# transitive/intransitive verbs (causative)



## Scholiast

Greetings everyone.

This is another query prompted by a discussion from another WR forum, but EHL seems a more appropriate place for it.

In Latin, some verb-stems are assigned different conjugational formations, according to whether they are to be used transitively or intransitively, thus:

_cado_ (_cadere_, _cecǐdi_) = "to fall"
_caedo_ (_caedere_, _cecīdi_) = "to cause to fall", "cut down"

_fugio_ (_fugere_, _fūgi_) = "to flee"
_fugo_ (_fugare_, _fugavi_) = "to put to flight", "to rout"

A similar pattern occurs in both German and English, where we have these pairs:

_liegen_/_legen_; _sitzen_/_setzen_; _fallen_/_fällen_; _drängen_/_dringen_(?)

_lie_/_lay_; _rise_/_raise_; _fall_/_fell_; _sit_/_set_

And (to my knowledge - perhaps there are more) there is one common classical Greek verb (ἵστημι) which in some tenses and moods has different forms, depending on the (in)transitivity of the sense.

(There may of course be other IE languages in which something like this also occurs.)

My question is: is there a slick technical term in philology for this phenomenon, or do we have to write with a circumlocution such as "the phenomenon of parallel transitive and intransitive verbs derived from the same stem"?


----------



## CapnPrep

I guess the term you want is something like "causative morphology". You might like this Wikipedia article.


----------



## berndf

Those are all _causative_ derivations.
- Concerning Latin verbs: The causative was not productive any more but some reflexes of the PIE causative (accented suffix [ej] added to the o-grade ablaut of the stem) remained but the original formation patterns are not transparent any more.
- Concerning Germanic verbs: In Proto-Germanic the causative was constructed by inserting _-j-_ in the verb suffix, e.g. _to fall_ was _*fallanan_ and _to cause to fall, to make fall_ (i.e. _to fell_) was _*fall*j*anan_.  The difference in stem vowel is often explained by the fact that the Proto-Germanic causative is a reflex of the PIE causative. But in the case of this verb pair, there is another reason: Through a phonological process called _i-mutation_ or _i-umlaut_ which can be observed in both German and English, _*fallanan_ became ME/MHG _fallen_ while _*fall*j*anan_ became _fellen_ (in MHG both verbs were also spelled with "v" at the beginning but that was pure spelling variation without any consequence). The modern German spelling _fällen_ rather than _fellen_ was chosen to make the etymological connection with _fallen_ more transparent, it does not imply any change in pronunciation.


----------



## Scholiast

Warm thanks to CapnPrep for the reference - yes, I found that article interesting and useful - and to berndf for the detailed explanation of the (Anglo-)Germanic origins and morphological history. May one therefore assume by analogy that in Latin too, the intransitive forms (_fugio_, _sedeo_, _iaceo_ &c.) in these pairs are morphologically prior to the causative?


----------



## berndf

Scholiast said:


> May one therefore assume by analogy that in Latin too, the intransitive forms (_fugio_, _sedeo_, _iaceo_ &c.) in these pairs are morphologically prior to the causative?


The Wikipedia article describes them as reflexes of PIE causative derivations. But I don't know through with morphological developments this can be explained. E.g. the reconstructed PIE causative of _*sed-_ (> Latin _sedeo_) is *_sodéye-_. I don't know how you could derive Latin_ sido_ from *_sodéye-._


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings



berndf said:


> E.g. the reconstructed PIE causative of _*sed-_ (> Latin _sedeo_) is *_sodéye-_. I don't know how you could derive Latin_ sido_ from *_sodéye-._



Thanks again, berndf, for your amazing _panepistemia_. I think this is one for the specifically Latin philologists.

I should, of course, have made reference to _sedo_, _sedare_, which does appear to have the causative correlation with _sedeo_ / ἵζω for which I was looking.


----------



## CapnPrep

Scholiast said:


> May one therefore assume by analogy that in Latin too, the intransitive forms (_fugio_, _sedeo_, _iaceo_ &c.) in these pairs are morphologically prior to the causative?


You have to look at each pair individually. There isn't always a derivational link from one verb to the other in each pair, and if there is, the causative verb is not necessarily derived from the intransitive verb. There are also valence-reducing morphological processes that derive intransitives from transitives. (I'm speaking generally here, not just about Latin.)

To take one of your examples, in the pair _fugio_/_fugo_, neither verb is morphologically derived from the other, although they obviously share a common root: transitive _fugo_ is denominal (from the noun _fuga_), while intransitive _fugio_ is formed from the root _fug-_ plus the suffix _-ĭ_ (whose function is obscure, at least to me ).

As for _cado_/_caedo_, I don't think these verbs even share the same root.



berndf said:


> I don't know how you could derive Latin_ sido_ from *_sodéye-._


You can't, and the Wikipedia article is not detailed enough to know if this is what they are actually claiming. There are examples of _o-_grade causatives in the Latin 2nd conjugation: _moneo_ (cf. _memini_), _doceo_ (cf. _disco_), _torreo_.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings, Everyone

_mone_->_memin-isci_ makes immaculate sense (though this will need further exploration), cf. Gk. μνημ-



CapnPrep said:


> As for _cado_/_caedo_, I don't think these verbs even share the same root.



Intuitively, it seems so wrong to separate these verb-stems from their Latin senses: can you offer an alternative and better explanation and rationale?


----------



## CapnPrep

Scholiast said:


> CapnPrep said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for _cado_/_caedo_, I don't think these verbs even share the same root.
> 
> 
> 
> Intuitively, it seems so wrong to separate these verb-stems from their Latin senses: can you offer an alternative and better explanation and rationale?
Click to expand...

I can only encourage you to avoid relying too much on intuition and to consult etymological sources instead, for example the AHD index of PIE roots (p. 36) and Pokorny (k^ad-1 and  (s)k(h)ai-).


----------



## Scholiast

Thank you, once again

I'm sorry, CapnPrep, I am not a professional philologist, that is why I asked. My curiosity is aroused, though. You referred me  (p. 36) to the AHD - clearly an estimable resource.

There I read:

_kad-_ to fall
_kae-id -_ to strike (_*ka˛/id_ / sorry, cannot find the proper phonological symbols on my keyboard). But I can can see nothing there in the AHD index that invalidates my intuition; in fact, it seems very nicely to cohere with berndf's (#3) explanation of the_ i-_soundshift in Germanic/Anglo-Saxon.


----------



## berndf

CapnPrep said:


> You can't, and the Wikipedia article is not detailed enough to know if this is what they are actually claiming.


Of course. I said that *I* didn't know enough to judge whether the claim is plausible.



Scholiast said:


> _mone_->_memin-isci_ makes immaculate sense (though this will need further exploration)


The base is _*men- = to think_. Directly derived from that is Latin _mens_. The causative derived from the o-grade would then be _monéye-._



Scholiast said:


> There I read:
> 
> _kad-_ to fall
> _kae-id -_ to strike (_*ka˛/id_ / sorry, cannot find the proper phonological symbols on my keyboard). But I can can see nothing there in the AHD index that invalidates my intuition; in fact, it seems very nicely to cohere with berndf's (#3) explanation of the_ i-_soundshift in Germanic/Anglo-Saxon.


_I-mutation_ is a phenomenon in West-Germanic (English, German, Dutch, Frisian). The dictionary clearly stated different PIE roots for the two words.


----------



## Angelo di fuoco

berndf said:


> The modern German spelling _fällen_ rather than _fellen_ was chosen to make the etymological connection with _fallen_ more transparent, it does not imply any change in pronunciation.


It does, at least in careful speach: ä is [ɛ], e is [e]. There's a difference between in pronunciation between "Fällen" ("cutting down" or dative plural of "Fall" - "casus" and "fall") und "Fellen" (dative plural of "Felle" - "furs").


----------



## berndf

Angelo di fuoco said:


> It does, at least in careful speach: ä is [ɛ], e is [e]. There's a difference between in pronunciation between "Fällen" ("cutting down" or dative plural of "Fall" - "casus" and "fall") und "Fellen" (dative plural of "Felle" - "furs").


No there isn't. Short <ä> and short <e> are absolutely indistinguishable and both are [ɛ]. [e] doesn't exist in stressed syllables, only [e:] does. Most native speakers would probably hear [e] as [I] in a stressed syllable.


----------



## XiaoRoel

No es exacto que en latín haya una pareja *fugio* (no causativo) / *fugo* (causativo), ya que _fugo_, atestado en las lenguas romances (como el vulgar _fugire_, este sí propiamente latino), en latín  es un verbo muy tardío y poco atestado. Más bien parece una forma protorromance y no propiamente latina. Todas estas formas derivan de un presente atemático *_bheug_-, emparentado con el tematizado griego φεύγω y con el lituano _búgstu_. El germánico, gót. _biugan_ (con -_gh_- interior) está emparentado con el griego πτυχ- que está en la base de πτύσσω.
En cuanto a *cado/caedo*, no estaría de más recoradas las palabras de Ernout: "Il est tentant d'établir un rapport entre _cado_ et _caedo_, _cedo_; mais on ne peut rien preciser".
_Cado_ (<*_kad_-) está de alguna manera relacionado con el griego homérico κεκάδοντο y con ὲκεκήδει de Hesíodo, en todo caso formas de griego arcaico; también se lo puede relacionar con el sánscrito expresivo y popular _çad_- 'caer'. Pero _caedo_, forma popular y antiquísima en latín, con diptongo _-ai-_ en la raíz no tiene relación con cualquier cosa fuera del latín. 
Pero de hecho en la lengua latina _caedo_ parece ser un causativo de _cado_, aunque esta relación no ha de ser demasiado antigua, sino el fin de un proceso de acercamiento semántico ayudado por la paronimia de ambos verbos que en origen no parecen relacionados, y esto sin olvidar la posible influencia analógica de _laedo_. (*Cedo* < _*ce-sd-o_, raiz *_sed_-, relacionada con el gr. ὁδός, no tiene nada que ver con _cado_ ni con _caedo_.)
Consúltese, desde una perspectiva laringalista la nota 1 de la página 105 de los _Eléments de phonétique et morphologie du latin_ de Pierre Monteil: "Une autre étymologie rapprochant _ced-o_ < *_keH1-d-_ de_ cad-o_ < *_kH1-d-_, reviendrait á expliquer _cessi_ à partir d'un autre thème, *_k(H1)-ed-s-_;  cessum, dès lors, ne serait plus explicable que par l'analogie de cessi. Mais le rapprochement cado/grec hom- κεκάδοντο paraît supposer une racine *kH2-d-, dont le degré plein *keH2-d- ne saurait expliquer cedo". 
Me adhiero a la opinión de Bernfd: "Concerning Latin verbs: The causative was not productive any more but some reflexes of the PIE causative (accented suffix [ej] added to the o-grade ablaut of the stem) remained but the original formation patterns are not transparent any more".
Perdonad que os escriba en español, pero es por respeto hacia vosotros, ya que escribir en traducción automática sería como un insulto. Espero que lo comprendáis.


----------



## CapnPrep

XiaoRoel said:


> _fugo_, atestado en las lenguas romances (como el vulgar _fugire_, este sí propiamente latino), en latín  es un verbo muy tardío y poco atestado. Más bien parece una forma protorromance y no propiamente latina.


_Fugo_ is "rare but class." according to Lewis & Short, with examples from the noted proto-Romance authors Cicero, Sallust, Lucretius, Horace, …  



XiaoRoel said:


> Pero _caedo_, forma popular y antiquísima en latín, con diptongo _-ai-_ en la raíz no tiene relación con cualquier cosa fuera del latín.


This is not the opinion of the other sources mentioned in this thread, but of course you are free to disbelieve them.



XiaoRoel said:


> Pero de hecho en la lengua latina _caedo_ parece ser un causativo de _cado_, aunque esta relación no ha de ser demasiado antigua, sino el fin de un proceso de acercamiento semántico ayudado por la paronimia de ambos verbos que en origen no parecen relacionados


I agree with you completely here.


----------



## XiaoRoel

> _Fugo_ is "rare but class." according to Lewis & Short, with examples from the noted proto-Romance authors Cicero, Sallust, Lucretius, Horace, …


Lewis & Short no son autoridad. *Anticuado*. Es posible que _fugo_ aparezca en la lengua clásica pero siempre residualmente, si no son errores de lectura y edición. Ernout, éste sí autoridad, es quien me proporcionó el dato. Cuando me referí al protorromance quise decir que su uso general se da en ese medio lingüístico (a partir de los ss.III y IV la lengua hablada ya no se puede referir al latín clásico, lo cual es evidente en las confusiones decaso, en el orden de palabras, en el ritmo de la frase, en el aumento de partículas y locuciones subordinativas, en la aparición cada vez mayor de las perífrasis con habere, en la perdida de la cantidad substituída por el timbre, etc., etc. El que una palabra aparezac en los clásicos (como rareza en todo caso) sólo puede significar la entrada de un término del latín vulgar en la lengua literaria.
A veces olvidamos que el latín clásico es una lengua "artificial", basada en la lengua hablada, pero no inteligible para un hablante normal de latín. El latín de verdad, no esa lengua formalizada de los escritores, es el de las inscripciones pompeyanas y otros documentos similares, es decir latín vulgar.
Sólo comparando dos distintos grados de formalización, los escritos "literarios" y las cartas personales de Cicerón, podemos atisbar la diferencia o abismo entre el latín escrito y el hablado.


> This is not the opinion of the other sources mentioned in this thread, but of course you are free to disbelieve them.


Es la opinión de Ernout, Vendryes, Meillet, etc.


----------



## CapnPrep

XiaoRoel said:


> Lewis & Short no son autoridad. *Anticuado*. Es posible que _fugo_  aparezca en la lengua clásica pero siempre residualmente, si no son  errores de lectura y edición. Ernout, éste sí autoridad, es quien me  proporcionó el dato.


Ernout & Meillet's comment "tous rares et tardifs" (s.v. _fugiō_) only clearly applies to the prefixed forms of _fugō_ (_au-_, _dē-_, _dif-_, _ef-_, _re-fugō_), not necessarily to the base verb. Again, you are free to dismiss everything in L&S, but it is then up to you to demonstrate that all of the attestations that they provide from classical authors are in fact errors. Alternatively, you may maintain that they are vulgarisms ("la entrada de un término del latín vulgar en la lengua literaria"), but this also must be established. If you manage to do this, however, your statement "_fugo _[…] en latín  es un verbo muy tardío" becomes obviously incorrect.

In the meantime, it seems more straightforward to me to accept that _fugo_ was simply a low-frequency word in classical Latin. Exactly as the antiquated dictionary states.



XiaoRoel said:


> [Pero _caedo _[…] no tiene relación con cualquier cosa fuera del latín.]
> Es la opinión de Ernout, Vendryes, Meillet, etc.


E&M s.v. _scindō_ : "Le verbe à vocalisme populaire, expressif, lat. _caedō_, est sans doute une forme de ce groupe [de _scindō_]." According to these authors, there are related forms in Sanskrit, Greek, Lithuanian, Armenian, and even English  _shit_.


----------

