3

Latin:

The third-person plural present active indicative form of amare (to love): amant
Participle: nominative ama-ns (genitive ama-ntis)

Gothic:

The third-person plural present active indicative form of frijon (to love): frijond
Participle(noun): frijonds (friend)

Ols Slavic:

The third-person plural present active indicative form of ljubiti (to love): ljúbjatъ
Short participle: ljúbjaščь

*Standartd Old Slavic alternation t > šč

  • In Riffian (xs = to love): xs-en (they love) / i-xs-en (participial form of love). Coincidence? – amegnunsen Sep 14 at 20:45
5

Not as far as we know.

Proto-Indo-European is reconstructed as having an "*nt-participle", an active eventive participle formed by adding *-nt- to the stem (sometimes with an *e or *o before it). This is where the Latin present active participle comes from, and I would assume the Gothic as well, though I don't know as much about the history of Gothic.

Meanwhile, the third-person plural active eventive endings are reconstructed as *-nti primary, *-nt secondary. This is where the Latin and Gothic finite verb ending comes from. (My knowledge of the history of Slavic is even more limited, but I would assume the participle and finite form you cite come from the same sources as well, with some sort of sound change removing the nasal.)

Are these two forms, the participle and the third person plural, related? Possibly! They certainly look similar, and it's possible they come from some shared source in Pre-Proto-Indo-European, or one derived from the other, or something like that. But as with most things back before PIE, there's just not enough evidence to say one way or the other. The default is to assume no connection (the null hypothesis), but here it's due to the lack of evidence, rather than any specific evidence of un-related-ness.

  • 1
    the -jat ljubjat should be from -ęt < -ent. – Vladimir F Sep 14 at 18:59
  • @VladimirF Aha, thank you! Feel free to post an answer with that if you want, or I'll edit it into mine. – Draconis Sep 14 at 19:00
4

I will add the Slavic evolution as an addition to the Draconis's answer. Indeed, the answer to your question is NO.

Vepřek in "Komparativní tvarosloví staroslověnštiny a staré češtiny" lists the Early Proto-Slavic present ending forms as coming from the Proto-Indo European endings. So, he lists the Early form of "-ętь" as "-inti" with a possibility of borrowing the nasalized ending directly from athematic verbs instead. Most verb classes had the big yus "-ǫtь" (from "-onti") and hence the ending -ut in Russian (пишутъ). Note that it really ends with -i, Similar to what Draconis mentions, hence the soft yer reconstructed based on other Slavic Languages, although Old Church Slavic has a hard yer. Vepřek considers it to be a speciality of OCS.

The same book lists the Early Proto-Slavic form of the present active participle as indeed the counterpart of the Indo-European nt participle (as Draconis mentions) where first Balto-Slavic added j when moving to the soft declination and this enabled the Proto-Slavic palatalization changes. So most verbs had "-ontja" > "-ǫšta". In East and West Slavic št > šč. Fourth class verbs had "-int-" > "-ęt-" (Old Church Slavic -ęšt-). End hence East Slavic -jašč-.

  • Ente > утка, enge > узкий, intern > утроба (внутренний) – Daniel Scott Oct 4 at 23:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.