# German suffixes



## dihydrogen monoxide

How are the phollowing German suffixes reconstructed in PIE and what could be its cognates? Grimm didn't help.

-ei (I know Serbian,Croatian,Slovene borrowed this suffix)
-keit
-gang
-schaft


----------



## berndf

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> -ei: French -ie, English -y
> -keit/-heit: English -hood
> -gang: You probably mean like in Müssiggang. It is a noun derived from gehen (to go), i.e. "the going". So Müssiggang means "the going idle".
> -schaft: English -ship


No idea about PIE but I can help you with cognates.


----------



## Frank06

Hi,


berndf said:


> No idea about PIE but I can help you with cognates.


Isn't -gang related to gehn? If so, PIE *ghe:.

But Berndf is right: if you can't find it via the German forms, try looking for the PIE roots via the cognates.

Groetjes,

Frank


----------



## berndf

Frank06 said:


> Isn't -gang related to gehn? If so, PIE *ghe:.


What I meant is that -gang is not really a suffix but the last part of a compound noun. These things are sometimes hard to distinguish in German.


----------



## dihydrogen monoxide

Thanks, I know cognates will now help.


----------



## Athaulf

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> How are the phollowing German suffixes reconstructed in PIE and what could be its cognates? Grimm didn't help.
> 
> -ei (I know Serbian,Croatian,Slovene borrowed this suffix)
> -keit
> -gang
> -schaft



Etymonline.com is often useful not only for English, but also for other Germanic languages, since it usually has extensive lists of cognates, and you can search it by the entire content of entries (that is, you can also search for a German word, and its English cognates will pop up). Unfortunately, it answers your question only for -schaft/-ship, since apparently other suffixes in the list have no English cognates (or at least none listed there).

According to this book, the suffix _-keit_ devleoped from _-heit_ during the Middle High German period through a sound change. The suffix _-heit_, of course, is a cognate of English _-hood_. 

I couldn't find anything about the other two suffixes.

Come to think of it, _-ei_ an _-erei_ might have something to do with English _-ery_, which comes from French. Maybe it also entered German a long time ago? The sound correspondences would be consistent with e.g. _by_/_bei_. 

Note that this is only my wild amateurish speculation, though!


----------



## berndf

Athaulf said:


> Come to think of it, _-ei_ an _-erei_ might have something to do with English _-ery_, which comes from French. Maybe it also entered German a long time ago? The sound correspondences would be consistent with e.g. _by_/_bei_.
> 
> Note that this is only my wild amateurish speculation, though!


 
English _-y_ and _-ery_ is certainly the same thing as _-ei_ and _-erei_, no doubt (I stated this already above, #2 for_ -y_, _-ei_ and French _-ie_). I would agree with you that -ie is probably the origin of -ei and -y, coming from Latin -ia. But I think German -erei, French -erie, English -ery should be analysed as two suffixes: -er-ei, er-ie, er-y, like in Bäckerei where a Bäck-er is someone who bakes. Latin -or is probably a cognate but I doubt that it is an etymon*. And a Bäck-er-ei is the shop of a Bäcker.

Hence, I wouldn't jump to conclusions. -er-ei can well be totally of Romance origin, It can be a mixture of Germanic -er and Romance -ie (this would be my guess) or it could be totally Germanic, it would have to be researched.
_____________________________________
* Latin -or is used with the supine-stem, so it is normally -tor which became -teur in French. Therefore I don't think that -er has developed out of -or in French.


----------



## noula

The German suffix _-erei_ (English _ery_) is an adaptation of the Latin _-oria_ via the French _-erie_ suffix, usually meaning “place of” like in German _Bäck-erei_ (English _bakery_), place of _baking_. The _-er-ei_ reanalysis results from folk etymology based on semantic transparency which is accidental.


----------



## berndf

noula said:


> The German suffix _-erei_ (English _ery_) is an adaptation of the Latin _-oria_ via the French _-erie_ suffix, usually meaning “place of” like in German _Bäck-erei_ (English _bakery_), place of _baking_. The _-er-ei_ reanalysis results from folk etymology based on semantic transparency which is accidental.


And _-oria_ comes from _-or-ia_. I see no problem.


----------



## noula

but by the time German and English borrowed _-erie_ from French, the original internal morphological structure of _-erie_ had already become opaque and therefore of no consequence for the history of opaque _-erei_ and _-ery_ in the respective borrowing languages.


----------



## berndf

noula said:


> ...the original internal morphological structure of _-erie_ had already become opaque...


What makes you think that?


----------



## mugibil

dihydrogen monoxide said:


> How are the following German suffixes reconstructed in PIE and what could be its cognates? Grimm didn't help.
> 
> -ei (I know Serbian,Croatian,Slovene borrowed this suffix)
> -keit
> -gang
> -schaft



Fortunately, three of these four suffixes are originally roots (that's typical for Germanic), which makes them easy to find in a standard PIE dictionary: Pokorny's 1959 Indogermanisches Etymologisches Woerterbuch (http://www.ieed.nl/, you can type words in daughter languages in the search field Materials). It gives:

-schaft - from (s)ke:>p2-, (s)kob(h)- etc. 'to work with a sharp instrument'
-gang - from g'hengh  - 'to march, step'
-heit - from  (s)kāi- 'shining, bright' (in Germanic =>bright image => way, fashion).

I can't help with -ei < Fr. -ie < Lat. -ia (I don't know of a quick way to find etymologies of "true" PIE suffixes). 

As a side note, I'm not sure about the German and English -er suffix, but I remember reading about the corresponding Scandinavian -are, -ari that they were from Latin -arius.


----------



## noula

berndf said:


> What makes you think that?



From what's known about Old French morphology. If _-erie_ was already opaque in Old French, the more so it must have been in later borrowings...


----------



## CapnPrep

berndf and noula, I think you are both a bit misled by the assumption that there should only be one suffix _-erei_ (_-ery_, _-erie_), and that it should always receive the same analysis in every word where it appears. 

On the one hand, it is true that _-erei_ is sometimes used as a simple suffix, added directly to a noun or verb stem, without going through two successive stages (agent _-er_ + suffix_ -ei_). For example, _Schweinerei_ is not derived from _Schweiner_ + _-ei_, but is simply _Schwein_ + _-erei_.

On the other hand, for cases where the agent noun does exist, and its meaning is appropriate, then the analysis _-er_ + _-ei_ cannot be excluded. You can call this a "reanalysis result[ing] from folk etymology based on semantic transparency", but that is the basis of pretty much all morphological competence…

Also, French _-erie_ does not derive from Latin _-oria_.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> On the one hand, it is true that _-erei_ is sometimes used as a simple suffix, added directly to a noun or verb stem, without going through two successive stages (agent _-er_ + suffix_ -ei_). For example, _Schweinerei_ is not derived from _Schweiner_ + _-ei_, but is simply _Schwein_ + _-erei_.


I think you are mistaken. A _Schweiner _is a swineherd and a _Schweinerei _is then a place where a swineherd works. The original senses are obsolete and only the figurative meaning (rascality) is in current use. That is why the analysis _Schwein-er-ei_ is opaque but I think it is nevertheless the origin.

The only alternative etymology of the figurative meaning I could envisage would be from the adjective _schweinern_ (pertaining to the pig): _Schweiner-n-ei_. But in any case, _-ei_ is a separate suffix.


----------



## CapnPrep

Have a look at the examples on canoo.net. Do you think that _Dieber_, _Spitzbüber_, _Abgötter_, etc. are also valid derivational bases?


----------



## berndf

The suffix _-er-_ can also be used to construct verbs from nouns. There is no verb _abgöttern_ but there is _vergöttern_. In derivations of abstract nouns from nouns, like _Dieberei_, the construction is always through a verbal rendering, i.e. a _Dieberei_ is _that what a thieve does_.


----------



## CapnPrep

Are you saying that the verb _diebern _exists? And what is your analysis of _Abgötterei_ if there is no verb _abgöttern_? Seems like it must be _Abgott_ + _-erei_…

To take another example, would you say that the word _Lügerei _is based on the noun _Lüger_ or on the verb _lügern_? (I think it is simply derived from _lügen_, but in that case again the suffix must be _-erei_.)


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> Are you saying that the verb _diebern _exists?


No I don't. But I say that the part of the common intuition of the German language to understand the suffix _-erei_ like this, even if the implied verb doesn't exist lexically.


----------



## noula

berndf said:


> No I don't. But I say that the part of the common intuition of the German language to understand the suffix _-erei_ like this, even if the implied verb doesn't exist lexically.


 
What is it we have been discussing here, the morphological competence underlying the modern usage of German _-erei_, English _-ery_ (a synchronic conceptualization), or the etymology of these, something based on historic facts? To start with, it looked to me we were in a forum which reads:

...  Etymology and History of Languages > German

Sodele, as far as historic facts are concerned, _-erie_ was already opaque (i.e. unanalyzable as to the internal morphological structure) in Old French long before any borrowing into any other language could have occurred; and it remained so well into Modern French (_épicerie, connerie, vacherie, batterie, cavalerie, fouterie_, etc.). Point à la ligne.


----------



## berndf

noula said:


> Sodele, as far as historic facts are concerned, _-erie_ was already opaque (i.e. unanalyzable as to the internal morphological structure) in Old French long before any borrowing into any other language could have occurred; and it remained so well into Modern French (_épicerie, connerie, vacherie, batterie, cavalerie, fouterie_, etc.). Point à la ligne.


Repetition alone doesn't make a statement true. Even in Modern French there are plenty of examples, where the internal structure is perfectly transparent: An _épicerie_ is a place where an _épicier_ works, the _cavalerie_ is where you find horsemen (_chevaliers_), a _boulangerie_ is a place where a _boulanger_ works, a _boucherie_ is a place where a _boucher_ works, …


----------



## noula

berndf said:


> Repetition alone doesn't make a statement true. Even in Modern French there are plenty of examples, where the internal structure is perfectly transparent: An _épicerie_ is a place where an _épicier_ works, the _cavalerie_ is where you find horsemen (_chevaliers_), a _boulangerie_ is a place where a _boulanger_ works, a _boucherie_ is a place where a _boucher_ works, …



You really don't seem to understand what is meant by saying that _-erie_ is "opaque, i.e. unanalyzable as to the internal morphological structure". What it means is that the synchronic grammars of Old French and Modern French (including all the intervening states of grammar) lack in their lexicon a rule predicting morphological derivations of the type:

[[[X]_-e_]_-rie_]

such as in hypothetical structures of the type:

*_épic-er-ie_
*_conn-er-ie_
*_vach-er-ie_
*_batt-er-ie_
*_caval-er-ie_
*_fout-er-ie_

In the meantime, you might want to read a (non-historic) textbook on derivational morphology in linguistics instead of repeating here the same arguments based on personal intuition and convictions.


----------



## berndf

noula said:


> You really don't seem to understand what is meant by saying that _-erie_ is "opaque, i.e. unanalyzable as to the internal morphological structure".
> ...
> instead of repeating here the same arguments based on personal intuition and convictions.


Since the vast majority of words on _-erei _are constructions by analogy based on "personal intuition and convictions" rather than being direct loans, what sense does your distinction make.


----------



## noula

berndf said:


> Since the vast majority of words on _-erei _are constructions by analogy based on "personal intuition and convictions" rather than being direct loans, what sense does your distinction make.



Is this a beer tavern quarrel on personal intuition and convictions or a forum on etymology and history of languages (such as German, French, English, etc.)?

Are we still on Old French _-erie_ (where you challenged my opacity-statement) or have you switched back to German _-erei_ with your "Since" statement?

Your original claim there was the suggestion that the transparency of Germain _-er-ei_ might hail back to a transparent _-or-ia_ in Latin via a transparent _-er-ie_ in French. I contradicted that claim by saying that "by the time German and English borrowed _-erie_ from French, the original internal morphological structure of _-erie_ had already become opaque and therefore of no consequence for the history of opaque _-erei_ and _-ery_ in the respective borrowing languages" and that consequently the transparency of German _-er-ei_ resulted from grammatical "reanalysis" proper to the history of the German language. In other words, German acquired for the borrowed suffix a relatively productive rule that allows for new words in its lexicon based on the prediction that stuctures of the type [[[X]_-er_]_-ei_] will be grammatical.

X here stands for almost any native root of the type noun/verb _Sau-_, _Dieb-_, _Haus-_, _Glas-_, _Schloss-_, _koch-_, _ess-_, _fisch-_, _fick-_, etc. Curiously, adjectives don't seem to qualify and _-ei_ on its own has acquired a productivity it doesn't have in French (_Dusel-ei_, _Esel-ei_, _Ferkel-ei_, _Flegel-ei_, _Schaukel-ei_, _Schlamassel-ei_, _Schmeichel-ei_, _Schnuddel-ei_, _Ziegel-ei_, _Zettel-ei_, _Zottel-ei_, _Keller-ei_, _Abt-ei_, _Webmeisterei_, _Barbar-ei_, _Beutner-ei_, _Dat-ei_, _Bücher-ei_,  _Dechan-ei_, _Drost-ei_, _Ermit-ei_, _Faktor-ei_, _Gauner-ei_, _Pfarr-ei_, _Hochstapel-ei_, _Türk-ei_, _Slowak-ei_, etc.)


----------



## berndf

noula said:


> I contradicted that claim by saying that "by the time German and English borrowed _-erie_ from French, the original internal morphological structure of _-erie_ had already become opaque


This were true if the suffix _-er_ (originally _-ier_) alone didn't exist. The suffixes _(i)er _and _-er-ia_ had already a complex productive life of there own in OF and weren't simply evolutions of L _-oria_, much like in German. Let's take _boulangerie_ as an example. The word is apparently of Franconian origin and you find in old Piccard _bolenc_ for _baker_. In 12th c. French bolenger has become a verb and the noun _baker_ now takes the suffix _-ier: bolengier_ from which the modern _boulanger_ is derived and from which, in turn, _Boulangerie_ is derived. Since_ <verb stem>+(i)er+ie_ was a productive formation rule in OF already detached from Latin roots in _-oria_ I find your claim difficult to maintain.




noula said:


> ...German acquired for the borrowed suffix a relatively productive rule that allows for new words in its lexicon based on the prediction that stuctures of the type [[[X]_-er_]_-ei_] will be grammatical.


D'accord.


noula said:


> X here stands for almost any native root of the type noun/verb _Sau-_, _Dieb-_, _Haus-_, _Glas-_, _Schloss-_, _koch-_, _ess-_, _fisch-_, _fick-_, etc. Curiously, adjectives don't seem to qualify and _-ei_ on its own has acquired a productivity it doesn't have in French (_Dusel-ei_, _Esel-ei_, _Ferkel-ei_, _Flegel-ei_, _Schaukel-ei_, _Schlamassel-ei_, _Schmeichel-ei_, _Schnuddel-ei_, _Ziegel-ei_, _Zettel-ei_, _Zottel-ei_, _Keller-ei_, _Abt-ei_, _Webmeisterei_, _Barbar-ei_, _Beutner-ei_, _Dat-ei_, _Bücher-ei_, _Dechan-ei_, _Drost-ei_, _Ermit-ei_, _Faktor-ei_, _Gauner-ei_, _Pfarr-ei_, _Hochstapel-ei_, _Türk-ei_, _Slowak-ei_, etc.)


D'accord aussi.


----------



## noula

Your disagreement seems to rest solely on the belief that my claim saying that "by the time German and English borrowed _-erie_ from French, the original internal morphological structure of _-erie_ had already become opaque [in French]" must be false.

To start with, your example _bolengier_ is a hapax, from an Anglo-Norman text, most probably due to scribal error. You can't build a theory on a hapax. Even if that were not so and we could predict when to insert _-i-_, the relative productivity of a morphological rule must rest on a representative sample of data confirming the relative regularity with which the workings of the rule can be observed in word formation. Let's assume the following partial list of examples to constitute a representative sample of phenomena a _-or-ia_ derivation rule would have to account for (* marking agrammaticality):

A1. _-(i)er_ [+agent]/_-erie_ [+locatif]: boulanger, boucher, fromager; armurier, bijoutier, épicier, plombier;

A2. _-(i)er_ [±agent]/_-erie_ [-locatif]: archer; sucrier, poudrier, canotier, cachottier, paperassier, cavalier, etc.

A3. _-(i)er_ [-agent]/_(*)-erie_ [+locatif]: oranger; bananier, cerisier, châtaignier, fraisier, genévrier, groseillier, prunier;

A4. _-(i)er_/_*-erie_: clocher, cocher, danger, étranger, oreiller, phalanger, viager; meurtrier, romancier, officier, huissier, grenadier, hallebardier, ouvrier, écuyer, journalier, fermier, policier, bachelier, balafonnier, banquier, brancardier, brouettier, cafetier, cantonnier, couturier, greffier, héritier, lanternier, pompier, rentier, tenancier, tunnelier, usufruitier; brasier, pilier, encrier, tablier, clavier, sablier, gaufrier. herbier, échiquier, cendrier, escalier, sentier, vaisselier, atelier, cellier, voilier, bouclier, collier, boulier, sommier, savonnier, charnier, fessier, dossier, plafonnier, tisonnier, poivrier, bêtisier, glacier, homardier, morutier, pétrolier, crevettier, langoustier, crabier; grossier, irrégulier, premier, famillier, financier, princier, verdier, échassier, printanier, mobilier, immobilier. frontalier;

A5. _-(i)ère_ [-masc]/_*-erie_: lumiere, bannière, manière, jardinière, crinière, cuisinière, épinière, crémaillère, brassière, filière, clairière, chaumière, ardoisière, rizière;

A6. _*-(i)er_/_-erie_: ânerie, batterie, bédainerie, bigoterie, bizarrerie, bondieuserie, bonzerie, chaufferie, chefferie, chinoiserie, cocasserie, cocherie, cochonnerie, conciergerie, connerie, cucuterie, dentisterie, ergoterie, faroucherie, filouterie, fourberie, fumisterie, gâterie, gauloiserie, gendarmerie, geuserie, graineterie,grotesquerie, japonaiserie, japonnerie, juiverie, lingerie, mangerie, matoiserie, narquoiserie, niaiserie, plaisanterie, poltronnerie, pouillerie, raillerie, rouerie, sauvagerie, sorcellerie, sonnerie, tromperie, vieillerie, viennoiserie;

B1. _-eur, euse_ [+agent]/_*-(i)er/-erie_ [±locatif]: blanchisseur, imprimeur, fumeur, scieur, tanneur; menteur, singeur, rêveur, causeur, tricheur, batteur;

B2. _-eur, euse_ [+agent]/_*-(i)er/*-erie_: danseur, livreur, monteur, coiffeur, tourneur, fraiseur, cireur, farceur, barreur, montreur, perceur, foreur, moniteur, éleveur, torpilleur, laboureur, naufrageur, defenseur;
B3. -eur, -rice [+agent]/*-(i)er/*-erie: instituteur, organisateur, conducteur, serviteur, agriculteur, acteur, dominateur, calculateur, navigateur, directeur, collaborateur, spectateur, importateur, facteur, auditeur, vulgarisateur, collaborateur, orateur, dompteur, recteur;

B4. _-eur_ [-agent]/_*-(i)er_/_*-erie_: disjoncteur, calculateur, carburateur, élévateur, etc.

B5. _-eur_ [-masc]/_*-(i)er_/_*-erie_: labeur, odeur, douceur, douleur, ardeur, chaleur, couleur, terreur, fureur, liqueur, rumeur;

C. _-oria_ ≠ _-or-ia_: araignoire, armoire, baignoire, bassinoire, échappatoire, écumoire, glissoire, histoire, mangoire, mémoire, nageoire, passoire, patinoire, pâtissoire, préparatoire, diffamatoire, ratissoire, rôtissoire,

There is no single rule or possible set of rules based on phonological or semantic principles which can predict: (a) when to selct _-(i)er_ or _-eur_ to succeed _-or_; (b) when to select _-(i)ère, -euse_, or _-rice_ for feminine forms; (c) when successors of _-or_ have to be interpreted as [+agent], [-agent] or [-masc]; (d) when successors of _-or_ allow or dissallow the _-ia_ extension; (e) how to interprete obvious _-oria_ extensions with no _-or_ base; etc., etc. It looks more like an exception to have the occasional _boulanger/boulangerie_ pattern which means that the pattern is opaque within the scope of rule-governed word formation.


----------



## berndf

noula said:


> Your disagreement seems to rest solely on the belief that my claim saying that "by the time German and English borrowed -erie from French, the original internal morphological structure of -erie had already become opaque [in French]" must be false.


My argument was in fact a bit simpler: How could a word pair _boulanger/boulangerie_ have developed from a Germanic stem, if the logic had been opaque already in Old French.





noula said:


> It looks more like a exception to have the occasional _boulanger/boulangerie_ pattern which means that the pattern is opaque within the scope of rule-governed word formation.


I must have misunderstood you. You were talking about formation patterns; I thought you were talking about the semantic transparency of the suffix pair _-er/-erie_.


----------



## noula

berndf said:


> My argument was in fact a bit simpler: How could a word pair _boulanger/boulangerie_ have developed from a Germanic stem, if the logic had been opaque already in Old French.I must have misunderstood you. You were talking about formation patterns; I thought you were talking about the semantic transparency of the suffix pair _-er/-erie_.



That's what is meant by "semantic transparency" in linguistics. Broadly, the workings of the principle of semantic transparency implies an appeal to three basic principles:

- uniformity: the maximum uniformity in the treatment of semantic categories;

- universality: the minimum of reliance on language-particular or category particular rules;

- simplicity: the minimum of processing in proceeding from semantic analyses to surface structures, and vice versa.

Transparency can also be defined in terms of syntactic, morphological and phonological primes. In any event, affixation is especially sensitive to aberrant patterns in linguistic change thus introducing opacity into rules of morphological decomposition and lexical access. A structure that might be absolutely crystal-clear in Latin may become more or less or absolutely opaque in French. In general, transparency from Latin is better preserved in most other Romance languages such as Spanish and Italian.

Contrarily to English, French does not distinguish between Latinate and non-Latinate stems in word formation rules, whether transparent of opaque.


----------



## CapnPrep

noula said:


> Contrarily to English, French does not distinguish between Latinate and non-Latinate stems in word formation rules, whether transparent of opaque.


False. Also, irrelevant (the title of this thread is "German suffixes"…)

If anyone else is still following this discussion, they are probably a bit lost, like I am. Let me see if I understand your two positions:

berndf: *Some* nouns in _-erie_/_-erei_ are transparently related to a noun in _-er_. Therefore, _-erie_/_-erei_ is *always* decomposable into _-er_ + _-ie_/_-ei_, in all cases. In the numerous, productive cases where it doesn't seem to be decomposable, it is in fact still decomposable (at least in German). This an intuitive fact, and as such can be asserted without demonstration (#19).

noula: *Some* nouns in _-erie_/_-erei_ are directly formed from a base + _-erie_/_-erei_. Therefore, _-erie_/_-erei_ is *never* analyzable, under any circumstances. In the numerous, productive cases where it seems to be transparently analyzable as _-er_ + _-ie_/_-ei_, it is in fact still not analyzable. These are folk etymologies, and as such do not need to be analyzed grammatically (#8).


----------



## berndf

noula said:


> That's what is meant by "semantic transparency" in linguistics. ...


Let me see if I understood you and if there is a way to reconcile our positions. 

You said





> ...more or less or absolutely opaque...


I understand this to mean that opaqueness vs. transparency is not a dichotomy but a quality with degrees. In Latin the form <p>_-or_ where <p> is the participle stem of verb <v> means an_ agens who does <v> _and _<p>-or-ia_ is a _place where a <p>-or does <v>_ and is transparent. In French and also in German, _XXX-er_ still has the semantic notion of an agens doing something related to _XXX_ (whatever _XXX _might mean and whatever type of word this might be) and _XXX-er-ie_ is a _place where an XXX-er_ acts. But notion is much fuzzier then the Latin origin and the word forms and their precise meanings are much less predictable.

In other the suffix pair -er/-erie is much less transparent than the Latin origin *but this does not mean* that semantics attached to the suffixes are completely random or unintelligible to a native speaker.


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> the _cavalerie_ is where you find horsemen (_chevaliers_),


 
1. Cavalerie is not where you find horsemen, but a formation of horsemen, so the -erie ending does not denote a place, but is a more abstract formant

2. cavalerie does not come from cheval, but from caballus/cavallus, either directly from old French or from Italian cavallería


----------

