# Romance languages: -sco conjugation



## Gavril

French, Italian and Romanian have a conjugation class where the infinitive ends in -_i(re)_, but some or all of the personal forms have the ending -_s_(_c_)-:


French _ag*ir*_ "to act" : _ils agi*ss*ent_ "they act"

Italian _ag*ire*_ "to act" : _agi*sc*ono_ "they act"

Romanian _plăt*i*_ "to pay" : _ei plăt*esc*_"they pay"


There are probably other Romance languages that have this feature, but it's absent in standard Spanish and Portuguese: Port. _agir_ "to act", _eles agem_ "they act".

1) What is thought to be the origin of this conjugation? E.g., could it have been partly modeled on Latin verbs (_cognoscere_, _nasci_, etc.) where -_sc_- helps to form the present stem?

2) Is this feature thought to have spread fairly early (i.e., well before the end of the Roman Empire) through the Romance dialect area, or is there reason to think that it arrived later (or even arose separately) in some areas?


Many thanks
G


----------



## CapnPrep

Gavril said:


> 1) What is thought to be the origin of this conjugation? E.g., could it have been partly modeled on Latin verbs (_cognoscere_, _nasci_, etc.) where -_sc_- helps to form the present stem?


Yes, more generally the inchoative suffix/augment _-esc- _in the 3rd conjugation. If you search for this you will find lots of info on-line, including here on WR:
where does the -iss- stem come from?
merezco, conduzco (zc) / cruzo, venzo (z)

As you can see, this element is present in Spanish, but it occurs throughout the verb paradigm.


----------



## francisgranada

Gavril said:


> ... Romanian _plăt*i*_ "to pay" : _ei plăt*esc *_"they pay" ...


This is interesting because the verb  _plăti _is of Slavic origin. This suggests that the suffix _-esc_ in Rumanian was productive untill a relatively late period. Or this suffix was "simply" used by formal analogy with other verbs (of Romance/Latin origin) ?


----------



## Gavril

CapnPrep said:


> Yes, more generally the inchoative suffix/augment _-esc- _in the 3rd conjugation. If you search for this you will find lots of info on-line, including here on WR:
> where does the -iss- stem come from?



Thanks for the link; if I understand the French quote in that thread, the -_iss_- conjugation seems to be a relatively late (Medieval-era) arrival to French. I wonder if Italian -_isco_ and Romanian -_esc_ are of similarly late origin -- that would at least fit with the fact that many Slavic-derived verbs in Romanian (_plăti, isprăvi _etc.) fall into the -_esc_ conjugation.




> merezco, conduzco (zc) / cruzo, venzo (z)





> As you can see, this element is present in Spanish, but it occurs throughout the verb paradigm.



Spanish verbs with 1sg. -_zco_ and the class of verbs in -_ecer_ (_merecer, atardecer_, etc.) don't seem comparable to the -_sco_ conjugation in French/Italian/Romanian, because 1sg. -_zco_ is correlated with the stem-final consonant (soft -_c_-) rather than with infinitive -_ir_, and the suffix -_ecer_ seems for the most part to have inchoative semantics rather than simply forming the present stem of verbs.

I'm not denying that both Spanish -_zco_ and the Fr./Ital./Rom. -_sco_ conjugation have some connection to the Latin suffix -(_i_)_sco_, it just seems that they each reflect separate developments of this suffix.


----------



## CapnPrep

Gavril said:


> Thanks for the link; if I understand the French quote in that thread, the -_iss_- conjugation seems to be a relatively late (Medieval-era) arrival to French.


The quote says that the verb _abolir_ is a late borrowing from Latin. But its conjugation pattern is much, much older, going back to VL.


----------



## merquiades

This discussion might be of interest to some of you.  It deals with Romance inchoative -ir/-ire verbs with _-isc/-iss/-eix_ infix and the Spanish verbs ending in -_ecer_.  The particular case of defective verbs such as _abolir_ is also addressed.


----------



## Gavril

CapnPrep said:


> The quote says that the verb _abolir_ is a late borrowing from Latin. But its conjugation pattern is much, much older, going back to VL.



OK; the quote also mentions that numerous other verbs in the -_iss_- conjugation were re-imported from Latin around the same period, which is why I (tentatively) interpreted it as a general comment on this conjugation's origin.


----------



## Gavril

francisgranada said:


> This is interesting because the verb  _plăti _is of Slavic origin. This suggests that the suffix _-esc_ in Rumanian was productive untill a relatively late period. Or this suffix was "simply" used by formal analogy with other verbs (of Romance/Latin origin) ?



A lot of Slavic verbs seem to have infinitives in -_*it(i)* _or similar_, _the stem vowel being_ -i-. _E.g., Slovak *platit'* means "pay" and *spraviť* means "do, make" according to Google Translate (cf. Romanian _plăti_ "pay" and _isprăvi_ "finish"), and maybe these verbs would consequently have been placed in the -_i_/-_esc_ conjugation if/when they were adopted into Romanian. I'm still not sure how exactly how strong a correlation there is between the -_i_ conjugation and Slavic origin, though.


----------



## CapnPrep

Gavril said:


> I'm still not sure how exactly how strong a correlation there is between the -_i_ conjugation and Slavic origin, though.


Quite strong: I think most borrowed verbs in Romanian ended up in the 4th conjugation (in _-i_ or _-î_). But this is true even for Slavic verbs with a different thematic vowel (e.g. _citi_ "read" < _čitati_). Most of these borrowed verbs take _-esc/-ăsc_ (e.g. _citi_), but some do not (e.g. _omorî_ "kill" < _umoriti_).


----------



## francisgranada

What was the situation in the Vulgar Latin (proto Romance/early Romance) ?

For example, the Spanish _establecer _comes from a supposed VL *_stabiliscere _(< _stabilire_) and all the conjugation of this verb corresponds to if. The Italian infinive _stabilire _correspponds to the original Latin form, but in the conjugated forms we still find the discussed suffix -_sc_-. So, is the today's Italian conjugation of this kind practically a later "mixture" of two verbs (at least in some cases)?


----------



## CapnPrep

francisgranada said:


> For example, the Spanish _establecer _comes from a supposed VL *_stabiliscere _(< _stabilire_) and all the conjugation of this verb corresponds to if.


Not exactly: In Latin the _-esc- _would not have appeared in the perfect forms (_stabili(v)i_, _stabilitum_), whereas in Spanish, _-ec-_ has been generalized to the whole paradigm (_establ*ec*í_, _establ*ec*ido_). So Spanish represents one way of regularizing this infixed pattern.


francisgranada said:


> The Italian infinive _stabilire _correspponds to the original Latin form, but in the conjugated forms we still find the discussed suffix -_sc_-. So, is the today's Italian conjugation of this kind practically a later "mixture" of two verbs (at least in some cases)?


Yes, because of the similar semantics of the two verbs, and because of their overlapping forms (_stabilivi_, _stabilitum_ mentioned above are also in the paradigm of _stabilio_). The infixed forms corresponding to _*stabilisco_ have the effect of ensuring that the stress never falls on the verb root, so this can also be seen as a form of regularization (although it looks very irregular).


----------



## francisgranada

CapnPrep said:


> ... The infixed forms corresponding to _*stabilisco_ have the effect of ensuring that the stress never falls on the verb root, so this can also be seen as a form of regularization (although it looks very irregular).


Has this "paradigm of regularization" something to do with other Italian irregural verbs as _andare _(mixed with _vadere_), _venire _etc ... in the sense, that these verbs are also regular only in the 1st and 2nd pers. plural, but irregular (often "regularly") in other persons? 

 (e.g. _vado, vai, va, vanno_, but _andiamo_, _andate_).


----------



## Gavril

CapnPrep said:


> Not exactly: In Latin the _-esc- _would not have appeared in the perfect forms (_stabili(v)i_, _stabilitum_), whereas in Spanish, _-ec-_ has been generalized to the whole paradigm (_establ*ec*í_, _establ*ec*ido_). So Spanish represents one way of regularizing this infixed pattern.



But did Spanish regularize what was already a robust pattern in Vulgar Latin?

In other words, did Vulgar Latin have 

1. a productive pattern of verbs with _-sc-_ in the present stem (_stabilisco, abolesco, finisco, _etc.) but not in the past/perfect stems (_stabilivi, aboli, finivi_, etc.)
or
2. a limited number of such verbs (_cognosco/cognovi_, _crescere/crevi_, etc.), which were generalized to a wider pattern in Fr./Ital./Romanian, but developed differently (for the most part) in Sp./Portuguese?

#2 would seem to account for the lack of overlap between -_ecer_ verbs in Spanish/Portuguese and -_sco_ conjugation verbs in the other Romance languages, although there is some vocabulary (_establecer/établir_,_ obedecer/obéir_) shared between the two groups.


----------



## CapnPrep

There are really a lot of _-sco_ verbs in Latin. A lot of them will have been absent from everyday spoken Latin, but the pattern must have been productive, with a large enough number of common enough verbs to provide the necessary analogical pressure to explain the later developments. The fact that different branches of Romance have developed in divergent directions does not exclude the possibility of an early shared source.


francisgranada said:


> Has this "paradigm of regularization" something to do with other Italian irregural verbs as _andare _(mixed with _vadere_), _venire _etc  ... in the sense, that these verbs are also regular only in the 1st and  2nd pers. plural, but irregular (often "regularly") in other persons?


Yes, there are usually fewer "accidents" when the verb ending is easily identifiable and stressed.


----------



## Gavril

CapnPrep said:


> There are really a lot of _-sco_ verbs in Latin. A lot of them will have been absent from everyday spoken Latin, but the pattern must have been productive, with a large enough number of common enough verbs to provide the necessary analogical pressure to explain the later developments. The fact that different branches of Romance have developed in divergent directions does not exclude the possibility of an early shared source.



Most -sco verbs attested in Latin are semantically inchoative, correct? But there are at least two functions of the -sco suffix in Romance:

1. inchoative marker (Spanish, Portuguese)
2. formant of the present stem of -_ire_ verbs (Fr./Ital./Romanian, perhaps some traces in Sp./Portuguese)

Is it thought that both of these patterns were robust in Vulgar Latin before the divergence of the Romance dialects? Or did #2 mainly develop in the Central/Eastern Romance dialects, with limited influence on Iberian Romance (e.g., _obedecer_)?

If pattern #2 above (-_ire/-sco_) was well established in early Romance, this would seem to require that Spanish and Portuguese have undergone extensive analogical leveling to erase almost all traces of it.

Thanks again


----------



## CapnPrep

Gavril said:


> Is it thought that both of these patterns were robust in Vulgar Latin before the divergence of the Romance dialects?


Of course neither of the modern patterns was fully developed in VL. But the foundations of both are clearly present, in the form of two competing productive mechanisms for deriving inchoative verbs: by making a 3rd conjugation verb in _-scĕre_, or a 4th conjugation verb by simple conversion. In other words, there were doublets like _putrescere/putrire_ (≠ _putrēre_) or _florescere/florire_ (≠ _florēre_) with similar meaning and some overlapping or complementary forms. One way to deal with this is to get rid of one member of the pair and make sure that the remaining one has a full paradigm; this is what happened in Spanish and Portuguese. Another way is to live with the mixed-up conjugation but establish a fixed pattern for it; that is what happened in French, Italian, and Romanian.


Gavril said:


> If pattern #2 above (-_ire/-sco_) was well established in early Romance, this would seem to require that Spanish and Portuguese have undergone  extensive analogical leveling to erase almost all traces of it.


Yes. Again, there may not have been a fully established mixed paradigm, but the competition between corresponding _-ir_ and _-ecer_ forms in Spanish (and the eventual triumph of _-ecer_) can be documented in medieval texts. See for example Dworkin (1985).


----------



## danielstan

Gavril said:


> A lot of Slavic verbs seem to have infinitives in -_*it(i)* _or similar_, _the stem vowel being_ -i-. _E.g., Slovak *platit'* means "pay" and *spraviť* means "do, make" according to Google Translate (cf. Romanian _plăti_ "pay" and _isprăvi_ "finish"), and maybe these verbs would consequently have been placed in the -_i_/-_esc_ conjugation if/when they were adopted into Romanian. I'm still not sure how exactly how strong a correlation there is between the -_i_ conjugation and Slavic origin, though.



Well, as Romanian speaker my impression is that my language has developed some conjugations from Vulgar Latin and all the verbs that entered later in Romanian (Slavic verbs, but also the neologisms from French, Italian and English) have been "attached" by the speakers to the conjugation they felt more comfortable with.
Indeed, most of the Slavic verbs in Romanian have fallen in the _-esc_ conjugation because their infinitive form in Slavic was most of the times _-iti_ (_platiti_, _spraviti _etc.) (a short _i_ in the end).
----------
Very recently an American English verb (of less than 10 years, not attested yet in dictionaries, not yet used in academical speeches or on TV) has entered Romanian as a "barbarism" or "RomGlish" (equivalent to "SpanGlish"):
_a șeru*i*_ (< eng. _to share_)

Its conjugation (that I hear in informal speeches) is:
_eu șerui*esc* _("I share")

This is a typical case of a borrowing where speakers need to attach a new verb to existing conjugations and chose by analogy with other verbs.
-----------
The conjugations in Romanian is a very volatile field over the centuries.
When we read Romanian texts of 150 years ago we find conjugations that make us lough, e.g.:
The verb:_ a arest*a* _ - eu _arest*ez* _(today)
_a arestu*i*_ - eu _arestui*esc* _(19th century)

The oldest surviving Romanian texts are from 16th century and the conjugations used at that time were also the conjugations of today, but with many verbs falling in another conjugation than the current one.


----------



## Penyafort

These are called inchoative verbs and are common in Catalan. In fact, most -IR verbs are considered so. They follow this model:

*SERVIR*
Present d'Indicatiu: serv*eix*o, serv*eix*es, serv*eix*, serv*eix*en
(Western: serv*isc*, serv*ix*es, servix, serv*ix*en)
Present de Subjuntiu: serv*eix*i, serv*eix*is, serv*eix*i, serv*eix*in
(Western: serv*esc*a, serv*esqu*es, serv*esc*a, serv*eix*en)

· Note: *-ix-* /(i)ʃ/​
In fact, non-inchoative -IR verbs are few: _bullir _'boil', _sortir _'go out', _dormir _'sleep', _escopir _'spit', _tossir _'cough', _sentir _'hear, feel', _collir _'pick (up), collect', etc. This is why a common mistake committed by many speakers is making inchoative verbs that are not. Therefore you may hear people saying _interrompeixo _instead of _interrompo _'I interrupt', _escupeix _instead of _escup _'he spits', and so on.


----------



## wtrmute

Currently, in Portuguese (and in Spanish, I think), the inchoative _-e(s)cer_ verbs are the only non-1st conjugation verbs which are productive in the modern language: everywhere else, when a noun or adjective turns into a verb, it invariably takes up a suffix _-(e)ar_: _surfar_ "to surf", _escanear _"to scan (a document)", _americanizar_ "to americanize".  They all have a fairly strong inchoative meaning: _anoitecer_ "to fall (of night)", _enrijecer_ "to turn rigid", _emburrecer_ "to become stupid".


----------

