# jön



## 123xyz

I have encountered the verb "jön" in an alternative form "jő" and I was wondering where the "n" came from, since the second form is archaic and therefore older. I suppose in the "jő" form, it would be analogous to "lő", but the conjugation patterns are different - was there something in the past that set these verbs apart that resulted in different conjugations?


----------



## francisgranada

It is a quite difficult question ... I try to say some remarks rather than to give an exact answer:

1. There exists also an older infinitive _*jő*ni_, so *jő *seems to be a regular form (3rd pers.sg.) of this, while *jön *is spontaneousely considered the 3rd pers.sg. of_ *jön*ni

_2. Etymologically, the "original" Hungarian stem was probably _*jöv. _This explains the words/forms like  _*jöv*ő, *jöv*és, *jöv*etel, *jöv*ök _... But due to later phonetical changes in Hungarian_, _the form _*jövni_ became "unusual" (or "unprounceable") so it split into two forms, _jőni _and _jönni _(once probably different dialectal variants) and further on, the form *jön* replaced the older *jő* as a certain kind of hypercorrection (_jönni _> _jön).

_3. The different evolution of _lőni _and _jőni _could be explained by different Proto-Hungarian (Prae-Hungarian) stems for the two verbs that, as consenquence of the phonetical shifts in Hungarian, partially coincide, but not in all the cases. Examples from some other Finno-Ugric languages: *_lii-, *lüö-_ but _*juv-, *jod-. _


----------



## Olivier0

Another explanation I read (Sauvageot perhaps): this_ -n_ in _jön_ is an old verbal mark of singular 3rd person, like in _vagyon_ (-> _van_) and _nincsen_ (=_nincs_), and the pattern _jő_-C/_jöv_-V (before consonant/vowel, like _lő_-C/_löv_-V) changed to the pattern_ jö_-CC/_jöv_-V (like CC-_al_/V-_val_ "with") of the present tense forms: _jöv-ök, jö-ssz, jön, jöv-ünk, jö-ttök, jö-nnek_/_jön-nek_, instead of _j__ő__-sz, __j__ő, __j__ő__-tök, __j__ő__-nek_.


----------



## francisgranada

Yes, I've been thinking also about this possibility. But:

1. _jő_ seems to be older, and this -n (3.pers.) is no more active for a very long time (and it's proper appearence/function in some verbs is not very clear, at least to me ).
2. In such case I should expect _j*ő*n _and not_ j*ö*n. _See e.g._ t*ő*n _and _l*ő*n _(arch. past tenses from _tenni _and _lenni_, 3rd pers.sg.)
4. The presence of a final "v" and it's further evolution (jöv > jöu > jöü > jő) is quite typical in Hungarian. See e.g. lov > lou> ló, jav > jau > jó etc ...


----------



## 123xyz

Thank you for your answers
The hypercorrection theory and the third person -n suffix seem plausible, as well as the way the postvocalic "v" developed in Hungarian leading to the two different forms of jön (and the convergence with lő in many forms). As for francisgranada's point 2, are the archaic past forms ending in -n such because of a third person -n suffix? I thought they were just a root form. I haven't found the full conjugation of these verbs in that archaic tense so I couldn't compare - are the other forms without an "n"? Also, is the -n in the indefinite subjunctive third person suffix (for example, adjon) the same third person suffix?


----------



## francisgranada

123xyz said:


> ... are the archaic past forms ending in -n such because of a third person -n suffix? I thought they were just a root form. I haven't found the full conjugation of these verbs in that archaic tense so I couldn't compare - are the other forms without an "n"? Also, is the -n in the indefinite subjunctive third person suffix (for example, adjon) the same third person suffix?



There is a suffix -n, which appears in the third pers. sg. subjunctive, as in _adjon_, but sporadically also in the archaic forms of indicative in some verbs. They are rather exceptions, so it's not clear (at least for me) what was the original/etymological function of this -n. Examples (all that comes to my mind): va*n*, (arch. vagyo*n*) megye*n*, tesze*n* and _t*ő*n, __l*ő*n _(past). Interestingly, it appears also in the Finnish verb _on_ (Hung. _van_, he/she/it is) while the stem of the verb is _ol- _(Hungarian _vol_-, e.g. volt, volna ...)

(I'm not sure about the exact forms of this "régies múlt" of lenni, but I guess they could be: levék/lők, levél/lél, leve/lő*n*, levénk, levétek, levének. The second form is more archaic, while first is regular).


----------

