8

English isn't a highly inflected language, but it did evolve from one and still has at least: -s, -es; -ed, -ing; -er, -est; for nouns, verbs, and adjectives.

Do we know if these all evolved from separate words, or do they go too far back into PIE to know?

hippietrail
  • 14,687
  • 7
  • 61
  • 146

1 Answers1

9

English is generally regarded as having the following 7 inflectional suffixes. All of them have been suffixes since Proto-Indoeuropean, but most have followed a rather circuitous path along the way. This is rough outline:

  1. plural -s:
    < AS -as 'masc. a-stem nom.-acc. pl.'
    < PGmc -anz 'acc. pl.'
    < PIE -(o)ns 'acc. pl.'
  2. third person singular -s:
    < AS -st '2nd person sg.' (2sg was leveled with 3sg by analogy with ON)
    < PGmc -zi '2nd person sg.'
    < PIE -si '2nd person sg.'
  3. past tense/participle -ed:
    < AS -ode 'class 2 weak verb past'
    < PGmc -ode 'class 2 weak verb past'
    < PIE -to- 'adjectival derivational suffix'
  4. past participle -en
    < ON -inn 'past part.'
    < PGmc -īnaz 'adjectival derivational suffix'
    < PIE -nos 'adjectival derivational suffix'
  5. progressive -ing:
    < collapse of AS -ing 'gerund' and -ende 'present participle'
    < PGmc -ung- 'gerund' / -and- 'pres. part.'
    < PIE -enkw- 'deverbative' / -nt- 'active pres. part.'
  6. comparative -er:
    < AS -ra 'comparative'
    < PGmc -iz(o)/-oz(o) 'comparative'
    < PIE -yos- 'elative'
  7. superlative -est:
    < AS -st 'superlative'
    < PGmc -istaz/-ostaz 'superlative'
    < PIE -yos- + -tas/-tos 'nominalizer'
Mark Beadles
  • 6,860
  • 2
  • 24
  • 46
  • 2
    Yes, I need to document my references. – Mark Beadles Dec 04 '17 at 17:05
  • 3
    I thought the "-ed" weak suffix was thought to have possibly been derived from suffixation of a separate word like "do". The Wikipedia article "Germanic weak verb" says "The origin of the dental suffix is uncertain. Perhaps the most commonly held theory is that it evolved out of a periphrastic construction with the verb to do" – brass tacks Dec 04 '17 at 18:01
  • 3
    @sumelic Yes, I've seen that too, and it's probably worth adding to the answer. Part of the problem is that past tense -ed and past participle -ed seem to have had different sources, and then merged (kind of like the two -ings) – Mark Beadles Dec 04 '17 at 19:59
  • 1
    Doesn't possessive "'s" come from "his," e.g., "the dog, his bone"->"the dog's bone?" –  Dec 04 '17 at 20:36
  • 4
    @Ben Crowell. I don't think so. I intentionally left out the possessive since it's a clitic unlike the inflectional suffixes; that said, possessive -s seems to come from AS -es, and in turn the Proto-Germanic genitive singulars with -s. – Mark Beadles Dec 04 '17 at 20:47
  • 1
    I don't think 's becomes a clitic until very recent times. Genitive singular -os or -es is common IE. – fdb Dec 04 '17 at 23:58
  • 1
    Clearly the modern English possessive NP clitic is a reflex of IE genitives in -s. And I would include Infinitive as an inflection; suffix Zero, with suppletive be. Otherwise you can't distinguish present tense from infinitive in sentences like They make Mary pay Bill, and Be a good boy. – jlawler Dec 05 '17 at 01:33
  • 1
    Oh I just realized I forgot to include possessive 's, even if it's technically a clitic I'm still interested in it in exactly the same way as with the rest so I feel it belongs in the group. – hippietrail Dec 05 '17 at 11:13
  • What about the -eth and -est of archaic verb forms? – J. Siebeneichler Dec 06 '17 at 11:50