# Why does "z" become "r" when diepvriezen is in the past tense?



## TheVegEdge

Hoi alles,

I'm going through the different strong verbs in Dutch, and I came across the verb diepvriezen (to deep freeze).

Now, when I was verifying my answers I noticed that I had gotten them wrong because it was not "vroos diep" and instead it was "vroor diep" (as well as diepgevroren and vroren diep).
I understand the change from "z" to "s" fine enough, and this inflection change exists in the present (vries diep), but I'm at a loss for what could be the function of changing "z" to "r".

Can anyone explain this change? I see it present on many conjugation websites but no explanation to go with it.

Bedankt!


----------



## Peterdg

They don't give an explanation because there probably is no explanation. It's just an irregular verb, just like "vriezen". Another verb that shows the same phenomenon is "verliezen"- "verloor"- "verloren".


----------



## Hans Molenslag

I believe the accepted explanation is that up until Middle Dutch _vriezen, vroos, gevrozen_ en _verliezen, verloos, verlozen_ existed side by side with _vrieren, vroor, gevroren_ en _verlieren, verloor, verloren_. Compare the English verbs _freeze, froze, frozen_ and _lose, lost, lost_ with an s/z to the German verbs _frieren, fror, gefroren_ and _verlieren, verlor, verloren_ with an r. In modern Dutch the two varieties of these verbs merged into one, in which the infinitive and the present tense kept the z-form and the past tense kept the r-form. The linguistic term for this phenomenon, i.e. inflected forms of a single word originating from two or more separate words, is suppletion.

By the way, in some southern Dutch dialects the past tens _vroos, gevrozen_ is still used to a certain extent, but as far as I know _verloos, verlozen_ is now totally obsolete.


----------



## ThomasK

Dit is wat etymologiebank.nl zegt: "De _-r-_ in de verleden tijd mv. _vroren_ en het verl.deelw. _gevroren_ is klankwettig ontstaan door grammatische wisseling en rotacisme, zoals in _(uit)verkoren_ bij _verkiezen_. De oorspronkelijke verleden tijd ev. _vroos_ - nog Vlaams - werd door analogie met _verloor_ vervangen door _vroor_."


----------



## eno2

In  het West-Vlaams zeggen wij (nog steeds hoop ik, ik ben er al lang uit) 'de vaart/vijver ligt/is bevrozen' maar ook, voor personen, 'vervrozen', Hij is helemaal vervrozen. Personen ''bevriezen" blijkbaar niet (?).  (bevestiging welkom)


----------



## ThomasK

Vanuit interfluviaal West-Vlaanderen: akkoord, "bevrozen", "vervrozen", enz.!


----------



## AndrasBP

Hans Molenslag said:


> The linguistic term for this phenomenon, i.e. inflected forms of a single word originating from two or more separate words, is suppletion.


The historical change /z/ > /r/ (rhotacism) resulted in *related *forms having either the /z/ or the /r/ sound.
In modern English, I believe there is just one example: wa*s* / we*r*e.
*Suppletion *is different, it's when two "inflected" forms are completely different and etymologically unrelated, e.g.:

go / went
good / better
aller / vais


----------



## Red Arrow

AndrasBP said:


> The historical change /z/ > /r/ (rhotacism) resulted in *related *forms having either the /z/ or the /r/ sound.


It is both rhotacism and suppletion. Hans Molenslag explained why only the past tense got an R.

An example of just rhotacism /s~z/ > /r/ can be found in the Scandinavian languages:
Dutch Wee*s*! - Swedish Va*r*!
Dutch verlie*z*en / verlo*r*en - Swedish förlo*r*a / förlo*r*ade

The Swedish plural suffixes -er, -ar, -or are all related to plural -s in Dutch and English. Modern Swedish doesn't have plural -s.
Swedish *är*, English *are* and Dutch/English *is *might also be related, but I am not sure. In Norwegian and Danish, it's spelled *er*, and in French and Latin, it's *es*, so I am tempted to think they are related.



eno2 said:


> In  het West-Vlaams zeggen wij (nog steeds hoop ik, ik ben er al lang uit) 'de vaart/vijver ligt/is bevrozen' maar ook, voor personen, 'vervrozen', Hij is helemaal vervrozen. Personen ''bevriezen" blijkbaar niet (?).  (bevestiging welkom)


In Antwerpen en Brabant zeggen we ook bevrozen, maar niet verlozen of zo.


----------



## eno2

Red Arrow said:


> In Antwerpen en Brabant zeggen we ook bevrozen, maar niet verlozen of zo.


Verlozen Ik zei 'vervrozen'...
Ah, Ik snap het. Van 'verliezen, verlozen'. 
Nee, wij ook niet.


----------

