# German: infinitive and past participle suffix "-en"



## 123xyz

Hello everybody,

I'm wondering whether in the German, the infinitive suffix is the same element as the past participle suffix for strong verbs. Obviously, they are both represented by the same phonemic and graphic sequence, namely [-ən]/"-en", but are they etymologically distinct, and so a product of syncretism, or are they a single entity with multiple functions?  

In case I'm not expressing myself very clearly, consider the English words "safe" and "bear". The former has the meanings of "box used to store precious items" and "not dangerous" (among else), whereas the latter has the meanings of "a type of beast" and "to carry" (among else). However, these two words are not parallel, since "safe" is actually one word with multiple meanings (from an etymological point of view), whereas "bear" is two words which happen to have the same pronunciation and graphic representation. 

Approaching the subject from another point of view, if one were to need to explain how the form "gesungen" is derived from the lemma "singen", would one say that the prefix "ge-" is added and the vowel subjected to ablaut, or that the infinitive suffix is stripped, the circumfix "ge-...-en" (or more precisely, the prefix "ge-" and the suffix "-en" are added; they're distinct elements, after all, rather than arbitrary components of a single meaningful circumfix) is added, and the vowel is subjected to ablaut? 

P.S. This question obviously applies to Dutch as well, which has the same suffix fulfilling the same two roles (e.g. zingen > gezongen = singen > gesungen). 

Thank you in advance


----------



## Gavril

The Germanic infinitive suffix is historically -_an_, not -_en_: compare Old English _sing*an*_ "to sing" versus _gesung*en*_ "sung".

As I recall, the infinitive suffix is traced back to IE *-_ono- _(a declinable o-stem noun), whereas the participial suffix is traced back to IE *-_énos_ (a vocalic-stem adjective: note the different accentuation).

It is still possible that Germanic -_an_ and -_en _are ultimately different vowel-grades of the same suffix, but I'm not sure. There are a couple of verbal-noun formations in IE that contain -_*n*_ -- e.g. Icelandic -_un_ (cf. _skipun_ "order, command, arrangement" ~ _skipa_ "to order, arrange"), and Slavic *-_nje_ (cf. Slovenian _spanje_ "sleep, slumber" ~ _spati_ "to sleep") that might be connected to the Germanic infinitive.


----------



## berndf

The ppl suffix is also -an in OHG and that is what people believe to have been the PGrm form as well. To my knowledge, scholarly opinion is that PIE _-ono-_ > PGrm_ -ana-_ is indeed the root of both.
(see e.g. here)


----------



## Gavril

Is Old English the only Germanic language that points toward a contrast between infinitive -_an _and participial -_en_?

Icelandic distinguishes between infinitive -_a_ (_kjósa_ "to choose") and participle -_inn_ (as in _kosinn_ "chosen"), but maybe it is ambiguous whether -_inn _comes from *-_enaz_ or *-_anaz_.


----------



## CyrusSH

In Persian infinitive suffix is also "-an" but by adding to past tense verb, so it can be said it is "-id" (-it) + "-an", for example "par" (fly) -> "parid" (flew) -> "paridan" (to fly).


----------



## berndf

Gavril said:


> Is Old English the only Germanic language that points toward a contrast between infinitive -_an _and participial -_en_?


In Old Saxon you find both. It seems to depend on the case. With nominative endings, _-an _prevails, with other case endings_ -en _seems to be more frequent. It also varies from source to source. I do not understand all of the abbreviations here (top paragraph on p.251).

In OE you have an _a/e_ vowel change in the infinitive depending on case as well. In Beowulf you find the nominative infinitive _far*a*n _but the dative infinitive _to far*e*nne_. Might be some kind of an umlauting effect?


----------



## Gavril

OK. It still seems as though infinitival *-_an _and participial *-_an_ would have been distinguished by different accentuation -- as shown by forms like Dutch v_rie*z*en _(< *_fréu*s*ana-_) "to freeze" vs. _vro*r*en_ (< *_fru*z*ána-_) "frozen" -- from at least Proto-Germanic times, though they may have been identical at an earlier point. (And they ended up merging back together in German, Dutch, etc.)


----------



## fdb

CyrusSH said:


> In Persian infinitive suffix is also "-an" but by adding to past tense verb, so it can be said it is "-id" (-it) + "-an", for example "par" (fly) -> "parid" (flew) -> "paridan" (to fly).



This is correct from a New Persian synchronic perspective, but not from a diachronic perspective. The Old Persian infinitive ending is –tanai > New Persian –tan, -dan. The perfect passive participle of the verb kar- “to make” is Old Persian kṛ-ta- (IE zero-grade stem *kṛ-), but the infinitive is čar-tanai (from the full-grade stem IE *ker-). In Middle Persian the ppp and the infinitive are secondarily harmonized as kird and kirdan respectively. I am mentioning this only because it undermines the supposition that the Persian infinitive in -tanai has anything to do with the Germanic infinitive in –ana.


----------



## CyrusSH

fdb said:


> This is correct from a New Persian synchronic perspective, but not from a diachronic perspective. The Old Persian infinitive ending is –tanai > New Persian –tan, -dan. The perfect passive participle of the verb kar- “to make” is Old Persian kṛ-ta- (IE zero-grade stem *kṛ-), but the infinitive is čar-tanai (from the full-grade stem IE *ker-). In Middle Persian the ppp and the infinitive are secondarily harmonized as kird and kirdan respectively. I am mentioning this only because it undermines the supposition that the Persian infinitive in -tanai has anything to do with the Germanic infinitive in –ana.



It is possible that the initial t was lost from the infinitive in the Germanic languages, or was dropped from Germanic words, German _sucht_ & _seuche_.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> It is possible that the initial t was lost from the infinitive in the Germanic languages, or was dropped from Germanic words, German _sucht_ & _seuche_.


No, there is no indication of a _t _in the infinitive ending anywhere. _-t (< -ti-)_ is a separate suffix that produces abstract deverbal nouns (another example is _Macht_ from _machen_). It has never produced infinitives in Germanic. It might be indirectly (i.e. via PIE) related to the Persian infinitive ending, I don't know. I hope fdb can shed light on this.


----------



## fdb

berndf said:


> I hope fdb can shed light on this.



I will give it a go.

The Old Persian infinitive in –tanai does not have an exact equivalent in any other language, not even in closely related ones like Avestan and Vedic. It looks as though it might be the dative singular of a deverbal noun with the IE heteroclitic suffix *-ter / *-ten, as in Latin iter, Hittite itar, Tocharian A ytār “path, road”, also Avestan pairiϑna- (=*peri-i-tn-o-) “lifetime”, that is: the verb *i- (or *Hi‑) “to go”, plus suffix *-ten, *-ter, *-tn, *-tr etc. Alternatively, it could be the locative singular of a thematicised version of the same suffix (*‑tana-).

On the other hand, the infinitive suffix *-ti (as in Slavic) seems to be the source of the “short infinitive” in Persian and in Bactrian, which in both languages is formally (but accidentally) identical with the past stem (historically: the perfect passive participle) in –ta > –t / -d.


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> it might be the dative singular of a deverbal noun with the IE heteroclitic suffix *-ter / *-ten


But not of _*-tis_? _*-ter_ usually produces agent and not abstract nouns.


----------



## fdb

berndf said:


> But not of _*-tis_? _*-ter_ usually produces agent and not abstract nouns.



*-tis does not work phonetically. There is indeed the actor suffix *-ter, as in words like Latin pater and its kin, but these are not heteroclits. I am talking about *–ter/n, as in iter, genitive itineris (where the –er- is presumably secondary) originally perhaps “the act of going”.


----------



## berndf

fdb said:


> *-tis does not work phonetically. There is indeed the actor suffix *-ter, as in words like Latin pater and its kin, but these are not heteroclits. I am talking about *–ter/n, as in iter, genitive itineris (where the –er- it is presumably secondary) originally perhaps “the act of going”.


Ok, then there is no relation between the t of _Sucht_ and that of the Persian infinitive.


----------



## CyrusSH

This "t" should be explained about several other words too.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=burst&allowed_in_frame=0
burst (v.)
    Old English berstan (intransitive) "break suddenly, shatter under pressure" (class III strong verb; past tense bærst, past participle borsten), from a West Germanic metathesis of *Proto-Germanic *brest-* (cognates: Old Saxon brestan, Old Frisian bersta, Middle Dutch berstan, Low German barsten, Dutch barsten, Old High German brestan, German bersten "to burst"), from *PIE root *bhres-* "to burst, break, crack." 


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fight&allowed_in_frame=0
fight (v.)
    Old English feohtan "to combat, contend with weapons, strive; attack; gain by fighting, win" (intransitive; class III strong verb; past tense feaht, past participle fohten), from *Proto-Germanic *fehtan* (cognates: Old High German fehtan, German fechten, Middle Dutch and Dutch vechten, Old Frisian fiuhta "to fight"), from *PIE *pek-* (2) "to pluck out".


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> This "t" should be explained about several other words too.


Maybe, but that should be a the topic of a separate thread. For the context of the current discussion it suffices to note that those <t>s belong to the stem and not to the ending.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> Maybe, but that should be a the topic of a separate thread. For the context of the current discussion it suffices to note that those <t>s belong to the stem and not to the ending.



In Persian it certainly seems to be also part of the word, not the ending, but by comparing to the Old Persian language, we already know that it is opposite.


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> In Persian it certainly seems to be also part of the word, not the ending, but by comparing to the Old Persian language, we already know that it is opposite.


This is because the final _-t/-d_ is a regular feature of the past stem. Nothing like this exists for Germanic strong verbs. _-d/-t _play no prominent role in the stem formation.


----------



## ahvalj

The participle suffix -_n_- is PIE and can be found (as a productive or residual formant) in most branches, e. g. the word *_pl̥hₑnos_ "full" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/pl̥h₁nós) is derived from the root *_pelhₑ-_ "to fill" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Indo-European/pleh₁-), thus meaning originally "filled".

In Germanic, this -_n_- is generalized as the Past Participle suffix in strong verbs, in Slavic — as a Past Passive Participle of most verbs. In Old Indic, it is found as the Past Participle in verbs on _r̥̄_ (_gīrṇáḥ _"swallowed"), _ī_ (_kṣīnáḥ _"wasted away"), _d_ (_bhinnáḥ _"broken") and, occasionally, _j _(_bhugnáḥ _"bent") (_Burrow T · 2001 · The Sanskrit language: _370).

The original PIE formation was _zero grade of the root + -no-,_ cp. the above _bhugnáḥ_ and the Common Germanic variant _*ƀuǥanaz_ (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Germanic/beuganą#Conjugation); in Slavic and Germanic this suffix mostly begins with a vowel, _e_ in Slavic (Old Church Slavonic _веденъ/vedenъ _< _*u̯edʰenos _"carried"; the zero grade preserved e. g. in Old Church Slavonic _облъченъ/oblъčenъ _vs._ влѣщи/vlěšti _"to carry" and _влѣкѫ/vlěkǫ _"I carry") and _e_ or _*o>a_ in Germanic (Common Germanic _*ǥa-weđenaz~*ǥa-weđanaz_ < *_kom-u̯edʰenos~_*_kom-u̯edʰonos _"joined, attached" — https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Germanic/gawedaną#Conjugation). The suffix vowel _e_ is attested in Runic Norse (_haitinaR, slaginaR_) and occasionally in Old Saxon (_geslegen _from _slahan_), Old Frisian (_feren_ from _faran_) and Old Franconian (_gihaltinu, gisceidinêr_); elsewhere the vowel seems to reflect _a_ (including Viking Norse _-in-_ in _bundinn,_ judging from the absence of the umlaut). In Gothic, an old _e_ variant is found petrified as the adjective _fulgins_ "hidden" (the verb is https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Germanic/felhaną#Conjugation) (_Сравнительная грамматика германских языков. Том IV · 1966: _369–370).

The Common Germanic Infinitive marker _*-anan_ etymologically represents the Nominative/Accusative of the neuter noun ending on _*-onom _and is cognate with the Old Indic action nouns on _-anam<*-enom_ (_káranam_ "deed", _vácanam_ "word" — _Burrow T · 2001 · The Sanskrit language: _151). The root in Indic is stressed and stands in the full grade: the same is found in Germanic strong verbs, and this form is opposed in both languages to the end-stressed Past Participle with the zero-grade of the root (cp. Gothic _filhan_ "to hide" < _*pélkonom_ vs. _fulgins_ "hidden" < *_pl̥kénos~pl̥kenós_ or Old High German _slahan_ "to hit" vs. _gislagan_ "hit" [for this _h~g_ see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verner's_law] and Old Indic _vácanam_ "word" vs. _uktáḥ_ "said" [http://sanskritdictionary.org/uktah]).

Thus, the morphological and semantic distinction of the Germanic Infinitive and Past Participle go back to PIE, and these two forms have been different for at least 5000 years, so if they are eventually related, this can't be proved with the tools the comparative linguistics currently possesses.

*P. S.* In principle, one can find full-word correspondences between Germanic strong Infinitives and Sanskrit -_anam_-nouns, e. g. *_ƀinđanan_ (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Germanic/bindaną) ~ _bandhanam_ (http://sanskritdictionary.org/bandhanam), the only difference being the etymological *_-on-_ in Germanic vs. *_-en-_ in Indic (*_e_ suggested by the above _vácana_ with _c<*k_ and without lengthening _*o>ā_).


----------



## 123xyz

Thank you all for the replies (especially Ahvalj). So, it has been established that the German "-en" in "singen" and "gesungen" is actually two different suffixes.


----------



## CyrusSH

berndf said:


> This is because the final _-t/-d_ is a regular feature of the past stem. Nothing like this exists for Germanic strong verbs. _-d/-t _play no prominent role in the stem formation.



It could be because "Loss of word-final /t/" in the Proto-Germanic language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic_language


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> It could be because "Loss of word-final /t/" in the Proto-Germanic language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic_language


Was the stem _-t-_ word-final?


----------



## berndf

CyrusSH said:


> It could be because "Loss of word-final /t/" in the Proto-Germanic language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic_language


Word final, not stem final.

PS: Cross-posted.


----------



## ahvalj

CyrusSH said:


> It could be because "Loss of word-final /t/" in the Proto-Germanic language: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Germanic_language


Your comment in #15 concerned stem-final _t_'s, which weren't word-final in Common Germanic (followed by the endings: Imperative Sg. 2_ *-e,_ Preterite Sg. 1 _-*a,_ Sg. 2 _*-ta,_ Sg. 3 _-*e,_ e. g._ *fexte, *faxta, *faxsta, *faxte_): what we find in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Germanic/fehtaną#Conjugation are the reconstructed _latest_ Common Germanic forms of the time immediately before the split into the three branches at the beginning of the Common Era. The PIE *-_t_ disappeared at an earlier period (in _earlier_ Common Germanic it was present in Preterite Pl. 3 [_*fuxtun<*pьktont_], Optative Present and Preterite Sg. 3 [*_fextai<*pektoīt, *fuxtī<*pьktīt_] and Pl. 3 [*_fextain<*pektoīnt, *fuxtīn<*pьktīnt_]). _Ь_ is the common sign for the PIE _schwa secundum,_ i. e. the reduced vowel of non-laryngeal provenance.


----------



## CyrusSH

The fact is that in Persian we use -d/-t to make verbs, for example "bal'": https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/بلع is an Arabic verb which means "to swallow" but in Persian we have made "bal'id" as a verb.

The same thing could happen in the Germanic languages, like the verbs that I mentioned above: Proto-Germanic *brest from PIE root *bhres or *feht from PIE *pek, but gradually this "t" could be dropped from some verbs, so a noun could be used as a verb too.

In oral Persian we also see that this final "t"is usually not pronounced, for example we say "neshas zamin", not "neshast zamin".


----------



## ahvalj

There is nothing special about these Germanic words. _-T-_ was one of the (rare) PIE verbal suffixes, which in some words in some branches may have merged with the root, e. g. Italic (Latin), Slavic (Old Church Slavonic) and Germanic (Old High German) have _plectō, pletǫ_ and _flehtu _vs. Greek _πλέκω _"I plait" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Germanic/flehtaną)_. _And why have you started speaking about these _-t-_ being dropped when in #15 you insisted in the opposite: "[t]his "t" should be explained about several other words too"?


----------



## CyrusSH

ahvalj said:


> There is nothing special about these Germanic words. _-T-_ was one of the (rare) PIE verbal suffixes, which in some words in some branches may have merged with the root, e. g. Italic (Latin), Slavic (Old Church Slavonic) and Germanic (Old High German) have _plectō, pletǫ_ and _flehtu _vs. Greek _πλέκω _"I plait" (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Proto-Germanic/flehtaną)_. _And why have you started speaking about these _-t-_ being dropped when in #15 you insisted in the opposite: "[t]his "t" should be explained about several other words too"?



I mean the word "sing" which was mentioned in this thread, could be originally "singt", those verbs that I mentioned, have actually preserved their original forms.


----------

