Nouns Nouns could have one of three genders: masculine, feminine and neuter. They declined for seven of the eight Proto-Indo-European cases: nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, dative, ablative and locative. The instrumental case had been lost. Nouns also declined for number in singular and plural. The dual number was no longer distinguished, although a few remnants (like Latin , ) still preserved some form of the inherited dual inflection.
o-stems This class corresponds to the
second declension of Latin, basically divided into masculine and neuter nouns. It descends from the Proto-Indo-European thematic declension. Most nouns in this class were masculine or neuter, but there may have been some feminine nouns as well (e.g., names of plants such as Latin "papyrus"). • The genitive singular in is of unknown origin, but is found in both Italic and Celtic. It mostly ousted the older inherited genitive in in Latin. The older form is found in a few inscriptions, such as on the
Lapis Satricanus, likely rendered as
Publii Valerii in classical Latin. It is also continued in some pronominal genitives, such as Old Latin ). It is possible that the original Proto-Indo-European optative forms the basis for the mood known in Latin as the subjunctive, whereas the original Proto-Indo-European subjunctive paradigm gave rise to the standard Latin future. The Latin first conjugation marks its subjunctive endings utilizing the morpheme , such as in , a subjunctive form of . It is possible that this paradigm derives directly from the Proto-Indo-European thematic subjunctive of verbs marked by the suffix or from the athematic optative morpheme . According to the linguist
Jay Jasanoff, a proponent of the latter hypothesis, the Latin -subjunctive spread from the small class of verbs that originated from athematic -factitives. In this scenario, a Latin subjunctive such as (subjunctive of , "to make new") would derive from Proto-Italic , itself from an athematic optative . Regardless, in either case, the inevitable Proto-Italic first conjugation sequence could have perhaps have, following the loss of intervocalic yod, contracted into Latin . Such a contraction would be unusual for Latin, as the expected outcome of a sequence would be , which would render the present subjunctive and indicative paradigms identical. To resolve this issue, Rix presumes that the irregular sound development served to prevent the present indicative and subjunctive from becoming indistinguishable. Alternatively, Sihler posits that the sequence metathesized to under the influence of optative forms such as . The proposed contraction did not occur in the Sabellic branch, thereby permitting first conjugation subjunctive formations such as Umbrian '''''''''', the ending of which derives from earlier . All other Latin conjugations form their subjunctive paradigms utilizing the morpheme , such as in Latin , a subjunctive form of . Likewise, terms such as Umbrian '''''
attest to the existence of a similar formation in Sabellic. Outside of Italic, the a-subjunctive may be paralleled in Old Irish—compare Old Irish subjunctive forms such as to the Latin equivalent . In Old Irish, the a-subjunctive is formed from the verbal root itself, which is paralleled by a select few archaic formations in Italic, such as Hernican ''''' and Old Latin . Traditionally, the a-subjunctive has been interpreted as an Italo-Celtic development which possibly ousted the original Proto-Indo-European thematic optative. However, this theory is controversial as it provides no sufficient explanation for the independent development of the -morpheme in Italo-Celtic. Moreover, Kortlandt suggests that the Old Irish and Latin a-subjunctive forms cannot be derived from a single paradigm. For instance, Kortlandt notes that the hypothetical pre-forms , though capable of producing Latin , , and , would output Old Irish , , and , instead of the attested forms , , and . The linguist
Warren Cowgill has proposed that, like the other attested Latin subjunctives, the origin of this formation lies in the Proto-Indo-European optative. According to Cowgill, a PIE optative form such as would yield early Proto-Italic , whence , which would perhaps contract into the -subjunctive. According to Rix, the sequence had probably already contracted in late Proto-Italic in certain situations, such as perhaps groups of three adjacent vowels (e.g. ). If the subjunctive origin of the future paradigm is accepted, then the expected first-person singular future ending would be , which—according to Sihler—ought to have been dropped in favor of so as to avoid homophony with the present indicative. However, the ultimate origin of the form still remains unclear.
Imperfect subjunctive The Italic languages innovated an imperfect subjunctive marker , as reflected by
Paelignian ,
Oscan '''''''''', and the Latin . It is, however, unattested in
Venetic or
Umbrian. In Latin, the suffix underwent rhotacism, thereby surfacing as (e.g. ), though the form perhaps preserves the original sigmatic nature of the morpheme. The origin of the Italic imperfect subjunctive remains unknown and there are no other parallel formations from the rest of the Indo-European family. Most of the attempts to etymologize the infix have segmented the morpheme into and . Historically, the element has been connected with either an aorist -subjunctive or desiderative, though desideratives yielded the Latin sigmatic future, the PIE aorist is otherwise only known to have formed a short-vowel subjunctive, and also subjunctives themselves otherwise produced Latin futures. The component has been connected with the athematic optative infix , but the sequence did not regularly yield Latin and there is no clear impetus for any analogical remodeling.
Subjunctive syntax Within both Latino-Faliscan and Sabellic, the tense and mood of the verb in the
subordinate clause was determined by the governing verb of the
main clause, not by the semantics of the subordinate clauses themselves. For instance, in the Latin phrase "," meaning " I have ordered you to come," the past imperfect tense is used for the subjunctive to reflect the past perfect tense of the main clause. In Oscan, the phrase "'
"—meaning "it was agreed that the treasury, when they opened it, by a joint decision they should open"—utilizes the perfect form in the main clause and the imperfect subjunctive form ' in the main clause.
Sigmatic future and aorist Proto-Italic may have developed a type of sigmatic future formation, which is itself possibly reflected in the
Old Latin and Sabellic sigmatic futures. For instance, compare the Old Latin sigmatic future form to the standard Classical Latin non-sigmatic future . The ultimate source of the sigmatic forms is unclear. The linguist Reiner Lipp suggests that the s-infix future in Proto-Italic continued an originally athematic paradigm, arguing that the Old Latin sigmatic aorist subjunctive forms (i.e. , , etc) reflect the Proto-Indo-European athematic optative infix . The possibly s-future forms in Sabellic also may display athematic inflectional endings, such as in the Oscan and Umbrian future form , which Lipp argues may reflect an older Proto-Italic from . Despite the possible athematic origins of certain forms, the sigmatic future paradigm in Old Latin was broadly thematic, perhaps indicating that it underwent a partial thematicization process in Proto-Italic, before eventually becoming completely thematicized during the transition into Old Latin. However, the linguist
Tobias Søborg argues that the Sabellic s-future could have emerged due to the syncope of an earlier thematic paradigm, thereby allowing for a stronger connection between the two Italic subbranches. In support of his theory, Søborg cites the Umbrian future form , which he derives from an earlier thematic term , though it has also been derived from earlier .
Synchronically, sigmatic futures can be understood as the combination of the stem of the perfect passive participle, the s-infix, and the inflection endings (e.g. and ). Newer sigmatic futures may have formed according to this model. For instance, the verb produces the sigmatic future , which perhaps lost the due to the influence of the participle . Lipp argues that this pattern must have begun producing innovative formations already by the pre-Proto-Italic period. For instance, the Old Latin sigmatic future term may derive from the medial
syncope of an earlier form , itself possibly formed from Proto-Italic . However, the Sabellic s-future may have been formed directly to the present stem and not to a stem deprived of any markers of present tense. For example, the Oscan s-future was possibly formed from the stem of Proto-Italic . Thus, the Sabellic and Latin sigmatic futures may reflect separate Proto-Italic paradigms, although Lipps suggests that the s-futures in Sabellic derive from the same source as the Latin sigmatic forms and merely underwent a post-Proto-Italic remodeling. The linguist
Michiel de Vaan posits that the source for both the Latin and Sabellic sigmatic futures may have been Proto-Indo-European suffix , which perhaps could form either athematic
hysterokinetic zero-grade presents or athematic lengthened e-grade aorists. According to de Vaan, the sigmatic form may reflect a pre-form , which de Vaan suggests is also attested in Latin . In Sabellic, this suffix may have become generalized as the standard future-forming morpheme affixed to the present stem of a verb, perhaps resulting in terms such as Oscan and Umbrian . Based on this model, Kortlandt postulates that the Osco-Umbrian term reflects Proto-Italic , although Lipp argues that this paradigm should regularly produce in Sabellic. Furthermore, the existence of such a suffix in Proto-Indo-European is contentious due to a lack of comparative evidence. The Old Latin sigmatic future has been related to a Proto-Indo-European s-
desiderative suffix. There is semantic precedent in other Indo-European languages for a shift from a desiderative to a future meaning—compare the Ancient Greek s-future, such as in the Ancient Greek future form '''' (""), which may derive from the desiderative suffix . However, the philologist
Wolfgang de Melo argues that a desiderative origin should produce a
simple future tense without
aspectual markers. Lipp suggests that the Old Latin sigmatic future tense may have been characterized by the
terminative aspect, meaning that it potentially described actions which were to be completed in the future (e.g. "will get it done"). According to Lipp, the terminative meaning of the Latin sigmatic future may have naturally evolved from the Proto-Indo-European desiderative, which possibly described motion towards the completion of an action (e.g. "going to do"). Morphologically, a derivation from the suffix is problematic: Søborg notes that the Latin terms show no evidence of the laryngeal, although this irregularity could itself be explained if the paradigm was generalized based on terms in which the laryngeal was lost due to the presence of
obstruents in the stem. Furthermore, non-aoristic sigmatic formations in other Indo-European language generally require the e-grade of the root, whereas the Latin s-future often shows the zero-grade. No other Indo-European cognates provide a clear morphological match for the sigmatic future in Latin. In
Old Irish and
Vedic Sanskrit there is evidence for a thematic zero-grade paradigm with initial reduplication and a sigmatic suffix (see Sanskrit ), although de Melo argues that the lack of reduplication in Latin and the indications of an originally athematic paradigm complicate a possible connection between these terms. Kortlandt argues that the Old Irish s-subjunctive holds athematic origins and thus may serve as a parallel to the Latin s-future. Moreover, Kortlandt connects the future forms in East Baltic, which he argues to have derived from an earlier subjunctive paradigm, and the
Tocharian s-future, which may represent a thematicized class of formerly athematic sigmatic verbs. The linguists Jeremey Clackson and Geoffrey Horrocks argue that the sigmatic future and aorist in Latin may simultaneously derive from aorist and desiderative formations, whose morphology and semantics were merged and
levelled as their origins were obfuscated by extensive phonological shifts. The sigmatic future indicative may have derived from the subjunctive of a Proto-Indo-European sigmatic aorist, and the Latin sigmatic aorist subjunctive may have derived from the
optative of a Proto-Indo-European sigmatic aorist. If this theory is accepted, then the first sigmatic forms may have emerged prior to the aorist-perfect merger in Latin. Certain verbs in Latin such as contain both sigmatic perfects and futures, perhaps indicating that—at least with these terms specifically—the s-futures are older formations that may have been modeled after the Proto-Italic aorist. However, the Proto-Indo-European sigmatic aorist required the lengthened e-grade, whereas Latin sigmatic perfects generally reflect the zero-grade. For instance, the most frequently attested Latin sigmatic future, , derives from the root , whose expected sigmatic aorist would regularly produce Proto-Italic not . Additionally, the verb has a perfect form that itself most likely reflects a root aorist. It is possible that Proto-Italic may have preserved both an s-aorist and a root aorist; such a development would not be unparalleled in Indo-European as other languages such as
Ancient Greek can also continue both types of aorist. Nevertheless, de Melo still argues that it is unlikely Latin would continue both root and sigmatic aorists. The conflict between sigmatic forms such as and perfects based on older root aorists such as may also be resolved if the former type was an innovative formation not directly based on a Proto-Italic aorist. Alternatively, de Melo proposes that lengthened grade aorists (i.e. ""), which also had a secondary full-grade stem (i.e. "), may have shortened according to
Osthoff's law, thereby removing the distinguishing feature between the aorists and full-grade thematic presents (i.e. Proto-Italic ). This hypothetical development could have caused the aorists to be reanalyzed as sigmatic forms belonging to the present stem. Consequently, when new sigmatic terms were created—such as —they utilized the present stem, and not the aorist. Lipp suggests that the form may have emerged via the addition of the s-suffix to the stem found in the term , which is the perfect passive participle to the term . Lipp disputes the aoristic explanation for the Latin sigmatic future, arguing that the sigmatic forms lack a connection to
perfectivity that would be expected should the terms have originated from the aorist. In particular, Lipp cites two passages: "." which he translates as "I beseech thee, lest blind rage
do in thee some evil," and "," which he translates as "may a varicose vein not
hurt." However, de Melo argues that—in
subordinate clauses—the Latin sigmatic future may have functioned similarly to the
future perfect tense, which marked actions as occurring prior to a specified point in the future. De Melo notes that—like future perfects—sigmatic forms are typically positioned in
conditional clauses dependent upon a
main clause with a simple future tense. Furthermore, sigmatic forms are often utilized in tandem with future perfect terms. For example, Plautus writes "," which de Melo translates "." In this passage, the future perfect form "" is situated nearby the sigmatic form "," perhaps implying a similar temporal value. According to de Melo, this future perfect meaning is semantically more easily traceable to the perfective aspect of the Proto-Indo-European aorist rather than any desiderative meaning. Nevertheless, the linguist
Davide Bertocci argues that the future perfect meaning of the sigmatic forms contradicts a direct derivation from the Proto-Indo-European aorist, as the expression of anteriority is not exclusively concerned with aspect. Henceforth, Bertocci explains the s-infix as a preterital marker and not an aoristic morpheme. The sigmatic aorist subjunctive and perfect subjunctive also frequently appear in statements that express specifically
prohibitive commands (e.g. "," "do not say that"), although they are not used for other types of
hortatory statements. De Melo suggests that this similarity could be explained if the sigmatic and perfect subjunctives shared a common origin. Since the perfect in Latin was most likely produced as a merger of the Proto-Indo-European aorist and stative, and because its usage in non-past prohibitions aligns with the semantics of the aorist, de Melo also postulates an aoristic source for the sigmatic forms in Latin. According to de Melo, the future perfect and perfect subjunctive forms may have once not necessarily expressed anteriority. In support of this theory, de Melo notes the existences of set phrases such as "" ("do not do [it]"), which appears to lack a past meaning and instead merely convey a perfective meaning. De Melo postulates that the shift of the future perfect towards expressions of anteriority occurred due to the semantic influence of the standard perfect tense, which usually functioned as a preterite. Nevertheless, de Melo argues that once the future perfect had evolved a specifically anterior meaning, the sigmatic future and aorist forms were—due to their perfective origins—were repurposed to describe non-specifically anterior perfective meanings. According to this theory, the development must have occurred after the Proto-Italic stage, as the standard
Classical Latin future perfect tense and perfect subjunctive are both marked by infix (i.e. ), a suffix of ultimately unclear origin that—due to its absence from Sabellic—certainly could not have appeared before the
Proto-Latino-Faliscan stage.
Perfective formations During the transition from Proto-Indo-European into the Sabellic and Latino-Faliscan languages, the aorist and perfect merged into a single tense, referred to as the perfect in Latin and Sabellic grammar. In Latin and Sabellic, the perfect tense of a verb consists of a unique perfect stem to which the inflectional endings are affixed. To form these perfect stems, both Italic branches often reused original aorist or perfect stems. In addition, there were some new innovations within the perfective aspect, with the -v- perfect (in Latin
amō, amāvī) and the -u- perfect (
moneō, monuī) being later innovations, for example. Latin more typically preserved original sigmatic aorists, such as in the case of , whereas Sabellic often preserved original root aorists. However, neither Italic branch exclusively preserved one type of aorist or perfect stem: The Latin perfect stem continues the Proto-Indo-European s-aorist , but the perfect stem continues the Proto-Indo-European reduplicated perfect , and the perfect stem continues the full-grade k-aorist . Moreover, the chosen stems in the two Italic branches are usually opposite: Where Latin continues an original perfect form, Sabellic typically preserves an aorist, and vice versa. According to Rix, if a verb stem is present in both the Latino-Faliscan and Sabellic branches, the present stem is identical in 90% of cases, but the perfect in only 50% of cases. Due to the vast array of morphological distinctions between the perfect in Sabellic and Latino-Faliscan, it is generally held in the field of Italic linguistics that the aorist-perfect merger was completed independently in the Italic daughter languages, thereby preventing the branches from inheriting one unified system common to Proto-Italic. Furthermore, since Latino-Faliscan and Sabellic consistently continue opposite perfect and aorist stems, the linguist Gerhard Meiser argues that most Proto-Italic verbs likely had both perfect and aorist forms. Meiser concludes that—in Proto-Italic—these stems may not have differed significantly in meaning, and thus, a given form was selected for preservation in the daughter languages based on morphology rather than meaning. However, the linguist Reuben Pitts proposes that Old Latin, Faliscan, and the Sabellic languages shared far more morphological similarities than linguists such as Meiser suggest. If these theories are accepted, then this may indicate a later date for the divergences between the Sabellic and Latino-Faliscan perfect systems. Pitts argues that both Italic clades likely opted for s-aorists in situations where a reduplicated perfect was not
phonotactically permissible, particularly forms that lack a syllabic nucleus. For instance, the verb "" bears the s-perfect stem instead of the inadmissible reduplicated perfect form . Similarly, Oscan may preserve a thematic aorist, as opposed to the zero-grade reduplicated perfect , which likely would have produced . a form without a syllabic nucleus. The Latin verb , though it bears an s-perfect stem , may have once utilized a reduplicated perfect, as shown by the closely related Faliscan term . Furthermore, long-vowel perfect stems such as and also appear in situations in which factors such as vowels or fricatives may have ensured that any reduplicated perfect would be phonologically unacceptable. The Latin verb , which formed a long-vowel perfect stem , is known to have at one point held a reduplicated perfect stem, as the
Praeneste fibula attests to a form . However, this term may have eventually become phonotactically impermissible in Latin, perhaps—according to Pitts—due to rules within Latin concerning fricative reduplication. Pitts cities further similarities in the long-vowel perfect formations of Sabellic and Latin. In Latin, long-vowel perfects typically display variation between short in the present (i.e. ) and long in the perfect, which—in some cases—regularly derived from a Proto-Indo-European form (i.e. < "" < "" ). However, this pattern extended to verbs where the long would not have regularly emerged from Proto-Indo-European, such as in the Latin verb , which bears the long-vowel perfect instead of the expected form "." According to Pitts, it is likely that these unusual forms were refashioned after terms such as . Pitts argues that this same sort of analogical remodeling may have affected Oscan, where the long-vowel perfect contains an unexpected instead of the expected , perhaps due to the influence of a stem like . He concludes that the presence of similar influences in both Oscan and Latin suggests to a common origin for this shared type of long-vowel perfects. Weiss postulates that some Latin long-vowel perfects may originate from
Narten-type presents in Proto-Indo-European. In support of the Narten theory, the linguist Jay Jasanoff notes that many long-vowel perfects in Latin derive from roots that form Narten-type presents. For instance, the Old Latin perfect form "" attests to an original long-vowel perfect for the verb "," which itself derives from the root "," for which a Narten present may be attested in Sanskrit "." An alternative hypothesis holds that long-vowel perfects derive from reduplicated forms in Proto-Indo-European. For instance, the Latin perfect stem is sometimes interpreted as a descendant of Proto-Indo-European , although Jasanoff argues instead for a derivation from a Narten present. According to Jasanoff, the reduplication theory is sufficient to explain the Latin forms, although it does not properly explain the existence of other long–ē
preterites in the rest of the Indo-European family, thereby implying that a different form served as the common origin.
Future perfect Outside of the perfect indicative, the perfect system in Latin is marked by an infix before vowels (i.e. ) and before consonants (i.e. ). The Sabellic languages, however, utilize the morpheme to mark their future perfect, which in Umbrian becomes antevocalically. Both forms are of unclear origin, and both have competing explanations designed to explain their provenance. Traditionally, the Latin morpheme has been related to the -aorist of Sanskrit (i.e. '
), although this connection has since been rejected as the Sanskrit form is now regarded as resulting from the interaction an s-suffix and a stem ending in a laryngeal. According to the philologist Helmut Rix, both the Sabellic and Latin morphemes may derive from the univerbation of the Proto-Indo-European suffix and the verb . If this theory is accepted, then the Sabellic suffix may be connected to the Oscan future form ; verbs such as Oscan ''' may derive from earlier , itself possibly from . However, the linguist Nicholas Zair notes that this theory relies on the presumed sound change of into , which is otherwise unattested. Furthermore, Søborg argues if such univerbation did occur then, in Latin, the morpheme should have been retained in medial closed syllables. Rix proposes that was weakened to prior to univerbation (i.e. . not ), which may explain this discrepancy. Jasanoff instead compares the Osco-Umbrian future perfect to the future perfect of Ancient Greek, which can be morphologically analyzed as a product of the affixation of the sigmatic marker to the perfect stem. For instance, the Ancient Greek future perfect form '
() is merely an s-extension of the perfect form' (). According to Jasanoff, it is likely that this type of sigmatic perfect was a common Italic form and probably underlies both the Sabellic and Latin future perfect paradigms. Jasanoff argues that Oscan probably originates as a dereduplicated form from earlier , whose stem may also be attested in Umbrian '''
. However, the identification of as a future perfect term is not uncontroversial, and the word may instead constitute a third-person plural future or a third-person singular imperfect subjunctive form. Regardless, Jasanoff argues that the stem was likely inherited from Proto-Indo-European, and it may relate to Sanskrit '. Alternatively, Kortlandt compares '
and Oscan to reduplicated future formations in Old Irish, such as . If ' and reflect the same Proto-Sabellic term, then the dereduplication in Oscan may be paralleled by terms such as , which may derive from earlier . However, Zair argues that it is unlikely such a development would affect a perfect stem as this shift would render the future and future perfect forms identical, thereby encouraging speakers to retain the initial reduplication as a distinctive marker. According to Jasanoff, the perfect form was then suffixed with the sigmatic marker, creating a new future tense with stative value. The new future perfect form would have—according to Jasanoff—been paralleled by the simple perfect , which itself may have derived from earlier . The in the latter form may have contributed to a reanalysis of in which the was no longer considered part of the stem. Consequently, the ending may have spread to other forms and gradually become generalized as the Osco-Umbrian future perfect marker. If this development is accepted, then perhaps earlier sigmatic futures would have consisted of terms such as , which may have then been replaced by new forms such as , itself possibly the precursor to Umbrian . Similarly, Jasanoff proposes that the Latin future perfect emerged from the combination of an s-suffix and the perfect stem followed by the addition of
epenthetic to minimize morphological confusion. For instance, pre-Latin —which held an s-perfect stem —would have formed a future perfect stem , which would have been modified into to differentiate the term from the identical perfect stem. Afterwards, the term would have evolved into the attested Classical Latin future perfect stem . Once this pattern was established, the epenthetic may have spread to other paradigms that did not originally necessitate the distinguishing marker. Thus, terms such as , whose archaic perfect stem was , would have originally held a future perfect stem , which may have then been analogically reshaped into , whence . Zair agrees that the Sabellic perfect was likely—within Proto-Sabellic—formed from the addition of a sigmatic suffix to the perfect stem. However, Zair suggests that the sigmatic marker was—at least in certain cases—added onto a perfect stem previously extended by the suffix , a development which occurred during the post-Proto-Italic period. According to Zair, roots of the shape will provide stative forms of the shape , whose final sequence may produce Proto-Italic , which was then reanalyzed as a component of the perfect stem. Thus, terms such as Oscan '
may derive from the reduplicated stative , itself belonging to the root . This suffix may have then spread to other forms, such as Umbrian , which may derive from a pre-form that possibly displaced the original perfect form . The eventual completion of the aorist-perfect merger and the generalization of the aorist inflectional endings to the entire perfect tense in Oscan and Umbrian may have concealed the existence of the ō-perfect class, ensuring that the only remnants of this type survived in the future perfect paradigm. However, South Picene may have uniquely continued the original ō-perfect class, perhaps explaining the existence of South Picene forms such as '''. Bertocci argues that the Latin future perfect most likely originated from the sigmatic forms. According to Bertocci, the eventual emergence of the Latin split between the present and perfect systems orphaned the sigmatic forms, which could not be easily assigned to either category. Consequently, the sigmatic terms underwent a reanalysis in which—due to their anterior meaning—they were reassigned to perfect stems, perhaps giving rise to terms such as , itself modeled after the perfect stem . This new stem may have been further augmented by the addition of , which Bertocci suggests to have been related to the second-person singular perfect ending . The result of these hypothetical developments would have been forms such as , which may have eventually developed into the future perfect endings.
Sample conjugations First conjugation This conjugation pattern was largely derived from the PIE suffix , and formed primarily denominative verbs (I.e. deriving from a noun or an adjective). The original Proto-Indo-European sequence ~ developed into Proto-Italic ~ , which eventually lost the intervocalic yod and contracted into the Latin first conjugation paradigm. It is perhaps possible that the Umbrian term ("to call, invoke;" perhaps from Proto-Italic ) showcases an uncontracted first-person singular form. There was also a class of -factitives which formed verbs such as the verb , which is possibly the source for . Over time, this class merged with the aforementioned denominative type and was subsumed into the first conjugation. Roots with final could also produce first-conjugation verbs, such as , the athematic root present of which——perhaps yielded Proto-Italic , whence Latin . Example Conjugation:
*dōnā- (to give)
Second conjugation (causative) This conjugation pattern was derived from PIE , which formed causative or iterative verbs from roots. For instance, Latin derives from Proto-Italic , from earlier , ultimately from the Proto-Indo-European causative . The majority of the inflectional paradigm of this type is easily explainable as the expected outcome of vowel contraction (i.e. Latin < Proto-Indo-European ). However, it is more unclear whether the contraction of earlier would—according to regular phonological developments—yield the in forms such as , itself from earlier , from , ultimately from Proto-Indo-European . Regardless, the eventual long- vowel is easily explainable as the result of analogical remodeling after the other conjugations, including the second-conjugation stative verbs, where endings such as are expected. Semantically, Latin largely preserved verbs with originally causative meaning, such as the term ("to hurt"), from Proto-Italic , itself inherited from the Proto-Indo-European causative ("to cause death"). There are certain examples of verbs that potentially preserve original iterative meanings, such as perhaps ("to milk"). On the basis of Latin evidence, the linguist
Daniel Kölligan argues that—in Proto-Indo-European—the suffix formed iterative verbs when applied to roots whose semantics necessitated an
agent and it formed causative verbs when attached to roots whose inherent meaning did not imply an agent. Thus,
intransitive roots such as ("dry") form causatives such as Latin ("to burn"), whereas
transitive roots such as ("to burn") formed iterative such as ("to warm"). According to the linguist Chiara Bozzone, though this pattern remains true for Latin, since the underlying verbal roots were themselves largely lost by the Latin period and only retrievable on the basis of comparative evidence, it is likely this derivational class lost productivity early in Latin prehistory. Bozzone suggests that loss of productivity for this type perhaps occurred earlier in Latin prehistory than in Ancient Greek or Vedic Sanskrit, since the correspondence between a base verb and an derivative remain synchronically identifiable during the attested periods of those languages. Example Conjugation:
*mone- (to warn)
Second conjugation (stative) This conjugation pattern was largely derived from PIE and the extended form , both of which originally formed
stative verbs. Due to the action of sound laws, the causative and stative types merged over time. By the Latin period, only the stative function remained productive, with verbs such as ("to be white") formed innovatively to terms such as . Also as a consequence of sound laws, Proto-Indo-European roots with an ending could produce second-conjugation verbs, such as the root , which gave rise to Proto-Italic . Example Conjugation:
*walē- (to be strong)
Third Conjugation The third conjugation consists of a variety of inherited formations from Proto-Indo-European. PIE simple thematic root presents gave rise to third conjugation verbs, such as , whence Proto-Italic . This type was extremely common in late PIE, although it eventually lost its productivity by the Latin period, leaving behind only relict verbs as remnants. It is unclear whether any zero-grade root thematic presents persisted into Latin, though perhaps the verb serves as an example, yet the exact vocalism of this form is uncertain and thus its precise origins remain elusive. Original thematic -presents also produced third conjugation verbs, such as Proto-Italic , from Proto-Indo-European . Inherited forms in Latin marked by this suffix do not show any unifying semantic themes, though forms marked by the suffixes or display an
inchoative-intransitive meaning. Furthermore, i-reduplicated thematic presents such as were continued as third-conjugation verbs such as Proto-Italic . However, there is no certain trace of the e-reduplicated athematic type in Latin, save for possibly the verb , which preserves some reduplicated form of the root , a root that is itself attested with anathematic e-reduplicated present . Nevertheless, the Latin term itself does not provide conclusive evidence regarding the vocalism of the reduplicant in the pre-form. Example Conjugation:
*ed-e/o- (to eat)
Third conjugation (jō-variant) This conjugation was derived from PIE -suffix verbs, and went on to form most of Latin 3rd conjugation
io-variant verbs as well as some 4th conjugation verbs. Example Conjugation:
*gʷen-jo/je- (to come), from earlier
*gʷəmjō Athematic verbs Only a handful of verbs remained within this conjugation paradigm, derived from the original PIE Root Athematic verbs. Example Conjugation: *ezom (copula, to be) In addition to these conjugations, Proto-Italic also has some deponent verbs, such as *ōdai (Perfect-Present), as well as *gnāskōr (Passive-Active).
Conjugation of the aorist The aorist in Proto-Italic is characterized by the PIE secondary endings connected to the aorist stem by the appropriate thematic vowel. These endings are best attested in Sabellic, where aorist endings generally ousted the perfect ones; Latin instead generalized the perfect endings to its aorist-derived perfects. However, Faliscan preserved the original third-person plural active aorist ending , which eventually became the third-person plural active perfect ending in Faliscan. The Latin third-person plural active perfect ending, , has likewise been interpreted as mix of and . Though, Fortson doubts this argument, citing the lack of any inscriptional evidence for the ending in Early Latin. Minor attestation for the Proto-Italic aorist imperative may appear in the Latin term "," whose latter component, "," presumably reflects a Proto-Italic form that itself derives from the Proto-Indo-European aorist imperative "." Likewise, "," the plural form of "," may reflect a Proto-Italic form "," itself from the Proto-Indo-European second person plural aorist imperative "." The following stem formations for the aorist are known: • The simple root aorist, formed by simply attaching aorist endings to an unsuffixed root. If ablaut is available for a root, the root is in the e-grade in the singular and zero-grade in the plural. • The s-aorist, where the root in the
e-grade is suffixed with
-s- to make the aorist stem.
Conjugation of the perfect The other main type of perfective formation in Italic was the perfect, which was derived from the Proto-Indo-European stative and had its own set of endings. Perfect stems are created by a
reduplication process where a copy syllable consisting of the first consonant of the verb root followed by
e is prefixed to the root. In Italic, Vine believes that the root either is in the zero grade or has the same vowel as the present stem, but De Vaan identified at least two perfects with
o-grade in the root syllable. Latin and Sabellic also both attest a tendency in which if a root has a
semivowel in the middle, this semivowel replaces
e in the copy syllable. If a verb root begins in
*s followed by a
stop consonant, both consonants appear in the copy syllable and the root syllable loses the
*s. The perfect endings in Italic, which only survive in the
Latino-Faliscan languages, are derived from the original PIE stative endings, but with an extra
-i added after most of them. An additional suffix
-is- of difficult-to-trace origin was added in the evolution of Latin to the 2nd-person endings.
Examples of verb derivation from PIE in Proto-Italic ==Post-Italic developments==