Editing Germanic weak verb (section)

==Origins==
The weak conjugation of verbs is an innovation of [[Proto-Germanic]] (unlike the older strong verbs, the basis of which goes back to [[Proto-Indo-European language|Proto-Indo-European]]). While primary verbs (those inherited from PIE) already had an ablaut-based perfect form that was the basis of the Germanic strong preterite. Secondary verbs (those derived from other forms after the break-up of PIE) had to form a preterite otherwise, which necessitated the creation of the weak conjugation.

===Denominative derivation===
The vast majority of weak verbs are secondary, or derived. The two main types of derived verbs were denominative and deverbative. A denominative verb is one that has been created out of a noun. The denominative in Indo-European and early Germanic was formed by adding an ablauting [[Vowel stems|thematic]] *-y{{frac|é|ó}}- suffix to a noun or adjective.  This created verbs such as Gothic {{lang|got-Latn|namnjan}} 'to name'.

===Causative verbs===
A significant subclass of Class I weak verbs are (deverbal) [[causative verb]]s. They are formed in a way that reflects a direct inheritance from the PIE causative class of verbs. PIE causatives were formed by adding an accented affix ''-éy-'' to the ''o''-grade of a non-derived verb.  In Proto-Germanic,  causatives are formed by adding a suffix ''-j/ij-'' (the reflex of PIE ''-éy-'') to the past-tense ablaut (mostly with the reflex of PIE ''o''-grade) of a strong verb (the reflex of PIE non-derived verbs), with [[Verner's Law]] voicing applied (the reflex of the PIE accent on the ''-éy-'' suffix):

*{{lang|gem-x-proto|*bītaną}} (I) "to bite" → {{lang|gem-x-proto|*baitijaną}} "to bridle, yoke, restrain," i.e., "to make bite down"
*{{lang|gem-x-proto|*rīsaną}} (I) "to rise" → {{lang|gem-x-proto|*raizijaną}} "to raise," i.e., "to cause to rise"
*{{lang|gem-x-proto|*beuganą}} (II) "to bend" → {{lang|gem-x-proto|*baugijaną}} "to bend (transitive)"
*{{lang|gem-x-proto|*brinnaną}} (III) "to burn" → {{lang|gem-x-proto|*brannijaną}} "to burn (transitive)"
*{{lang|gem-x-proto|*frawerþaną}} (III) "to perish" → {{lang|gem-x-proto|*frawardijaną}} "to destroy," i.e., "to cause to perish"
*{{lang|gem-x-proto|*nesaną}} (V) "to survive" → {{lang|gem-x-proto|*nazjaną}} "to save," i.e., "to cause to survive"
*{{lang|gem-x-proto|*ligjaną}} (V) "to lie down" → {{lang|gem-x-proto|*lagjaną}} "to lay," i.e., "to cause to lie down"
*{{lang|gem-x-proto|*sitjaną}} (V) "to sit" → {{lang|gem-x-proto|*satjaną}} "to set, seat," i.e., "to cause to sit"
*{{lang|gem-x-proto|*faraną}} (VI) "to travel, go"  → {{lang|gem-x-proto|*fōrijaną}} "to lead, bring," i.e., "to cause to go"
*{{lang|gem-x-proto|*faraną}} (VI) "to travel, go"  → {{lang|gem-x-proto|*farjaną}} "to carry across," i.e., "to cause to travel" (an archaic instance of the ''o''-grade ablaut used despite the differing past-tense ablaut)
*{{lang|gem-x-proto|*grētaną}} (VII) "to weep" → {{lang|gem-x-proto|*grōtijaną}} "to cause to weep"
*{{lang|gem-x-proto|*lais}} (I, preterite-present) "(s)he knows"  → {{lang|gem-x-proto|*laizijaną}} "to teach," i.e., "to cause to know"

Essentially, all verbs formed this way were conjugated as Class I weak verbs.

That method of forming causative verbs is no longer productive in the modern Germanic languages, but many relics remain. For example:
*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.

In some cases, phonological or semantic developments make the pairs difficult to recognise. For example:
*''Rear'' is the regular phonological development of Proto-Germanic {{lang|gem-x-proto|*raizijaną}} given in the above list, but the connection between ''rise'' and ''rear'' is no longer obvious. The word ''raise'' also ultimately defines from ''*raizijaną'', but only via borrowing from Old Norse. The connection is perhaps made more obvious by noting that ''to rear a child'' is essentially synonymous with ''to raise a child''.
*''Drench'' was originally the causative of ''drink'', but the modern meaning of "drench" ("to cause to get wet") is no longer similar to "cause to drink". 
*Similarly, German strong {{lang|de|leiden litt gelitten}} ("to suffer") has the derived weak verb {{lang|de|leiten}} ("to lead"), which makes sense when one realises that {{lang|de|leiden}} originally meant "walk, go" and came to its present meaning through the idea of "undergoing" suffering.

===Other types===
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 so were unable to show the ablaut distinction necessary for a strong preterite. That was the case with the Gothic verbs {{lang|got-Latn|waurkjan}} "to work, create," {{lang|got-Latn|bugjan}} "to buy," and {{lang|got-Latn|sokjan}} "to seek."

Preterite-present verbs are primary verbs in which the PIE present was lost, and the perfect was given a present meaning. They needed a new past tense, which followed the weak pattern.

Most borrowings from other languages into Germanic were weak. However, this was not always the case: for example, {{wikt-lang|gem-pro|*skrībaną|i=no}} 'to write' from Latin {{wikt-lang|la|scrībō|i=no}}.

===Origin of dental suffix===
The origin of the dental suffix is uncertain. Perhaps the most commonly held theory is that it evolved out of a [[Periphrasis|periphrastic]] construction with the verb {{wikt-lang|gem-pro|*dōną}} ''to do'': Germanic *{{lang|gem-x-proto|lubō-dē-}} ("love-did") > {{lang|gem-x-proto|*lubōdē-}} > Old English {{lang|ang|lufode}} > ''loved'' or *{{lang|gem-x-proto|salbō-dē-}} ("salve-did", i.e., "put salve") > *{{lang|gem-x-proto|salbōdē-}} > Old English {{lang|ang|sealfode}} > ''salved''. That would be analogous to [[do-support]] in modern English: ''I did love'', ''I did salve''.

The common PIE root {{lang|ine-x-proto|*dʰeh₁-}} meaning 'do' was a root [[aorist]] and so did not take a perfect. However, it took a reduplicating present. The imperfect of the root, which filled in the simple past in Germanic, is probably the origin of the dental suffix.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Periphrastic origin of dental suffix
! PIE imperfect of "do"
! Proto-Germanic past of "do"
! Gothic weak preterite ending
|-
| rowspan=3 | Singular
| {{lang|ine-x-proto|*dʰe-dʰéh₁-m}}
| {{lang|gem-x-proto|*dedǭ}}
| {{lang|got-Latn|-da}}
|-
| {{lang|ine-x-proto|*dʰe-dʰéh₁-s}}
| {{lang|gem-x-proto|*dedēz}}
| {{lang|got-Latn|-des}}
|-
| {{lang|ine-x-proto|*dʰe-dʰéh₁-t}}
| {{lang|gem-x-proto|*dedē}}
| {{lang|got-Latn|-da}}
|-
| rowspan=3 | Plural
| {{lang|ine-x-proto|*dʰe-dʰh₁-m̥é}}
| {{lang|gem-x-proto|*dēdum}}
| {{lang|got-Latn|-dēdum}}
|-
| {{lang|ine-x-proto|*dʰe-dʰh₁-té}}
| {{lang|gem-x-proto|*dédd → *dēdud}} (by analogy)
| {{lang|got-Latn|-dēduþ}}
|-
| {{lang|ine-x-proto|*dʰe-dʰh₁-n̥t}}
| {{lang|gem-x-proto|*dēdun}}
| {{lang|got-Latn|-dēdun}}
|}

That view is not without objections:{{citation needed|date=September 2017}}
* Germanic has long -ē- in the plural, which cannot directly reflect the Proto-Indo-European situation.
* Reduplication is only in the Gothic plural, not in the singular.

The objections are sometimes answered as follows:{{citation needed|date=September 2017}}
* There might have been a refashioning according to cases like {{lang|gem-x-proto|gēbun,}} namely, {{lang|gem-x-proto|*gegbun > gēbun: *dedun → dēdun}}.
* Reduplication only in the plural can easily be explained by [[haplology]] in Proto-Germanic ({{lang|gem-x-proto|*dede-}} being reduced to {{lang|gem-x-proto|*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'' (compare Latin {{lang|la|amatus}}), with personal endings added to it at a later stage. That theory, however, is also disputed because of its inability to explain all the facts.

According to Hill (2010), the endings, which in the singular do not show reduplication in any Germanic language, continue the PIE subjunctive of the root aorist.{{cn |date=December 2024}}