No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Prothesis in the Latin verb sum
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2026
Extract
In this article I propose a new explanation of the forms of the verb sum. This explanation is based on synchronic facts of Classical Latin and is expressed in terms of a set of ordered rules applying to basic forms. I do not propose that forms appearing in the derivations of the Classical Latin forms necessarily appeared phonetically in any stage of pre-Latin or Indo-European. Nevertheless, I feel that my analysis is not wholly devoid of historical and comparative interest. In this I follow Leonard Bloomfield, ‘Menomini morphophonemics’, Travaux du Cercle linguistique de Prague 8.105–15 (1939):
The process of description leads us to set up each morphological element in a theoretical basic form, and then to state the deviations from this basic form which appear when the element is combined with other elements. If one starts with the basic forms and applies our statements … in the order in which we give them, one will arrive finally at the forms of words as they are actually spoken. Our basic forms are not ancient forms, say of the Proto-Algonquian parent language, and our statements of internal sandhi are not historical but descriptive, and appear in a purely descriptive order. However, our basic forms do bear some resemblance to those which would be set up for a description of Proto-Algonquian, some of our statements of alternation … resemble those which would appear in a description of Proto-Algonquian, and the rest …, as to content and order, approximate the historical development from Proto-Algonquian to present-day Menomini.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1965 by Linguistic Society of America
Footnotes
*
This work was supported in part by the Joint Services Electronics Program under Contract DA36-039-AMC-03200(E); in part by the National Science Foundation (Grant GP-2495), the National Institutes of Health (Grant MH-04737-04), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Grant NsG-496), and the U.S. Air Force (ESD Contract AF19(628)-2487). Additional support came through a National Defense Graduate Fellowship.
I am grateful to Morris Halle for many valuable suggestions.
References
1 The stem here consists of the root am and the thematic vowel ā. The alternations in the length of the thematic vowel can be accounted for by noticing that a long vowel is shortened when followed by a stop at the end of a word, or by two stops anywhere, the term ‘stop’ being taken to include the nasal stops m and n. (Note also 3rd sg. pass. amātur and 3rd pl. pass. amantur.) Apparent exceptions to this rule are due to the later application of Lachmann's law, e.g. agō, āctum; tegō, tēctum.
2 Since the current use of the asterisk for both reconstructed forms and incorrect forms is confusing, I use c (for correct) with a diagonal through it (for not) to mark incorrect forms: ȼ.
3 This rule is not formulated expressly for this case; rather, it is a rule of general application. Note nom. sg. os ‘bone’ alongside gen. sg. ossis, parallel to nom. sg. genus ‘family’, gen. sg. generis.
4 Actually the epenthetic u occurs not before any nasal segment, but rather before the particular nasal m. The third plural ending nt is from mt with assimilation of the nasal to the succeeding consonant. Note decem ‘ten’ alongside centum ‘hundred’.
5 This rule is not established solely to account for the forms of the verb sum; it applies without restriction to all Latin words, but the only places where the conditions are met are certain forms of this verb.
6 According to Varro, Lingua latina 9.100, esum was once spoken: ‘sum quod nunc dicitur olim dicebatur esum’. Kühner says this form was created by analogy with other forms; ‘Die volle Form der 1. Sing. Ind. Pr. lautet nach Varro es-u-m; doch scheint diese Form nur nach der Analogie anderer Formen gebildet zu sein.‘ However, what Kühner calls analogy can be explained in terms of rules 1 and 2 applying in the reverse order:
s+m
es+m (by rule 2)
es+um (by rule 1)
7 Actually the rhotacism rule applies in two steps. First s becomes voiced to z, and then z becomes r. The first step muy be formulated (where the diagonal is to be read: ‘in the environment‘):
8 Remarks on some other forms of sum: In the present subjunctive
sim sīmus
sīs sītis
sit sint
the root s is followed by a vowel and hence no prothesis occurs. In the past subjunctive
essem essēmus
essēs essētis
esset essent
the radical s is followed by a consonant, and prothesis occurs. The inf. esse is from s+se with prothetic e; se is the infinitive morpheme, which becomes re by the rhotacism rule in thematic verbs, e.g. amāre from amā+se. The future is similar to the imperfect, e.g. 2nd sg. eris from s+bi+s, cf. 2nd sg. amābis.
9 For discussion of ordered rules see Noam Chomsky, Current issues in linguistic theory, and Morris Halle, Phonology in generative grammar, both in Jerry A. Fodor and Jerrold J. Katz, The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language (Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1964).
- 1
- Cited by