# Italian: different conjugations of verbs ''sottostare'' and ''sovrastare''



## bearded

Hello

I wonder why in Italian the conjugations of the verbs sottostare and sovrastare (both consisting of prefix/preposition + ''stare'' ) are different from each other:
sottostare:  (present) io sottostò, (preterite) io sottostetti... (following the irregular conjugation of ''stare'')
sovrastare: (present) io sovràsto, (preterite) io sovrastai... (following the regular -are 1st conjugation)

Does it depend on the fact that one of the verbs is used more frequently than the other, or on the fact that one of them  is transitive while the other one is intransitive (my far-fetched speculations..)?

Cf. also this thread: sottostò

In advance many thanks for your opinions.


----------



## Starless74

Hard to find a definitive answer...
I suspect it simply depends on use: _sovrastare_ has somehow lost its "-_stare_" connection (so to speak)
as the drawn back stress in _sovr*à*sto_ also seems to suggest, whereas _sottostare_ hasn't.
As for the "reasons" for this being so, I actually have no idea.


----------



## Mary49

Ciao,
vecchissima grammatica: Grammatica novissima della lingua italiana di Leopoldo Rodino


----------



## bearded

Mary49 said:


> vecchissima grammatica


Quella grammatica è davvero vecchissima: lascia intendere l'esistenza possibile  di forme che ''seguitano la coniugazione di 'stare'' quali ''io soprastò, io contrastò'' che (se mai davvero esistite) sono defunte da lungo tempo...  Carino ''contrastìano''!
Strano che ''sottostare'' non sia citato..
Comunque grazie: un inizio o abbozzo di spiegazione - a seconda del significato - quella grammatica lo dà.


----------



## francisgranada

I think that e.g. the verbs  _contrastare _and _restare _are spontaneously perceived or "felt" rather as derivations of the nouns _contrasto _and _resto_, i.e. not as compositions of _prefix + stare_. (This happens also in Spanish, where the conjugations of _contrastar _and _restar _do not follow the irregular conjugation of _estar_).

Of course, this does not answer the original question, it only "offers" a possible idea why some verbs in -_stare _are conjugated regularly (like verbs in -_are_).

Mi vengono in mente due possibili "spiegazioni" (piuttosto speculazioni  ...):

1. Il verbo "sovrastare" viene usato prevalentemente nel senso astratto, cioè non tanto nel senso concreto o spaziale di "stare/trovarsi/essere sopra". Questo però suporrebbe che il verbo _sottostare _si usi più nel senso concreto o spaziale ....  Non ne sono convinto, ma non lo so.

2. La parola _s*o*v*rastare* _foneticamente "s'assomiglia" al verbo _c*o*nt*rastare*_, quindi per mera analogia fonetica, si coniuga ugualmente.


----------



## bearded

francisgranada said:


> derivations of the nouns _contrasto _and _resto_, i.e. not as compositions of _prefix + stare_.


Here the noun ''resto'' does not seem plausible to me..


----------



## francisgranada

bearded said:


> Here the noun ''resto'' does not seem plausible to me..


Independently on the nouns like _resto _or _contrasto_, the idea is that there are verbs in -_stare _that have specific meanings and they are spontaneously no more connected with the verb _stare_, in spite of their origin or etymology. E.g. _costare, prestare, contrastare, restare_, etc ...

However, in case of _sottostare _and _sovrastare, _I don't notice any difference from this point of view, i.e. I do clearly "feel" the presence of the verb _stare_ in the meaning of both of these verbs. Do native Italians  feel or perceive these two verbs differently?

(My second "option" - analogy of _sovrastare _with _contrastare -_ may seem weird, but the phenomenon of analogy or  "influence of some other word" in languages does exist)


----------



## bearded

francisgranada said:


> I do clearly "feel" the presence of the verb _stare_ in the meaning of both of these verbs.


I feel it, too.


----------



## Sobakus

I think the case of _ristare vs restare_ sheds light on the issue. The inherited word is irregular and has concrete meaning; the learned borrowing is regular and abstract. This is the expected situation: it would be extremely unusual for a borrowing to be assimilated to an irregular conjugation, because this would mean the irregular conjugation is productive, which is the opposite of irregular. Therefore this is only indirectly connected with the issue of whether or not it's associated with the basic verb _stare_. In any case I think francisgranada is right when he says that the regular verbs aren't treated as prefixations of the irregular stem of _-sta-, -stett/stièd-_, but as the 1st conjugation derived stem _-sta-, -sta-._ The point about associating that stem with the nouns _resto, contrasto_ also has at least some truth to it because the 1st conjugation in _-are_ is the quintessential denominative conjugation.

The inherited vs borrowed distinction is also reflected in the different stress - _rèsto, sovràsto_ follow the Latin prosodically-driven stress (the penultimate law) while_ restò, soprastò_ follow the Italian practice of always stressing the stem and never the prefix. As can be seen the Italian shape of the prefix _sovra-_ though, the distinction between the two languages wasn't drawn as sharply back then and was more like a difference in register (_volgar latino _vs _grammatica_), with regular back-and-forth adaptation.


----------



## bearded

Sobakus said:


> The inherited vs borrowed distinction


This is convincing. I hadn't thought of it.


----------



## francisgranada

Sobakus said:


> The inherited word is irregular and has concrete meaning; the learned borrowing is regular and abstract. This is the expected situation.... it would be extremely unusual for a borrowing to be assimilated to an irregular conjugation, because this would mean the irregular conjugation is productive, which is the opposite of irregular.


This is surely true in general, but I still think that in case of prefix+verb the dominant criterion in Romance is the meaning of the verb. See for example _intervenire_: this verb is taken from Latin, nevertheless it is conjugated irregularly (_intervengo_, _interviene_,...) both in Italian an Spanish, because its meaning can be clearly associated with the basic verb _venire_. There are many examples of this kind.



Sobakus said:


> As can be seen the Italian shape of the prefix _sovra-_ though, the distinction between the two languages wasn't drawn as sharply back then and was more like a difference in register ....


Ok, it is possible, but it still does not explain the different behaviour of _sottostare_, _soprastare _vs._ sovrastare _(1st.pers. sg.  _sottostò_, _soprastò_, but _sovràsto_). Perhaps, it would be interesting to know the oldest attestations of these verbs in written documents to understand better their history.


----------



## Sobakus

francisgranada said:


> Ok, it is possible, but it still does not explain the different behaviour of _sottostare_, _soprastare _vs._ sovrastare _(1st.pers. sg.  _sottostò_, _soprastò_, but _sovràsto_).


I think the difference between _sopra-_ and _sovra-_ is significant. _sottostò_, _soprastò_ are close to being adverb-verb compounds like Latin verbs of the type _calefacere _(with no vowel reduction or change of conjugation, contrast _laetif*i*cāre_), or indeed the Germanic phrasal verbs. Accordingly, _sopra-_ in _soprastò_ is identical to the adverb _sopra, _likewise with _sottostò._ In contrast, _sovra-_ has been specialised as a verbal prefix and therefore comes with more abstract, derived meanings. I'm not sure if the difference regularly corresponds to the difference in the stem (need more examples), but if the latter is more of a true prefix, it would make sense that it attaches to derived and not primary stems.


----------



## Sobakus

francisgranada said:


> This is surely true in general, but I still think that in case of prefix+verb the dominant criterion in Romance is the meaning of the verb. See for example _intervenire_: this verb is taken from Latin, nevertheless it is conjugated irregularly (_intervengo_, _interviene_,...) both in Italian an Spanish, because its meaning can be clearly associated with the basic verb _venire_. There are many examples of this kind.


How else could it have been conjugated? I think this is the productive pattern, and not at all irregular. In fact it's known as the L-pattern and is found in every single Romance language I believe, having expanded in all of them to very similar degrees.


----------



## francisgranada

Sobakus said:


> I think the difference between _sopra-_ and _sovra-_ is significant. _sottostò_, _soprastò_ are close to being adverb-verb compounds .... In contrast, _sovra-_ has been specialised as a verbal prefix ....


This may be true for the modern standard Italian, but historically _sovra _is both an adverb and a preposition, the same   as _sopra_.  According to dictionaries (e.g. Treccani), _sovra _is considered an archaic or regional variant of _sopra. _(That's why I have written in my previous mail that it would be useful to know the history of these words for better understanding)



> .... In contrast, _sovra-_ has been specialised as a verbal prefix .... and therefore comes with more abstract, derived meanings.... a


If true, then you practically confirm my "theory", that is, the meaning (more concrete or rather abstract) influences how these verbs are treated (conjugated). The "problem" is, that in case of _sottostare _and _sovrastare _this kind of difference probably does not exist, or it is not relevant enough  (see e.g. the post 8# of bearded).



Sobakus said:


> How else could it have been conjugated?


If the natives would not feel absolutely any connection with the verb _venire_, then hypothetically _interveno, interveni, intervene, etc _... It sounds weird and very strange, of course  ...

See e.g. the Spanish verb _subir _(< lat. _subire _< _sub + ire_): it is conjugated regularly (_subo, subes, sube_ ...) and not according to the irregular conjugation of the basic verb_ ir _(i.e. not _*subvoy, *subvas, *subva ..._), probably because it is no more associated directly with the basic verb_ ir_.


----------



## Sobakus

francisgranada said:


> This may be true for the modern standard Italian, but historically _sovra _is both an adverb and a preposition, the same   as _sopra_.  According to dictionaries (e.g. Treccani), _sovra _is considered an archaic or regional variant of _sopra. _(That's why I have written in my previous mail that it would be useful to know the history of these words for better understanding)
> 
> If true, then you practically confirm my "theory", that is, the meaning (more concrete or rather abstract) influences how these verbs are treated (conjugated). The "problem" is, that in case of _sottostare _and _sovrastare _this kind of difference probably does not exist, or it is not relevant enough  (see e.g. the post 8# of bearded).


I think it's relevant. _sovrastare_ in modern standard Italian simply can't be analysed as _stare sovra; sottostare_ can. The situation at an earlier period appears to have been such that it could, and this corresponds to the form _soprastare, soprastò._ Today both the interpretation and the form are obsolete. Thus the issue of meaning is either inseparable from (if the two different conjugations corresponded to two different prefixes), or secondary to, the issue of morphology.


francisgranada said:


> If the natives would not feel absolutely any connection with the verb _venire_, then hypothetically _interveno, interveni, intervene, etc _... It sounds weird and very strange, of course  ...
> 
> See e.g. the Spanish verb _subir _(< lat. _subire _< _sub + ire_): it is conjugated regularly (_subo, subes, sube_ ...) and not according to the irregular conjugation of the basic verb_ ir _(i.e. not _*subvoy, *subvas, *subva ..._), probably because it is no more associated directly with the basic verb_ ir_.


What Spanish or Italian verbs with the stem in _-nir(e)_ conjugate as _-no_ etc? I think you're mistaking irregular stem formation with totally regular conjugation. _ir, voy_ is an example of one verb using two different present stems, known as suppletion - this is irregularity. _venir, vengo_ is an example of totally regular conjugation involving an interfix and/or consonant mutation, known as the L/U-pattern and existing in just about every Romance dialect in some shape, in most of which it's the productive pattern.


----------



## francisgranada

Sobakus said:


> ... _sovrastare_ in modern standard Italian simply can't be analysed as _stare sovra; sottostare_ can ...


Ok, now I understand what you want to say or emphasize: the word _sovra _(independently on it's former/archaic or regional usage) in modern Italian  cannot be used as an adverb, while _sotto (_and _sopra) _yes. Probably this is the right answer to the original question  (i.e. it explains the different behaviour of _sovrastare _and _sottostare_).



Sobakus said:


> What Spanish or Italian verbs with the stem in _-nir(e)_ conjugate as _-no_ etc?


Spanish _discernir > discierno, disciernes,_  ...; _finir > fino, fines ...._ But this is not really important, we could surely find other combinations that do not exist or are improbable. The substance is that I think that the regular or irregular conjugation of compound verbs (prefix+verb), even if learned words like e.g. _intevenire, _depend on their meaning, i.e. whether they can be associated with the basic verb or not.  The conjugation like _interveno, interveni,_ etc. is realy improbable, but e.g. in Italian I could imagine  (in theory) _intervenisco, intervenisci_, ... (I do not insist, of course).


----------



## bearded

Concerning the verb sovrastare:
I would like to point out that in the meaning ''(standing/lying) above'' we sometimes use the participle/adjective _so*p*rastante, _in which the literal meaning of preposition+verb is more easily perceived: for example _Il rumore proveniva dal piano soprastante _(the noise came from the floor above).


----------



## bearded

Many thanks to all of you for the interesting replies.


----------

