العربية
中国
Français
Deutsch
Ελληνική
हिन्दी
Italiano
日本語
Português
Русский
EspañolGERMANIC WEAK VERB
In Germanic languages, 'weak verbs' are by far the largest group of verbs, which are therefore often regarded as the norm, though historically they are not the oldest or most original group.
:''For other aspects of the verb in Germanic languages see the article Germanic verb.''
In Germanic languages, weak verbs are those verbs that form their preterites and past participles by means of a dental suffix, an inflection that contains a /t/ or /d/ sound or similar. For example:
★ ''to love - loved''
★ ''to say - said''
★ ''to send - sent''
★ ''to buy - bought''
★ ''to set - set''
★ ''to lean - leaned'' or ''leant''
For comparative purposes we may refer to this generally as a dental, although in some of the languages, including English, /t/ and /d/ are alveolar rather than dental consonants. In English, the dental is a /d/ after a voiced consonant or vowel, and a /t/ after a voiceless consonant, though English uses the spelling in in most cases, regardless of pronunciation. In German and Dutch, terminal devoicing means that final consonants are never voiced, so the pronunciation /d/ does not occur. Nevertheless, Dutch distinguishes the letters and regularly as though the originally voiced consonants were still voiced. (See Dutch spelling for the'' 't kofschip'' rule.) German on the other hand knows only spellings in . In Icelandic, the dental has become a voiced dental fricative /ð/, as it was in some verbs in Old English. In Afrikaans it has disappeared altogether.
The weak conjugation of verbs is an innovation of Proto-Germanic (unlike Germanic strong verbs, the basis of which goes back to Proto-Indo-European). Only primary verbs (those not derived) took a perfect form, which was the basis of the Germanic strong preterite, so secondary verbs had to form a preterite otherwise; this necessitated the creation of the weak conjugation.
The vast majority of weak verbs are secondary, or derived. The two main types of derived verbs were denominative and deverbative. The denominative in Indo-European and early Germanic was formed by adding an ablauting thematic
★ -yé/ó- suffix to a noun or adjective. This created verbs such as Gothic ''namnjan'' 'to name'. A deverbative verb is one created from another verb, and for Germanic was almost exclusively made by changing the vowel of the root to o-grade and adding the causative/iterative
★ -éye/o- suffix. For example, the causative deverbative based on the English verb ''to sit'' is ''to set'', which originally meant, "to cause to sit". Gothic shows a more archaic form in its infinitive ''satjan'' <
★ ''sodeyo''- <
★ ''sed''- 'sit'. In both varieties, the -''y''- component remains most often in Gothic (written as), but in all applicable cases it caused i-mutation in the other Germanic languages (this explains the vowel in English ''set'' : Gothic ''sat''-).
There are primary verbs that date to Indo-European that took a weak conjugation because they were unable to take a perfect, including verbs that had zero grade of the root in the present and were therefore unable to show the ablaut distinction necessary for a strong preterite. This was the case with the verbs ''waurkjan'' 'to work, create', ''bugjan'' 'to buy', and ''sokjan'' 'to seek' (Gothic forms).
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': Germanic
★ ''lubōjana dēdo'' ("love-did") →
★ ''lubōdo'' → Old English ''lufode'' → ''loved''. This would be analogous to the way that in Modern English we can form an emphatic past tense with "did": ''I did love''.
The common PIE root ''dheH1-'' meaning 'do' was a root aorist, and as such did not take a perfect. It did, however, take a reduplicating present. The imperfect of this root is taken by many to be the origin of the dental suffix.
This view is not without objections. These are two often-proposed difficulties with this explanation:
★ Gothic -''e-'' in the plural is long, but PGmc is short.
★ Reduplication is only in the Gothic plural.
These objections are sometimes answered as follows:
★ There might have been a refashioning according to cases like ''gēbun'', ''viz''.
★ ''gegbun'' > ''gēbun'' :
★ ''dedun'' → ''dēdun''.
★ Reduplication only in the plural can easily be explained by haplology in Proto-Germanic (i.e.,
★ ''dede''- being reduced to
★ ''de-'') for the singular, with a later development of haplology for the plural in non-East Germanic languages.
Another theory is that it came from a past participle ending, a final
★ ''-daz'' from PIE
★ ''-tos'' (cf Latin ''amatus''), with personal endings added to it at a later stage. This theory is also disputed because of its inability to explain all the facts.
Weak verbs should be contrasted with strong verbs, which form their past tenses by means of ''ablaut''. Most verbs in the early stages of the Germanic languages were strong. However, as the ablaut system is no longer productive except in rare cases of analogy, almost all new verbs in Germanic languages are weak, and the majority of the original strong verbs have become weak by analogy. In some cases a verb has become weak in the preterite but not in the participle, or (rarely) vice versa. These verbs may be thought of as "semi-strong" (not a technical term). Dutch has a number of examples of this:
★ ''wassen waste gewassen'' ("to wash")
★ ''jagen joeg gejaagd'' ("to hunt")
In Germanic, one very productive source of new verbs was the derivation of new verbs with causative meanings from existing verbs, resulting in many pairs of related strong and weak verbs: the original strong verb ''fall fell fallen'' has a related weak verb ''fell felled felled'', which means "to cause (a tree) to fall"; strong ''sit sat sat'' and ''lie lay lain'' are matched with weak ''set set set'' and ''lay laid laid'', meaning "to cause something to sit" or "lie" respectively. Occasionally semantic shifts make these pairs difficult to recognise. German strong ''leiden litt gelitten'' ("to suffer") has the derived weak verb ''leiten'' ("to lead"), which makes sense when one realises that ''leiden'' originally meant "walk, go" and came to its present meaning through the idea of "undergoing" suffering.
In the medieval Germanic languages, a number of different classes of weak verbs had to be distinguished, according to the consonants in the stem. Class 1 is known as the -jan conjugation, because their development was influenced by a /j/ in Germanic, which however is only attested in Old Saxon. In Old English, class 1 weak verbs commonly had preterites ending in -ede. This group commonly experienced consonant doubling in the infinitive caused by West Germanic Gemination. Class 2 weak verbs typically ended in -ode in Old English. Besides these two main classes there were several smaller ones.
In the modern languages, these distinctions have mostly been levelled. Only Frisian has retained two productive classes of weak verbs. In addition to the class with the -de, there is a class of je-verbs, where the dental suffix has dropped ( -je<-iad). The regular weak verbs conjugate as follows:
1. The distinction between the infinitive and present forms of Afrikaans verbs has been lost with the exception of a very few such as ''wees'' and ''is'', "to be" and "is/am/are"
2. learn,teach
Weak verbs are often thought of as having a regular inflection, but not all weak verbs are regular verbs; some have been made irregular by ellipsis or contraction, such as ''hear ~ heard''; while others are merely irregular due to the eccentricities of English spelling, such as ''lay ~ laid''. In German, verbs ending in ''-eln'' or ''-ern'' have slightly different inflection patterns. There are many other examples. The Preterite-present verbs are in a sense weak verbs with very significant irregularities; but usually they are not bracketed under weak verbs.
One particularly interesting category of irregular weak verb is the so-called ''rückumlaut'' verb. This is discussed in the article on ''Germanic umlaut'' under the section "''Umlaut'' in Germanic verbs". An original ''-j-'' in the inflection caused the whole of the present stem (including the infinitive) to experience a fronting of the stem vowel, though the past tense retains the back vowel. Another irregularity is a consonant alternation sometimes referred to by the German word ''Primärberührung'', which looks superficially like Grammatischer Wechsel but in fact results from the phenomenon of the Germanic spirant law in early Germanic. In effect this is a process of assimilation of the plosive at the end of the stem caused by contact with the dental suffix. Both ''Rückumlaut'' and ''Primärberührung'' are observable in the verb ''to think'':
★ English: ''think thought''
★ German: ''denken dachte gedacht''
Some school text books use the term "mixed verb" to describe these. This rests on the misconception that these verbs display both ''ablaut'' and a dental suffix, and are therefore at once strong and weak. But the vowel change is not ''ablaut''.
The term "weak verb" was originally coined by Jakob Grimm and in his sense refers only to Germanic philology. However, the term is sometimes applied to other language groups to designate phenomena which are not really analogous. For example, Hebrew ''irregular'' verbs are sometimes called weak verbs because one of their radicals is weak. See: weak inflection.
:''For other aspects of the verb in Germanic languages see the article Germanic verb.''
General description
In Germanic languages, weak verbs are those verbs that form their preterites and past participles by means of a dental suffix, an inflection that contains a /t/ or /d/ sound or similar. For example:
★ ''to love - loved''
★ ''to say - said''
★ ''to send - sent''
★ ''to buy - bought''
★ ''to set - set''
★ ''to lean - leaned'' or ''leant''
For comparative purposes we may refer to this generally as a dental, although in some of the languages, including English, /t/ and /d/ are alveolar rather than dental consonants. In English, the dental is a /d/ after a voiced consonant or vowel, and a /t/ after a voiceless consonant, though English uses the spelling in
Origins of the weak conjugation
The weak conjugation of verbs is an innovation of Proto-Germanic (unlike Germanic strong verbs, the basis of which goes back to Proto-Indo-European). Only primary verbs (those not derived) took a perfect form, which was the basis of the Germanic strong preterite, so secondary verbs had to form a preterite otherwise; this necessitated the creation of the weak conjugation.
The vast majority of weak verbs are secondary, or derived. The two main types of derived verbs were denominative and deverbative. The denominative in Indo-European and early Germanic was formed by adding an ablauting thematic
★ -yé/ó- suffix to a noun or adjective. This created verbs such as Gothic ''namnjan'' 'to name'. A deverbative verb is one created from another verb, and for Germanic was almost exclusively made by changing the vowel of the root to o-grade and adding the causative/iterative
★ -éye/o- suffix. For example, the causative deverbative based on the English verb ''to sit'' is ''to set'', which originally meant, "to cause to sit". Gothic shows a more archaic form in its infinitive ''satjan'' <
★ ''sodeyo''- <
★ ''sed''- 'sit'. In both varieties, the -''y''- component remains most often in Gothic (written as
There are primary verbs that date to Indo-European that took a weak conjugation because they were unable to take a perfect, including verbs that had zero grade of the root in the present and were therefore unable to show the ablaut distinction necessary for a strong preterite. This was the case with the verbs ''waurkjan'' 'to work, create', ''bugjan'' 'to buy', and ''sokjan'' 'to seek' (Gothic forms).
Source of the dental suffix
Periphrastic origin
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': Germanic
★ ''lubōjana dēdo'' ("love-did") →
★ ''lubōdo'' → Old English ''lufode'' → ''loved''. This would be analogous to the way that in Modern English we can form an emphatic past tense with "did": ''I did love''.
The common PIE root ''dheH1-'' meaning 'do' was a root aorist, and as such did not take a perfect. It did, however, take a reduplicating present. The imperfect of this root is taken by many to be the origin of the dental suffix.
| Periphrastic origin of dental suffix | PIE imperfect of "do" | Proto-Germanic imperfect of "do" | Gothic weak preterite ending |
|---|---|---|---|
| Singular | ★ ''dhe-dhéH1-m'' | ★ ''dedēn'' | -''da'' |
| ★ ''dhe-dhéH1-s'' | ★ ''dedēs'' | -''des'' | |
| ★ ''dhe-dhéH1-t'' | ★ ''dedē'' | -''da'' | |
| Plural | ★ ''dhe-dhH1mé'' | ★ ''dém → ★ dedum'' (by analogy) | -''dedum'' |
| ★ ''dhe-dhH1té'' | ★ ''dédd → ★ deduþ'' (by analogy) | -''deduþ'' | |
| ★ ''dhe-dhH1n̩t'' | ★ ''dedun'' | -''dedun'' |
This view is not without objections. These are two often-proposed difficulties with this explanation:
★ Gothic -''e-'' in the plural is long, but PGmc is short.
★ Reduplication is only in the Gothic plural.
These objections are sometimes answered as follows:
★ There might have been a refashioning according to cases like ''gēbun'', ''viz''.
★ ''gegbun'' > ''gēbun'' :
★ ''dedun'' → ''dēdun''.
★ Reduplication only in the plural can easily be explained by haplology in Proto-Germanic (i.e.,
★ ''dede''- being reduced to
★ ''de-'') for the singular, with a later development of haplology for the plural in non-East Germanic languages.
Participial origin
Another theory is that it came from a past participle ending, a final
★ ''-daz'' from PIE
★ ''-tos'' (cf Latin ''amatus''), with personal endings added to it at a later stage. This theory is also disputed because of its inability to explain all the facts.
Weak and strong
Weak verbs should be contrasted with strong verbs, which form their past tenses by means of ''ablaut''. Most verbs in the early stages of the Germanic languages were strong. However, as the ablaut system is no longer productive except in rare cases of analogy, almost all new verbs in Germanic languages are weak, and the majority of the original strong verbs have become weak by analogy. In some cases a verb has become weak in the preterite but not in the participle, or (rarely) vice versa. These verbs may be thought of as "semi-strong" (not a technical term). Dutch has a number of examples of this:
★ ''wassen waste gewassen'' ("to wash")
★ ''jagen joeg gejaagd'' ("to hunt")
In Germanic, one very productive source of new verbs was the derivation of new verbs with causative meanings from existing verbs, resulting in many pairs of related strong and weak verbs: the original strong verb ''fall fell fallen'' has a related weak verb ''fell felled felled'', which means "to cause (a tree) to fall"; strong ''sit sat sat'' and ''lie lay lain'' are matched with weak ''set set set'' and ''lay laid laid'', meaning "to cause something to sit" or "lie" respectively. Occasionally semantic shifts make these pairs difficult to recognise. German strong ''leiden litt gelitten'' ("to suffer") has the derived weak verb ''leiten'' ("to lead"), which makes sense when one realises that ''leiden'' originally meant "walk, go" and came to its present meaning through the idea of "undergoing" suffering.
Historical conjugations
In the medieval Germanic languages, a number of different classes of weak verbs had to be distinguished, according to the consonants in the stem. Class 1 is known as the -jan conjugation, because their development was influenced by a /j/ in Germanic, which however is only attested in Old Saxon. In Old English, class 1 weak verbs commonly had preterites ending in -ede. This group commonly experienced consonant doubling in the infinitive caused by West Germanic Gemination. Class 2 weak verbs typically ended in -ode in Old English. Besides these two main classes there were several smaller ones.
Modern paradigms
In the modern languages, these distinctions have mostly been levelled. Only Frisian has retained two productive classes of weak verbs. In addition to the class with the -de, there is a class of je-verbs, where the dental suffix has dropped ( -je<-iad). The regular weak verbs conjugate as follows:
| English | Afrikaans | Dutch | Frisian | German | Swedish | Icelandic | Yiddish | ||
| Infinitive | to work | werk 1 | werken | wurkje | leare 2 | werken | verka | verka | (verkn) װערקן |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| present | I work (thou workst) he works we work you work they work | ek werk jy werk hy werk ons werk julle werk hulle werk | ik werk jij werkt hij werkt wij werken jullie werken zij werken | ik wurkje dou wurkest hy wurket wy wurkje jim wurkje hja wurkje | ik lear dou learst hy leart wy leare jim leare hja leare | ich werke du werkst er werkt wir werken ihr werkt sie werken | jag verkar du verkar han verkar vi verkar ni verkar de verkar | ég verka þú verkar hann verkar við verkum þið verkið þeir verka | (ikh verk) איך װערק (du verkst) דו װערקסט (er verkt) ער װערקט (mir verkn) מיר װערקן (ir verkt) איר װערקט (zey verkn) זי װערקן |
| Preterite | I worked (thou workedst) he worked we worked you worked they worked | (not used) | ik werkte jij werkte hij werkte wij werkten jullie werkten zij werkten | ik wurke dou wurkest hy wurke wy wurken jim wurken hja wurken | ik learde dou leardest hy learde wy learden jim learden hij learden | ich werkte du werktest er werkte wir werkten ihr werktet sie werkten | jag verkade du verkade han verkade vi verkade ni verkade de verkade | ég verkaði þú verkaðir hann verkaði við verkuðum þið verkuðuð þeir verkuðu | (not used) |
| Past participle | worked | gewerk | gewerkt | wurke | leard | gewerkt | verkat | verkaður | (geverkt) געװערקט |
1. The distinction between the infinitive and present forms of Afrikaans verbs has been lost with the exception of a very few such as ''wees'' and ''is'', "to be" and "is/am/are"
2. learn,teach
Irregularities
Weak verbs are often thought of as having a regular inflection, but not all weak verbs are regular verbs; some have been made irregular by ellipsis or contraction, such as ''hear ~ heard''; while others are merely irregular due to the eccentricities of English spelling, such as ''lay ~ laid''. In German, verbs ending in ''-eln'' or ''-ern'' have slightly different inflection patterns. There are many other examples. The Preterite-present verbs are in a sense weak verbs with very significant irregularities; but usually they are not bracketed under weak verbs.
One particularly interesting category of irregular weak verb is the so-called ''rückumlaut'' verb. This is discussed in the article on ''Germanic umlaut'' under the section "''Umlaut'' in Germanic verbs". An original ''-j-'' in the inflection caused the whole of the present stem (including the infinitive) to experience a fronting of the stem vowel, though the past tense retains the back vowel. Another irregularity is a consonant alternation sometimes referred to by the German word ''Primärberührung'', which looks superficially like Grammatischer Wechsel but in fact results from the phenomenon of the Germanic spirant law in early Germanic. In effect this is a process of assimilation of the plosive at the end of the stem caused by contact with the dental suffix. Both ''Rückumlaut'' and ''Primärberührung'' are observable in the verb ''to think'':
★ English: ''think thought''
★ German: ''denken dachte gedacht''
Some school text books use the term "mixed verb" to describe these. This rests on the misconception that these verbs display both ''ablaut'' and a dental suffix, and are therefore at once strong and weak. But the vowel change is not ''ablaut''.
Other meanings
The term "weak verb" was originally coined by Jakob Grimm and in his sense refers only to Germanic philology. However, the term is sometimes applied to other language groups to designate phenomena which are not really analogous. For example, Hebrew ''irregular'' verbs are sometimes called weak verbs because one of their radicals is weak. See: weak inflection.
This article provided by Wikipedia. To edit the contents of this article, click here for original source.
psst.. try this: add to faves
