# Baltic and Slavic infinitive suffix -ti



## Gavril

Hello,

What is thought to be the origin of the infinitive suffix -_ti_ seen in Baltic and Slavic languages (e.g., the infinitive of the verb "to be" is Lithuanian _bū*ti*_, Russian _by*t*', _Slovenian _bi*ti*_, Polish _by*ć*_, etc.)?

Thanks


----------



## Triginta Septem

It comes from *-tei, which is originally a case suffix, probably locative. So, verb-ti basically means "in doing verb".

Interestingly, the gerund (also used as something like a locative, sometimes) is formed in Japanese by adding -te/-de. This is obviously unrelated, and I'd assume it's from the postposition de, meaning by means of, but it's an interesting coincidence. ^^


----------



## Gavril

Triginta Septem said:


> It comes from *-tei, which is originally a case suffix, probably locative. So, verb-ti basically means "in doing verb".



The suffix -_i_ is considered to be locative, but the -_te_- would have to come from somewhere else, correct? Is it thought to be from a verbal noun formation, like the Latin supine suffix -_tu-_?

Also, is it expected that *_-ei _would reduce to _-i _in this position? I recall that *_ei _was generally monophthongized to _*e_: in Baltic and Slavic, but maybe the development was different in word-final (unstressed) position.



> Interestingly, the gerund (also used as something like a locative, sometimes) is formed in Japanese by adding -te/-de. This is obviously unrelated, and I'd assume it's from the postposition de, meaning by means of, but it's an interesting coincidence. ^^



It seems quite common (cross-linguistically) for infinitives to be based on frozen locative case forms. I'm thinking of starting a thread on this when I've gathered a little more data.


----------



## Triginta Septem

Gavril said:


> Also, is it expected that *_-ei _would reduce to _-i _in this position? I recall that *_ei _was generally monophthongized to _*e_: in Baltic and Slavic, but maybe the development was different in word-final (unstressed) position.


I don't know much about this, so I can't tell you why, but it would appear to be an exception, if that's the case... (http://books.google.com/books?id=bS...oDA&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Actually, is what he's talking about there what you meant about -tu-?


----------



## Gavril

Triginta Septem said:


> I don't know much about this, so I can't tell you why, but it would appear to be an exception, if that's the case... (http://books.google.com/books?id=bS...oDA&sqi=2&ved=0CFQQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false)
> 
> Actually, is what he's talking about there what you meant about -tu-?



Yes, in the section you linked to, he derives the *_-tei_ ending from a verbal abstract noun in *-_ti_-, perhaps related to Greek -_sis_ (as seen in words like _thesis_, _praxis_, _parataxis_, etc.), if -_si_- reflects earlier *-_ti_-.

The author references an earlier section of the book when he discusses this verbal abstract noun formation, but this section isn't currently viewable on Google.


----------



## LilianaB

Hi, Gavril. What do you mean by "come from"? Wouldn't an infinitive be the basic form of any verb. What were the infinitive endings in PIE?

Added: I have actually found out that it is unclear what the infinitive endings in the PIE were (possibly -ti as well, but not confirmed). Infinitives, as verbal nouns, were formed through the use of suffixes in the PIE.


The third person singular ending was reconstructed as *ti, in the PIE.


----------



## Gavril

LilianaB said:


> Hi, Gavril. What do you mean by "come from"?



Triginta Septem wrote that "[-ti] comes from *-tei, which is originally a case suffix, probably locative." Since the *-_t- _can't have been part of the locative case suffix, I wondered what its origin was.



> Wouldn't an infinitive be the basic form of any verb. What were the infinitive endings in PIE?



It's not clear that PIE had an infinitive in the sense of a default, undeclined nominal form for each verb. Not every IE branch has one: e.g., the Celtic languages have various verbal noun formations, but no regular infinitives.

As far as the verbal noun suffixes reconstructed for PIE, I recall reading that the suffix -_tu_- (which appears in the Latin supines: e.g., _conspec*tus* _"view" < _spec-_ "look") is found in a number of different IE branches.


----------



## DenisBiH

Gavril said:


> Also, is it expected that *_-ei _would reduce to _-i _in this position? I recall that *_ei _was generally monophthongized to _*e_: in Baltic and Slavic, but maybe the development was different in word-final (unstressed) position.



This is what Frederik Kortlandt has to say on the matter:



> 6.5. (B8) Monophthongization of diphthongs: ai > ē, ei > ẹ̄, ui > ǖ, au > ō.
> ...
> 7.9. (B13) Raising of ẹ̄ and ō. The empty hole which the delabialization had left was filled by raising the remaining rounded vowel ō to ū. The corresponding front vowel ẹ̄ < PIE. ei was raised to merge with ī.



I have no idea what the dot under the e is supposed to indicate, perhaps he explains it somewhere else in the article. Also, it is not clear to me when and how ī was shortened, but he says this:


> 7.13. (A13 = B14) Rise of the new timbre distinctions. ... This development was posterior to the raising of ẹ̄ and ō (7.9) because these vowels are reflected as i and u in the historical languages.


----------



## LilianaB

Since the infinitive is treated as a verbal noun, wouldn't it be more feasible that it would take an Accusative ending, rather than a Locative? I would like an apple (Acc. -- in Slavic and Baltic languages) I would like to eat (Infinitive).


----------



## Gavril

LilianaB said:


> Since the infinitive is treated as a verbal noun, wouldn't it be more feasible that it would take an Accusative ending, rather than a Locative? I would like an apple (Acc. -- in Slavic and Baltic languages) I would like to eat (Infinitive).



I don't think that the accusative singular ending of a noun in *-_ti-_ (which is the proposed origin of the Baltic and Slavic infinitives) would be expected to give *-_ti _in Baltic or Slavic. In Baltic, if I'm not mistaken, the accusative singular contains at least a nasalized vowel rather than a plain -_i_: cf. Lithuanian _širdį_, the accusative sg. of _širdis_ "heart". In Slavic languages, as far as I know, the acc. sg. of older _i-_stems is endingless. For example, Slovenian _pot_ "path, journey" is thought to be from an earlier _i_-stem, and its accusative singular is identical to the nom. sg., whereas its locative sg. is_ poti_.

More generally, I don't think that a verbal noun is necessarily likelier to be "frozen" in the accusative than in the locative: cf. English _I'm *a*-doing [X] < I'm *at *doing [X]._ (I'm hoping to discuss this question in more depth on a thread about the development of infinitives.)


----------



## Ben Jamin

LilianaB said:


> Hi, Gavril. What do you mean by "come from"? Wouldn't an infinitive be the basic form of any verb.


There is no reason to believe that the infinitive came before the finite forms of the verb. One must not confuse the infinitive with the primitive, pre-finite form of a verb. The infinitive, at least in IE languages is truly a newer construction than the finite forms.


----------



## muhahaa

I remember reading that lacking infinitives is typical to languages with active-stative alignment (just like the gender system with no active case in neuter gender).


----------



## Gavril

muhahaa said:


> I remember reading that lacking infinitives is typical to languages with active-stative alignment (just like the gender system with no active case in neuter gender).



Hi Muhahaa, 

What do you mean by active/stative alignment?

Most of the older (attested) IE languages have a neuter gender category in which the accusative is formally identical to the nominative, but only a few branches lack what we would think of as an infinitive.


----------



## LilianaB

Yes,, the Older Baltic languages had an active neuter gender. The present time Lithuanian does not have it (in  the active -- only partial passive use). Most Slavic languages have a neuter gender.


----------



## Dhira Simha

Gavril said:


> Hello,
> 
> What is thought to be the origin of the infinitive suffix -_ti_ seen in Baltic and Slavic languages (e.g., the infinitive of the verb "to be" is Lithuanian _bū*ti*_, Russian _by*t*', _Slovenian _bi*ti*_, Polish _by*ć*_, etc.)?
> 
> Thanks



This is a very interesting question. It is generally agreed that I-E infinitives are "derived NOUNS"  
Robert J. Jeffers. "Remarks on Indo-European Infinitives"*.*_Languag_e , Vol. 51, No. 1 (Mar., 1975), pp. 133-148
Published by: Linguistic Society of America
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/413155)


They are believed to be  'fossilised'  case forms (accusative, dative, locative etc.) of verbal nouns structured as root + nominal suffix + case ending  i.e. formed from  verbal roots or bases  by means of suffixes. You may want to read Jeffers pp. 142-144 where he treats Slavonic and Baltic infinitives.  This does not answer the question of what was the origin of the suffix _-ti-_ which is for me the  most interesting part.  It was quite productive in Vedic e.g.: _iṣ-_ ‘to endeavour to obtain, strive, seek for’ > _iṣ-ti_ ‘desire’; _dā-_ ‘to give’ > _dā-ti_ ‘gift’. Slavonic and Baltic infinitives in _-ti  _look strikingly similar to the bare (non-inflected)  Vedic noun base in _-ti. _It is also interesting that the other productive Vedic suffix _-tu _also used for making infinitives (e.g. in _-tum_) coincides with the old Slavonic supine ending _-tŭ_ (_-тъ_) which was very close in function to the infinitive.


----------



## neonrider

Triginta Septem said:


> It comes from *-tei, which is originally a case suffix, probably locative. So, verb-ti basically means "in doing verb".
> 
> Interestingly, the gerund (also used as something like a locative, sometimes) is formed in Japanese by adding -te/-de. This is obviously unrelated, and I'd assume it's from the postposition de, meaning by means of, but it's an interesting coincidence. ^^



I found other "coincidental similarities" between Japanese and Northern European languages, Lithuanian among them. To me, Japanese, if we remove Chinese loan words from it, is more like Northern European or  Pacific language rather than Asian. Here's an example: "oshiri kajiri mushi" (butt biting bugs), in Lithuanian it will be "subine kandancios muses". Where muse is rather a fly, but it is also a bug. Now the root kand- is the same in Japanese and in Lithuanian, so is mus-.

There are other coincidences, I will mention only a few that I remember (JP - LT - EN):

Kawa = kavoja, slepia (hiding)
Oppai =  papai (tits, breasts)
Kande = kanda (bite, bites)
Mushi = muse (bug,  fly)
Oshiri = uzhpakalis (butt, behind) (Lit. often pron, as  "oshpakalis")
Kochi kochi = kuti kuti (tickling, tickle-tickle)
Katai =  kietai, kieta, kietas (hard)
Konki = kantri (patience) (not very  similar)
Tairaka = taikinga, taika (peaceful, peace)
Tooi = toli (far)  (very similar because our "o" is pronounced long as Japanese "oo")
Wakai =  vaikai (kids, young) (wakaa - in West Lithuanian dialect)
Ikimas(u) = ejimas  (going)
Ikimasho = eikime (let's go)
Ate = ate (end, bye)
Aishiteru =  aistra (Jp: I love you; Lt: passion)
Te = te (JP: hand; LT: take it  (command))
Matane = iki pasi_*mat*_ymo (adios)

Some entertaining ones: 

arimas (JP, grammatical form) =  arimas (LT, a ploughed field)
simas (JP, grammatical form) = Simas (LT, male  name)
wakarimas (JP, I understand) = vakarejimas (LT, evening is approaching; its  becoming dark(er)) or dusk

This could be the lost Ainu connection.


----------



## neonrider

I think -ti, -tj is similar to English to: to do = daryti, delatj (Lit., Rus.).

For example:

Lithuanian: grandy_*ti*_
English: _*to*_ grind

Yet English also has it at the end of words sometrimes, for instance:

Lithuanian: persekio*ti* (very often Lithuanian -ti is written, spoken and spelled as persekiot, without "i" at the end)
English: _*to*_ persecu_*te*_

Lithuanian: lauk_*t(i)*_
English: _*to*_ wai_*t*_


----------



## Gavril

neonrider said:


> Lithuanian: lauk_*t(i)*_
> English: _*to*_ wai_*t*_



There might be something to the comparison involving English _wait_: the English word is thought to be related to Dutch _wachten_ "wait", which is in turn thought to come from the same stem as Eng. _wake, awake _etc. It's possible that the -_t_- suffix used to derive _wacht- _from earlier *_wak- _is the same as the -_tu_- of the Latin supines, the _-si-_ of Greek verbal nouns, and the -_ti_ of Balto-Slavic infinitives. However, there are other possibilities: the -_t_- of _wait _could be participial (from earlier *-_to_- rather than *-_tu_-/-_ti_-), for example.


----------



## itreius

neonrider said:


> I found other "coincidental similarities" between Japanese and Northern European languages, Lithuanian among them.




Why is coincidental similarities in quotes?



neonrider said:


> To me, Japanese, if we remove Chinese loan words from it, *is more like* Northern European or  Pacific language rather than Asian. Here's an example: "oshiri kajiri mushi" (butt biting bugs), in Lithuanian it will be "subine kandancios muses". Where muse is rather a fly, but it is also a bug. Now the root kand- is the same in Japanese and in Lithuanian, so is mus-.



Could you clarify what you mean by "is more like", _Northern European_ and _Asian_?


----------



## ahvalj

So many fruitful ideas, why not just to check the relevant literature where everything was discussed to death back in the 19th century?

Both infinitive forms are related and continue the former deverbal nouns on -t-, but the Lithuanian Infinitive continues the original Locative of t-stems (the IE Locative ending was -i or zero), while the Slavic form continues the Locative of ti-stems (since it has an acute "i" that may come only from the i-stem Locative -e:i). If Lithuanian had the same form, it would have sounded -ti in plain and -ties in Reflexive verbs and would have been stressed in verbs with non-acute roots (e. g. *vestì/vestíes like Praes. Sg. 1 vedù/vedúosi instead of the actual Infinitive vesti/vestis with the stem-stress). 

The situation in Latvian is ambiguous: this language actually has vest/vesties, but since -ie- in Latvian is a universal fill vowel between the consonant and the reflexive marker -s (e. g. -ties in Imperative Pl. 2), it is unknown, which stem, -t- or -ti- was original there. 

By the way, Prussian had different Infinitive forms (e. g., -twei), so the actual Infinitive was a result of choice between various deverbal nouns made in individual Balto-Slavic branches.


----------



## berndf

Gavril said:


> Hi Muhahaa,
> 
> What do you mean by active/stative alignment?
> 
> Most of the older (attested) IE languages have a neuter gender category in which the accusative is formally identical to the nominative, but only a few branches lack what we would think of as an infinitive.


The most widely accepted theory about the development of the PIE gender system is that it developed out of a active-stative language that had "animate" nouns that could appear as agent and patient in a sentence and where marked for nominative and accusative and "inanimate" nouns than such a marking because they could only appear as parameters of stative verbs. These "inanimate" nouns had two distinct plurals, an individual and a collective one. The hypothesis is that the animate gender developed into the masculine, the inanimate into the neuter and the collective plural of the inanimate into the feminine gender of PIE. The explains the lack of distinct accusative forms for neuter nouns in many IE languages.


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> The most widely accepted theory about the development of the PIE gender system is that it developed out of a active-stative language that had "animate" nouns that could appear as agent and patient in a sentence and where marked for nominative and accusative and "inanimate" nouns than such a marking because they could only appear as parameters of stative verbs. These "inanimate" nouns had two distinct plurals, an individual and a collective one. The hypothesis is that the animate gender developed into the masculine, the inanimate into the neuter and the collective plural of the inanimate into the feminine gender of PIE. The explains the lack of distinct accusative forms for neuter nouns in many IE languages.


Polish shows remnants of animate/inanimate nouns. The masculine gender has three subgenders: personal animate (human), non personal animate (animal) and inanimate.


----------



## berndf

Ben Jamin said:


> Polish shows remnants of animate/inanimate nouns. The masculine gender has three subgenders: personal animate (human), non personal animate (animal) and inanimate.


That is probably a re-invention rather than a remnant of this old gender system. Hittite, a language that probably split from PIE very early, had this two gender system (animate vs. inanimate).


----------



## Ben Jamin

berndf said:


> That is probably a re-invention rather than a remnant of this old gender system. Hittite, a language that probably split from PIE very early, had this two gender system (animate vs. inanimate).


Yes of course, I agree, it is not a feature inherited directly  from PIE, but the idea of animate vs inanimate must have been somehow preserved in the language.


----------

