Persian there is a sporadic (not regular) shift of etymological non-initial -št- to -st-"
> 
> It is difficult to imagine how Greek could have had anything to do with this.



What do you mean by "sporadic"? About this suffix it seems to be regular, except about loanwords, like _wahišt_ that you mentioned, Middle Persian ones have just _-ist_ suffix, such as _bālist_ "highest", _xwālist_ "sweetest", _zošist_ "dearest", _frāist_ "most", _frāhist_ "most abundant", _kasist_ "least", _kamist_ "smallest", _kehist_ "least", _masist_ "largest", _mahist_ "grestest", _nazdist_ "nearest", ...


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> There never was a sound shift _š_>_s_ in Greek. Greek never had _š_.



You can see _š_>_s_ in Greek loanwords from other languages, for the same reason that there was no _š_ in Greek, you can compare it to _p_>_f_ sound change in Arabic, so that Persians call their own language _Farsi_, I'm just talking about influence.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> You can see _š_>_s_ in Greek loanwords from other languages


That is not a sound shift. "Sound shift" would mean that the a word first existed withing Greek with _š _and later changed to _s._
Greeks do not hear the difference between _š _and_ s _and would naturally pronounce both foreign _š _and _s_ as their own Sigma, the realisation of which can actually float freely anywhere between _š _and _s. _The normal realisation of Sigma is an apical _s_, which for speakers of languages that contrast dorsal _s_ and _š_ (like you and me) sounds like a sound in the middle between _s_ and _š_.


----------



## fdb

CyrusSH said:


> What do you mean by "sporadic"? About this suffix it seems to be regular, except about loanwords, like _wahišt_ that you mentioned, Middle Persian ones have just _-ist_ suffix.



Yes, _-ist_ is regular in the superlative suffix in Middle and New Persian. But many other non-superlative words have retained etymological _št._


----------



## PersoLatin

Can someone please provide more Persian example of this suffix, other the ones already mentioned, there don't seem to be many.


----------



## Oranje

fdb said:


> A superlative with the IE suffix *-isto- is found in Greek, Germanic and Indo-Iranian (with unexplained aspiration in Skt. -iṣṭha-), but not apparently in the other branches.


To deal with the others. 

There is no evidence for superlatives in Anatolian except for _-zza-_ in Luwian which is internally innovated from IE positive degree endings. Tocharian has no superlatives although regular-class adjectives in Proto-Tocharian are suffixed with *-ts(e)- in all cases in the positive degree. In Tocharian B, -ts- is palatalised to -s- in the masculine plural and both the singular and plural oblique tenses but preserved elsewhere.

*_-isto-_ is replaced by superlative _*-ismmo-_ in Italo-Celtic, giving Celtic _*-isamos_ and Latin _-issim-_. There are multiple theories as to how this was derived.

Balto-Slavic may once have had a reflex of _*-isto-_ as a superlative but both primary branches have innovated superlative prefixes of uncertain etymology (probably adverbs). A form similar to IE positive seen in Tocharian is fully preserved in Polish as _-iejsz-_ as the original Slavic comparative degree (-ейш- in Russian).


----------



## ahvalj

Oranje said:


> A form similar to IE positive seen in Tocharian is fully preserved in Polish as _-iejsz-_ as the original Slavic comparative degree (-ейш- in Russian).


And what is the continuation of the Indo-European Positive in Tocharian? I can't find information about it, unfortunately.

The Slavic form you mention is the usual Indo-European *_-ı̯es-:_ it could be added either directly to the root or via the morpheme _-ě- _(bearing the dominant acute intonation); in the older texts the simple adjectives were relictually distributed between both variants depending on the prosody of the root (_Дыбо ВА · 2000 · Морфологизированные парадигматические акцентные системы. Типология и генезис. Том I:_ 209–226 — Дыбо ВА · 2000 · Морфологизированные парадигматические акцентные системы. Типология и генезис. Том I.pdf): those with immobile stress (accentual paradigms a and b) chose _-ě-je, _those with mobile stress (accentual paradigm c) chose the simple *_-je,_ e. g. (Nom./Acc. Sg. neutr.):

(a) _dь̋lžaje, pь̋rvěje, sla̋běje, sta̋rěje, či̋stěje, sy̋těje, i̋stěje, pra̋věje, ma̋lěje, mi̋lěje, veli̋čaje, boga̋těje;_
(b) _nově̋je, skorě̋je, bělě̋je, čьrně̋je, ļutě̋je, gъrdě̋je, mǫdrě̋je, ostrě̋je, zъlě̋je, ļubě̋je, cělě̋je, lьža̋je, blizě̋je;_
(c) _*mőldje, *krǫ̋tje, *xűdje, *blě̋dje, *bъ̋rzje, *lě̋pje, *tvь̋rdje, *li̋šje, *dőržje, *gǫ̋stje, *tъ̋lstje, *pűstje, *pa̋čje, *sőldje, *mę̋čje_ (the conventional "Late Common Slavic" forms are given for the accentual paradigm c because of the different outcomes of the iotation across the Slavic continuum).
The morpheme _ě _itself can be perhaps compared with the Germanic_ ō_ in _-ōz-_ and _-ōst-,_ with the difference that in Slavic it precedes the full suffix of the Comparative degree while in Germanic it replaces its initial part.

*P. S.* Meillet compares this with the Greek _σοφῶς → σοφώτερος _alluding to the Slavic adverbs in_ -ě _(thus _dobrě → dobrěje, ļutě → ļutěje_): this can be true if the adverbial ending comes from the acute Instr. Sg. _*-ē < *-ehₑ _(as it can also come from the Loc. Sg.: _vъnъ_ "out" : _vъně_ "outside", in which case it won't fit prosodically).


----------



## Oranje

ahvalj said:


> And what is the continuation of the Indo-European Positive in Tocharian? I can't find information about it, unfortunately.


The best review of Tocharian morphology is Van Windekens (1979). It's very rich. Culmination of four decades of experience in Tocharian philology.



Oranje said:


> Tocharian has no superlatives although *a regular class of adjective *in Proto-Tocharian is suffixed with *-ts(e)- in all cases in the positive degree.



I'll like to make some corrections specifically on Tocharian (was writing from memory). The Tocharian _*-ts(E)-_ positive class has multiple origins according to Van Windekens. He argues that most are derived from the PIE "genitive-ablative". The ending often derives adjectives from nouns. It does not modify degree.

The connection occurred to me because of:
wide: A. _wärts_
big: A. _tsopats_
name of glory ("nom-gloire"): A. _ñom-kälywāts_; A. _ñom-klyu_


----------

