# Origin of weak verb classes in Frisian languages



## luitzen

Inspired by some answers berndf gave to some questions I raised in another topic here and not wanting to derail said topic, I open this topic to find an answer to a question I've been asking myself for a while. And I hope someone like berndf knows the answer.

Basically what is the origin of the two classes of weak verbs that all Frisian languages seem to have, but not any of the neighbouring languages. Did Old English/Dutch/Saxon/German/etc. also have two classes of weak verbs? Did all Germanic languages have these classes at some point and lost them or were they just invented by Frisians? I heard that Iceland also possesses two classes of verbs, is that true and are they analogous to the Frisian classes or is that a separate development. 
Sometimes I stumble upon proto-Germanic or Gothic verbs and often they seem to have the same form as the _-je_ class (which is the class that neighbouring languages lack) of verbs in Frisian. This leads me to think that the Frisian languages are the only or one of the few languages to retain both classes.

Examples from West-Frisian:
_-e_ class:
(English: to grab)
Present: ik pak, do pak*st*, hy/sy/it pak*t*, wy/jimme/hja pak_k_*e*
Infinitives: pak_k_*e* (name form), (te) pak_k_*en* (goal form)
Past: ik pak*te*, do pak*test*, hy/sy/it pak*te*, wy/jimme/hja pak*ten*
Past participle: pak*t*
Present participle: pak_k_*end*

_-je _class:
(English: to work)
Present: ik wurk*je*, do wurk*est*, hy/sy/it wurk*et*, wy/jimme/hja wurk*je*
Infinitives: wurk*je* (name form), (te) wurk*jen* (goal form)
Past: ik wurk*e*, do wurk*est*, hy/sy/it wurk*e*, wy/jimme/hja wurk*en*
Past participle: wurk*e*
Present participle: wurk*jend*


----------



## ahvalj

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_weak_verb


----------



## ahvalj

Back to your question about two productive classes of weak verbs in Icelandic/Nynorsk and Frisian: it appears from the above Wikipedia article that the _j_-forms are unrelated in these languages: in Scandinavian they appear in the _j_-class (I), whereas in Frisian — in the _ō_-class (II).


----------



## ahvalj

A closer inspection reveals, however, that the situation is not that simple as I thought from the Old Frisian examples _gremma_ and _hēra_ in the above link. Modern Frisian _je_-verbs may originate from any class of weak verbs.

I
_wurkje_ — Old Low German _workian/wurkian_, Old English _wyrcan_
_weitsje_ — Old High German _wahhen_, OE _wacian_
_hingje_ — OHG _hengen
__arbeidzje_ — Gothic _arbaidjan
__betelje_ — OHG -_zellen
__laitsje_ — OLG _hliehhan
__deadzje — _G _dauþjan
winskje_ — OE _wȳscan_, OHG _wunsken_, Old Norse _ýskja
__sykje — _OLG_ sōkian_, OE _sēcan_, OHG _suohhan
_
II
_haatsje_ — OLG _hatōn_, OHG _hazzôn
__fiskje_ — OHG _fiskôn
__wytsje_ — OE _hwītian
__meitsje_ — OE _macian_, OHG _mahhôn
__harkje_ — OE *_heorcian
__keapje_ — OHG _koufôn
easkje _— OE_ āscian_, OLG_ ēskōn/ēskian
fetsje_ — OE _fatian_, OHG _fazzôn
leavje_ — OE _lofian_, OHG _lobôn_
_streakje_ — OE _strācian_, OHG _streihhôn
_
III
_freegje_ — OHG _fragên
__wachtsje_ — OHG _wahtên
_
I/III
_libje_ — OLG _libbian_ (I), OHG _lebên_ (III)

II/III
_wenje_ — OLG _wunōn _(II), OHG _wonên _(III)

fill sonorant
_siedzje_ — OHG _sâen
_
I don't see any regularity in this reflexation.


----------



## luitzen

I was looking at the Wikipedia article you linked to and I couldn't make too much sense of it either. The first thing I did was check which class modern equivalents of these words are in now and which they used to be in. I can imagine that the _-je_ class may trace its origins to a certain class and that quite some verbs have wandered around from class to class through the years. However, without anyone who did extensive research on the topic to proclaim that this is true, it remains an unsatisfactory explanation at best.


----------



## ahvalj

I have an impression that both I and II classes were major sources of _je_-verbs, but both did it inconsistently. 

First of all, unlike Gothic, Norse and Erminonic (> Old High German), where the II class was athematic of the structure stem+_ō_+ending, in the Ingaevonic dialects (> Old English, Old Frisian and Old Low German) these verbs follow, at least partly, the thematic type, having the structure stem+_ō_+_j_+thematic vowel+ending (cp. Praes. Pl. 2 Goth. _laþoþ_ and OHG _ladôt_ vs. OLG _ladōd/ladōjad_, OE _laþiaþ_ and OF _lathiath_). In the I class, the -_j_- followed the stem consonant and tended to disappear in West Germanic, but at some point in the middle of this process Old Saxon and Old Frisian acquired numerous new C+_j<_C_+ō+j _(*_aiskōjan_ > OLG _ēskian_ from the example in #4), which seems to have stopped the loss of _j_, so those verbs of the I class that still hadn't completed this deletion to that moment, may have been stabilized in their _j_-form.

Second, the example with *_aiskōjan >_ _ēskōn/ēskian _shows that in the II class two ways of shortening were possible, one of which preserved _ō_, while the other preserved _ja_. Since this is often attested in the same verbs, the future development may have codified either variant, hence the modern Frisian inconsistency in the II class as well.

Don't know what to do with the III class: in principle it was residual everywhere except Gothic and Old High German, so what we observe in the modern language may indeed represent results of rearrangement of the old verbs into one of the two remaining open types.


----------



## N'importe-qui

That analysis is incorrect. The o verbs (type II) are not athematic. Rather, this class was formed the same as the other weak classes, but the -j- disappeared through contraction (a thoroughly regular proto-Germanic sound change), but was reintroduced in Old English and Old Frisian analogically from the other classes, which regularly retained it. This has nothing to do with athematic vs. thematic verbs.

The likely analysis is that the -je verbs in Frisian represent class II weak verbs and, like in English, class II became the dominant verb class and took on verbs from other classes over time as part of a regularization process.


----------



## ahvalj

I don't think it is possible to exclude the athematic character of the _ō_-verbs in a part of the Germanic. Both -_ā_- and -_āı̯e_- are attested in denominative verbs in several early IE languages and we actually don't know which variant was original. For example, we have the famous agreement of Latin _novant_ and Hittite _neu̯aḫḫanzi_ "they renew", both of which are athematic and in Hittite in any case it appears originally so (the Latin form may be explained as a result of contraction after the loss of -_ı̯-, _though there are no reasons to prefer either explanation). In Ancient Greek we find the thematic contracted verbs in the majority of dialects vs. the athematic ones in Aeolic: _φιλέω_ vs. _φίλημι_. Old High German even has -_m_ (<*_mi_) in Sg. 1 (_ladôm_).

To ascribe all the instances of -_je_ in the I class verbs to the analogy with the II class we should make sure that in Old Frisian a sizeable number of them are attested with the system of endings of the II class (i. e. with -_iath_ etc.). Is this the case?


----------



## N'importe-qui

Ringe only includes -eh1- and -h2- derived presents in the athematic class, which mostly agrees with Sihler (who also mentions monosyllables in -eh2 and "set" roots like *demH2-, neither of which are denominatives, but often pattern with them). The latter type furthermore applies only to adjectives. The remainder are thematic and, aside from desideratives, include -y-. Given the pervasiveness of that formation, especially as a productive type in many IE languages, over the athematic ones, it seems highly unlikely that a class of athematic verbs survived and prospered in Germanic into the 2nd millennium AD. Other evidence against significant survival of the athematic inflection, even in OHG, is the presence of a trimoric vowel in the stem of class II verbs that must be explained by contraction, which could only happen with a thematic formation, most likely with -y-. In fact, there is no non-ambiguous evidence in OHG of athematic inflection. Even the -m of the first person singular admits of other sources (analogy being the likeliest). OE and Gothic certainly show absolutely no signs of athematic inflection. Neither does OFr.

I'm not ascribing it to a specific kind of analogy. I'm saying that the verbs moved over to class II, as they generally did in English, because class II is the regular, highly productive class, and it's no stretch to see verbs switching to productive classes (it happened in English with a great number of strong verbs, for example). Outside of that, I'm not really sure what your proposal would be. Are you arguing that class I verbs actually maintained a -j- in Frisian? That would be quite surprising and hard to explain from the sound laws.


----------



## ahvalj

The pervasive -_ı̯_- in the denominative Present is based first of all on the Indo-Iranic data: _all_ other branches have something that makes this picture less ideal and thus looking less secondarily generalized. Even the trivial -_aya_- type, which seems so beautifully derived from the thematic -_e-ı̯e_- (_vasnayati_<*_u̯esneı̯eti_) has, among others, such a problem that the _e_-grade is rare in the thematic declension (Voc. Sg. *-_e_ everywhere plus Loc. Sg. *-_eı̯_ in some languages and that's all, and if the entire thematic type is derived from the Ergative Sg. -_os_ as the current fashion implies, both these -_e-_ are secondary), plus this type (well, two types actually, _*ei/*ī_ and _*i/*ē_) is athematic in Balto-Slavic with no clear signs of its former thematic character (except for *-_ō_ in Sg. 1), plus we have the _capiō_ and _sōpiō_ types in Latin, which synchronously speaking are athematic, etc.

Why is it trimoraic? All these syllables became final after the reduction of -_i_ in the endings (*-_mi_/*-_zi_/*-_đi_/*-_nđi_), so I don't see any difference between e. g. Praes. Sg. 2 Gothic _laþos_ / OHG _ladôs_ (<*-_ōzi_<*-_āsi_) and the weak Dat. Pl. Gothic _tuggom_ / OHG _zungôm _(<*-_ōmV_<*-_āmV_). The Gothic Imper. Sg. 2 _laþo_ is problematic, yes, but this must be an analogical form after _o_ throughout the paradigm. The Subjunctive _o_/_ô_ must be contractional indeed.

-_m_ in OHG is likely analogical, I agree, though we can't be quite sure.

In my view, the greatest argument against the athematic character of the late Common Germanic II weak class is the IV class in Gothic: this -_no_- in the Preterite is, actually, the former athematic *-_nā_-<*-_nehₐ_- of the Present, and the fact that it had spread to the Preterite but subsequently disappeared from the Present rather suggests that East Germanic didn't possess another type of an athematic _ō_-Present at that moment (interestingly, the same occurred in Slavic with the -_neu̯_- type, which spread its formant as far as to the Past Passive participle (!) *-_neu̯enos_>-_novenŭ_ but was eventually replaced in the Present with the trivial thematic -_ne_-). 

Well, these are speculations anyway. What I wanted to say here is that the available evidence doesn't necessarily exclude the antiquity of the suffixal athematic Present in Germanic. What is relevant for the Ingaevonic situation is that it had an additional mighty source of _j_-verbs (from the class II) absent elsewhere in Germanic, which made this type more viable, plus this new postconsonantal -_j_- in -_jan<_-_ōjan_ may have been stronger than the weakened older -_jan_<_-jan/-*ijan_.

The class I verbs maintained this _j_ in Old Saxon, at least partially: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Old_Saxon_class_1_weak_verbs


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> A closer inspection reveals, however, that the situation is not that simple as I thought from the Old Frisian examples _gremma_ and _hēra_ in the above link. Modern Frisian _je_-verbs may originate from any class of weak verbs.


I am not sure about the validity of the below list. We might have to discuss each and every case. I have selected a case I find prima facie questionable.


ahvalj said:


> _fetsje_ — OE _fatian_, OHG _fazzôn_


I doubt that _fatian_ and _fazzôn_ are really cognate. The root looks like a conflation of the base verb _*fatônaN_ and causative derivative _*fatjanaN_. It is interesting that English, which only has the _-j-_ version, umlauted in Middle and Modern English yielding fetch, also only has the causative meaning (_to seize_) while German, which obviously based on the class II base verb, has both, the non-causative meaning (_to hold_) and the causative meaning (_to seize_).
@Luitzen: Which meaning(s) does it have in Frisian?


----------



## ahvalj

As far as I understand (and this is shared by the compilers of the Wiktionary page: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feccan#Old_English), _fetch_ must have originated from the I class verb _feccan_. Morphologically, _fatian/fetian_ belongs to the class II (<*_fatōjan-_) and thus is cognate to the OHG _fazzôn_ (<_*fatōn-_), regardless of the causative meaning.

As to the list: it was compiled in 15 minutes by selecting -_je_ verbs from a Frisian manual and finding Germanic cognates to them, so of course it may be flawed. Yet, I don't see how it is possible to eliminate the I class from there.

*Update.* Sorry, _feccan_ turns out to be the II class as well. Well, anyway, we may only speak of semantic, not morphological changes here.


----------



## berndf

ahvalj said:


> As far as I understand (and this is shared by the compilers of the Wiktionary page: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/feccan#Old_English), _fetch_ must have originated from the I class verb _feccan_.


_Feċċan _is an obvious i-mutation of _fatian_ as the page you linked to mentions as well.


ahvalj said:


> (<*_fatōjan-_)


What makes you so sure of that?


----------



## ahvalj

Yes, I have found it as well when checked the paradigm. Not so obvious, though: judging from the Infinitive alone, *_fatjan_- would have produced the same with less steps.

Are you asking about -_ōja-_? As far as I understand (and the end stage of this seems to be caught in the act by the Old Saxon texts), Ingaevonic in the 2nd half of the 1st millennium was in the course of compacting -_ōjan_ to either -_ōn_ or _-ian _(cp. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/makoian#Old_Saxon http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tholoian http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/luokoian http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thrusmoian#Old_Saxon).


----------



## berndf

I don't doubt that the suffix _-ôjan-_ existed in Old Saxon. My question is why you are so sure that this is the case here. Dictionaries are quite vague and cautious about the relationship _fazzôn_ and _fatian_.

There obviously IS a relationship. I am not saying your table is wrong. I am just wary of jumping to conclusions._ -j-_ forms must have been quite productive at one point not only to create verbs from adjectives and nouns (such as _full - to fill < fyllan < *fullian_) but also to derive causatives and I therefore two verbs sharing the same root doesn't necessarily mean they are cognate.


----------



## ahvalj

I confess I can't substantiate that _fatian_ is an old II class verb and not the recent remodeling from the old I class. I understand your concerns regarding the semantic side of "to fetch".

Wiktionary translates _fetsje_ as "to grasp" (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fetsje), so we have a transitive here as well.


----------



## luitzen

Though things start to become complicated and hard for me to understand, I'm following this topic with interest and I'm confident that at the end the conclusion will be translated into simple language.

_fetsje_ means the same as Dutch _vatten_ and probably also German _fassen_. _to grasp_ is a quite correct translation, _fetsje_ is to grab of or to take hold of something, especially with your hands and keeping control of it. A more figurative meaning of _(be)fetsje _is to comprehend something or to grasp something mentally.

There's also the alternative meaning that derives from _fet_ (fat) that means to make something fat.


----------



## ahvalj

Translating into simple language — the common impression is that the modern Frisian _je-_type includes verbs from both classes that showed this -_j_- in the old language, but my opinion is that it continues all or the majority of verbs of the Germanic weak class II and some part of verbs of the class I, while other people (N'importe-qui at least) seem to prefer to derive this type from the class II alone, thus implying that class I verbs once lost this -_j_- and then reacquired it by analogy since this type remained productive in Frisian.


----------



## luitzen

ahvalj said:


> (cp. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/makoian#Old_Saxon http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/tholoian http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/luokoian http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thrusmoian#Old_Saxon).


- makoian - West Frisian: meitsje (this is a somewhat irregular verb because some forms in the present moved from _k_ to _tsj_ while others didn't, but I would say that except for this, it behaves as a -je verb)
- tholoian - West Frisian: duldzje (-je verb, maybe loan from Dutch dulden), tsjilde (-e verb)
- luokoian - West Frisian: lôkje (-je verb), also has the variants loaitsje (-je verb) and loaitse (-e verb)
- thrusmoian - West Frisian: looks like _tsjuster_ (darkness) and _(fer)tsjusterje _(lit. to make dark) which is a -je verb, but it's probably a denominative.


----------

