# Nasal Infix



## Scholiast

Greetings all round

This query arises from a recent discussion in the Latin Forum at WR.

A phenomenon common in Latin and classical Greek is the so-called 'nasal infix', in verbs of the present-tense, but not properly belonging to the primary stem. E.g. Greek μανθἀνω (present tense) but ἔμαθον, aorist; Lat. _fundere,_ present, but _fudi_, _fusum_ in the perfect system. This also crops up in English and German ('think'/'thought', 'bringen'/'brachte'). This, I have learned from a different discussion here, is known to philologists, as a 'nasal infix'. Curiosity is aroused.

Can anyone please explain where and how this comes into I-E tongues, or give me a bibliographical reference for it?

Σ


----------



## ahvalj

As a grammatical tool, the infix occurs only once in the entire Proto-Indo-European grammar: as one of the ways to form the present stem. Its canonical form is _-ne-_ (i. e. the full _e_-grade) inserted before the last consonant of the root in the singular active and _-n-_ (i. e. the zero grade) inserted in the remaining active and all medium forms, e. g. in *li-ne-kʷ-ti "he leaves" — *li-n-kʷ-enti "they leave" from the root *leı̯kʷ- "to leave". In thematic forms, the infix is always in the zero-grade, e. g. _*linkʷeti_ "he leaves" > Latin _linquit_.

When the last consonant of the root was _u̯_ or a laryngeal, the infix produced _*-neu̯-~-nu-_ and _*-neH-~-nH-,_ which were — already in Proto-Indo-European — reinterpreted as suffixes, and which are, in particular, the source of the Greek _-νῡμι_ and _-νημι-_types; the _-nehₐ-~-nhₐ-_type being the source of the Germanic *-nō-~-na-verbs, e. g. the English waken.​​Think and bring don't have an infix: the disappearance of _n_ before _*-xt-_ is phonetic. An infix is present, however, in stand.​
The origin of the infix is obscure. _Kloekhorst A · 2008 · “Etymological dictionary of the Hittite inherited lexicon”:_ 153–155 notes that


> infixation is a rare phenomenon and always the result of epenthesis. It is therefore attractive to assume that the nasal infix as attested in the IE languages derives from an earlier _n_-suffix
> […]
> it is likely that in (pre-)PIE, the structure of the _n_-suffixed verbs was _*CRC-én-ti / *CRC-n-énti_


He suggests the following scenario:

Original situation:_ *tm̥k-en-ti_ "he attaches" — *_tm̥k-n-enti_ "they attach"
In the forms with _*CRC-n-, n-_epenthesis occurs: the stops preceding _-n-_ become prenasalized: _*tm̥k-en-ti — *tm̥ⁿk-n-enti_
The prenasalized stop of the plural spreads throughout the paradigm: _*tm̥ⁿk-en-ti — *tm̥ⁿk-n-enti_
The cluster _*-nCn-_ is simplified to _-nC-:_ _*tm̥ⁿk-en-ti — *tm̥nk-enti_
Under pressure of the plural forms, which seem to contain a root_ *CRnC-,_ the singular stem _*CRnCen-_ metathesizes to _*CRnenC-_: _*tm̥neⁿk-ti — *tm̥nk-enti_
The nasalized consonants lose their nasalization, which leads to the classical model _*CR-né-C-ti / *CR-n-C-énti: *tm̥nek-ti — *tm̥nk-enti._
A similar phonetic development might be found e. g. in the word "water", where the oblique forms with *udn- produced the Latin unda and Latvian ūdens, both eventually from _*uⁿdn-_.

P. S. Greek alone has both the infix and the nasal suffix: this in principle may represent different evolution from Kloekhorst's stage 3, with just a thematicization to _*tm̥ⁿk-n-e-ti — *tm̥ⁿk-n-enti _and subsequent development of a fill vowel before _-n-_.


----------



## Olaszinhok

In Italian the nasal infix is quite widespread:
Present *vinco* (I win) Simple past *vinsi* (I won)  past participle *vinto *(won)
Present * infrango *(I break) Simple past *infransi* (I broke)  past particple *infranto* (broken)

In the examples above, the nasal infix is mantained in the irregular forms of Past simple and Past participle, unlike Latin _(vici, victum, etc.)._


Italian also retains some non-nasal perfects and past participles.

*rompere* (to break) * ruppi *( I broke)   *rotto* (broken)
*fondere* (to melt)   *fusi (* I melted)     *fuso * (melted)
*prendere *(to take) *presi *(I took)   * preso *(taken)

Morphologization: Studies in Latin and Romance Morphophonology


----------



## ahvalj

Olaszinhok said:


> In Italian the nasal infix is quite widespread:
> Present *vinco* (I win) Simple past *vinsi* (I won)  past participle *vinto *(won)
> Present * infrango *(I break) Simple past *infransi* (I broke)  past particple *infranto* (broken)
> Present *giungo* ( I arrive/get) Simple Past* giunsi (* I arrived/got) past participle *giunto* (arrived/got)
> 
> In the above examples, the nasal infix is maintened in the irregular forms of Past simple and Past participle, unlike Latin.
> 
> Italian also retains some non-nasal perfects and past participles.
> 
> *rompere* (to break) * ruppi *( I broke)   *rotto* (broken)
> *fondere* (to melt)   *fusi (* I melted)     *fuso * (melted)
> *prendere *(to take) *presi *(I took)   * preso *(taken)
> 
> Morphologization: Studies in Latin and Romance Morphophonology


As a sidenote, _preso_ (and by analogy _presi_) come from prēnsum_,_ with _n_ having spread to the participle in proto-Latin and then lost in late Latin before _s, _like in mēnsa > mēsa.


----------



## AndrasBP

Some examples from Lithuanian:

_tapti_ (inf.), _ta*m*pa_ (Pres. 3rd person), _tapo_ (Past 3rd person) - to become
_akti, a*n*ka, ako_ - to become blind
_sekti, se*n*ka, seko_ - to become shallow


----------



## bearded

German seems to retain a nasal infix in cases where English lost it: _Wunsch/wish, fünf/five… _How can this be explained?


----------



## Perseas

ahvalj said:


> P. S. Greek alone has both the infix and the nasal suffix: this in principle may represent different evolution from Kloekhorst's stage 3, with just a thematicization to _*tm̥ⁿk-n-e-ti — *tm̥ⁿk-n-enti _and subsequent development of a fill vowel before _-n-_.


1,4 have nasal suffix/infix;
2,3 have both nasal infix and nasal suffix.

1. (verb stem: τεμ-/τμη-) --> present : τέμ-*ν*-ω ; aorist: ἔ-τεμ-ον [cut]
2. (verb stem: λαθ-/ληθ-) --> present: λα-*ν*-θ-*άν*-ω ; aorist: ἔ- λαθ-ον [go unnoticed].
3. (verb stem: τευχ-/τυχ-) -->present: τυ-*γ*-χ-*άν*-ω ; aorist: ἔ-τυχ-ον [happen to]. The nasal ν becomes γ before χ.
4. (verb stem: κρι-) -->present: κρῐ-*ν-*j-ω>κρῐ΄*ν*ν-ω_ >_κρῑ΄ν-ω ; aorist: ἔ-κρῐν-σα>ἔκρι*ν*α  [judge]. Here the nasal suffix is extended to the aorist stem, as if part of the verb stem.


----------



## ahvalj

bearded said:


> German seems to retain a nasal infix in cases where English lost it: _Wunsch/wish, fünf/five… _How can this be explained?


It's not the infix, it's the original _-n-_ that was part of the root. Ingaevonic languages drop n before voiceless spirants , also _goose — Gans_ etc.


----------



## ahvalj

AndrasBP said:


> Some examples from Lithuanian:
> 
> _tapti_ (inf.), _ta*m*pa_ (Pres. 3rd person), _tapo_ (Past 3rd person) - to become
> _akti, a*n*ka, ako_ - to become blind
> _sekti, se*n*ka, seko_ - to become shallow


Also in the suffix Lithuanian _-inti (augìnti):_ Latvian -_ināt_ (audzināt): they go back to the above _*-nehₐ-~nhₐ-_type: the alternation became _*-nā-~-n̥->*-nā-~-in-,_ which in Lithuanian has been leveled after the non-singular forms (note the acute from the laryngeal) while in Latvian we find a contamination of the non-singular _-i-_ (the fill vowel of the zero-grade) and the singular _-nā-_.


----------



## ahvalj

Perseas said:


> 1,4 have nasal suffix/infix;
> 2,3 have both nasal infix and nasal suffix.
> 
> 1. (verb stem: τεμ-/τμη-) --> present : τέμ-*ν*-ω ; aorist: ἔ-τεμ-ον [cut]
> 2. (verb stem: λαθ-/ληθ-) --> present: λα-*ν*-θ-*άν*-ω ; aorist: ἔ- λαθ-ον [go unnoticed].
> 3. (verb stem: τευχ-/τυχ-) -->present: τυ-*γ*-χ-*άν*-ω ; aorist: ἔ-τυχ-ον [happen to]. The nasal ν becomes γ before χ.
> 4. (verb stem: κρι-) -->present: κρῐ-*ν-*j-ω>κρῐ΄*ν*ν-ω_ >_κρῑ΄ν-ω ; aorist: ἔ-κρῐν-σα>ἔκρι*ν*α  [judge]. Here the nasal suffix is extended to the aorist stem, as if part of the verb stem.


Yes, but I meant attested languages: no other Indo-European branch combines the infix and the suffix, cp. riṇakti and linquit with the infix, lkʿanē with the suffix and λιμπάνει with both. The Greek situation was always considered odd, but it may turn out archaic if Kloekhorst is right.

[Removed the postscript as it was misleading].


----------



## Scholiast

Thanks all round, especially to the polymathematic ahvalj. I appear, unwittingly, to have strayed into a philological minefield!

Σ


----------



## ahvalj

Very many things authors of grammars and manuals explain in their own ways look different from an etymological perspective. After all, each generation of speakers re-digests the linguistic material they have inherited (and the authors among them) — so, perhaps, it is not always relevant that a certain phenomenon is diachronically heterogeneous (I mean in particular the presence/absence of _n_ in the above English and Italian examples).


----------



## Daniel.N

(Continuing the discussion a bit.) It's interesting that Slavic languages have two types of _-n-_ (examples in Croatian, but other Slavic languages are similar):

_gur-a-ti_ "push" = imperfective / _gur-*nu*-ti_ (pres. _gur-*n*-e_) = perfective
_kih-a-ti_ "sneeze" = imperfective / _kih-*nu*-ti _(pres. _kih-*n*-e_) = perfective

So in many verbs,_ -*nu*-/-*n*-_ marks perfective verbs, but are some other verbs, now considered irregular, have _-*n*-_ only in the present tense (all such verbs are perfective):

_sta-ti_ "stand", past f _sta-la_, pres. _sta-*n*-e
le-ći_ "lie" (< *_leg-ti_), past f _leg-la_, pres. _leg-*n*-e
pas-ti_ "fall" (<*_pad-ti_), past f _pa-la _(< *_pad-la_), pres. _pad-*n*-e
di-ći_ "lift" (*_dig-ti_), past f _dig-la_, pres. _dig-*n*-e
ni-ći _"sprout" (<*_nik-ti_), past f _nik-la, _pres. _nik-*n*-e_

So far I haven't found a convincing explanation why these verbs have retained the_ -*n*-_ infix for the present tense, especially since they are all perfective. Some of them have double forms, where _-*n*- _appears in the infinitive as well, e.g. _nik-*nu*-ti_ is an alternative infinitive of _nići_, and it could be an analogy with other verbs.

The infix is also known from other branches, but rarely for cognates to these verbs above, which is strange.


----------



## ahvalj

At the attested stage of Slavic it would be better to distinguish the proper infix from the _n_-suffix.

The former is only found in a few verbs: _sěsti — sędǫ_ (Prussian also has _syndens~sindats_ “sitting”), _leťi — lęgǫ_, _obrěsti — obrętǫ~obręťǫ _and _byti — bǫdǫ_. Here _*n_ is inserted into the root between the vowel (_e_ or _*ē _in the first three verbs, _*u/*ū_ in the latter) and the final consonant, producing respectively _ę _or_ ǫ_.

The nasal suffix is not necessarily connected with the perfective meaning: it also occurs in verbs of becoming:_ vyknǫti, gasnǫti, gynǫti~gybnǫti, mьrznǫti, __stynǫti~stydnǫti_.

Originally the nasal infix/suffix only characterized the present stem. In older Slavic languages, when the root ends in a consonant (regardless of the aspect), the suffix penetrates to the infinitive, but remains absent in the aorist and both past active participles: _tonǫti — tonǫ_ but _topъ _(“I sank [aorist]; he who sank [participle]”), _topъši_ “she who sank”, _toplъ_; _gynǫti — gynǫ_ but _gybъ, gybъši, gyblъ_. That's still (partially) the rule in Czech: _mrknout — mrkl, tisknout — tiskl, tištěn._

In Old Church Slavonic, all verbs with the _-ne_-present have the infinitive in _-nǫti_ with the only exception of _stanǫ — stati_. The aorist and past active participles from consonant-ending roots can be formed both with or without _-nǫ-: dvignǫti — dvigъ~dvignǫxъ, dvigъ~dvignǫvъ._

In West Slavic, the present _-ne-_ has expanded in the course of the last millennium, replacing the old suffixless verbs: Czech _sednout__, __lehnout_ (replacing the abovementioned infixed verbs), _padnout_ (replacing _pasti_), _vládnout_ (replacing _vlasti_), _svléknout_ (from _svléct_).


----------



## Catagrapha

Greco-Latin example: thesaurus > thensaurus
Latino-Romance: exagium > ensaio, ensayo
English: nightegale > nightingale


----------



## Penyafort

Catagrapha said:


> Latino-Romance: exagium > ensaio, ensayo



That -n- is rather reduced to West Ibero-Romance:

*EXAGIUM*​saggio (Italian), essai (French), assaig (Catalan)​ensaio (Portuguese), ensayo (Spanish)​​*EXAMINE*​sciame (Italian), essaim (French), eixam (Catalan)​enxame (Portuguese), enjambre (Spanish)​​*EXSUCARE*​asciugare (Italian), essuyer (French), eixugar (Catalan)​enxugar (Portuguese), enjugar (Spanish)​​*EXAQUARE*​sciacquare (Italian), eixaugar (Catalan)​enxaguar (Portuguese), enjaguar/enjuagar (Spanish)​


----------



## Olaszinhok

Penyafort said:


> West Ibero-Romance:


I don't reckon Italian is a West *Ibero*-Romance  Many experts in Romance languages even include Italian in East Romance languages...
Romance languages - Classification methods and problems


----------



## Penyafort

Olaszinhok said:


> I don't reckon Italian is a West *Ibero*-Romance  Many romanists even include Italian in East Romance languages...
> Romance languages - Classification methods and problems



I used Italian, French and Catalan as a contrast to the two main West Ibero-Romance languages, Portuguese and Spanish. That is why I underlined the n's in those examples.


----------



## Olaszinhok

Penyafort said:


> I used Italian, French and Catalan as a contrast to the two


Sorry, I read in instead of to...


----------



## Catagrapha

Penyafort said:


> That -n- is rather reduced to West Ibero-Romance:


Are examples like_ lutra>lontra, mazana>manzana _random? Or is there some sort of pattern?


----------



## Penyafort

Catagrapha said:


> Are examples like_ lutra>lontra, mazana>manzana _random? Or is there some sort of pattern?



In the West Iberian examples mentioned before, we might talk about a pattern with EX- [eks], in which perhaps nasalization of a velar came into play. 

But I'm sure random examples are to be found here and there. I'd say the occasional nasal infix next to a dental, specially if not directly followed by a vowel, could be perfectly possible. Lontra is not only Italian, you also find West Iberian equivalents (lontra/londra, llóndriga). Manzana is certainly a particularity of late medieval Spanish, given that genuine forms in all other languages are without n (maçã, mazana, maçana, macienne...)


----------

