Distinctions between nomina actionis with -us and -io.
- Thread starter Cloudfire
- Start date
Could be wrong, but I believe the -tio endings are older. These can apparently be traced back to Indo-European.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-tio#Latin
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-tio#Latin
This brings up the queſtion of whether full declension 'u'-stem nouns evolved from ſupines, or whether ſupines are remnants of 'u' ſtems.
The '-tio' nouns are more intereſting in their mediæval
developments, as thoſe whoſe underlying verbs had fallen out of uſe would ſometimes wander into the firſt declenſion ('præfatio'>'præfatia') whilſt thoſe whoſe underlying verbs ſurvived were ſometimes treated as full members of the verbal paradigm with the ability to take objects &c.
Both types of nouns ſeem in any case to bear a quite regular and probably ancient relationſhip to their correſponding verbs.
The '-tio' nouns are more intereſting in their mediæval
developments, as thoſe whoſe underlying verbs had fallen out of uſe would ſometimes wander into the firſt declenſion ('præfatio'>'præfatia') whilſt thoſe whoſe underlying verbs ſurvived were ſometimes treated as full members of the verbal paradigm with the ability to take objects &c.
Both types of nouns ſeem in any case to bear a quite regular and probably ancient relationſhip to their correſponding verbs.
Huh, interesting. Can you give an example?
Oh, I've personally never encountered an -io noun with a direct object in medieval Latin yet, but if it occurred it wasn't really an innovation — it was more like a revival, whether conscious or unconscious, because they could take direct objects in archaic Latin (here are a couple of examples from Plautus of tactio with a direct object) although it no longer occurred, as far as I know, in classical Latin (or if it did, it must have been very rare since I've never seen it).
I remember once when we were diſcuſſing a quote from Aquinas and the Golden Scholar came to the defenſe of the Angelic Doctor's uſe of a ſimilar conſtruction.
Aren't you rather confusing with Aquinas' ungrammatical use of a gerund in a cringeworthy mix of a genitive gerund with an acc.-inf. construction, in a completely illogical attempt to imitate a genitive article + acc.-inf. Greek construction — cognitio existendi deum?
I mentioned the -io noun + direct object construction somewhere in the same thread, though — not knowing a word of Greek at the time, I didn't understand at once what Aurifex was saying, and that caused my bringing up the topic though it turned out to be irrelevant — so that may be why you've confused the two, if you indeed have.
I mentioned the -io noun + direct object construction somewhere in the same thread, though — not knowing a word of Greek at the time, I didn't understand at once what Aurifex was saying, and that caused my bringing up the topic though it turned out to be irrelevant — so that may be why you've confused the two, if you indeed have.
Hmm... perhaps... would not put it paſt me.
E
Etaoin Shrdlu
Guest
File under 'Sentences You Could Only See on One Website'.
I just came upon this discussion, and found something here which I find interesting:
I think this is ignoring the fact of the many 'o'-stem nouns, those in -os, believed to have been found in PIE, such as *wiros/"warrior", "hero" (> Latin vir) and the fact that many of these came down into Latin as 'u'-stem nouns in -us, e.g. PIE *wisos/"slime", "poison" > Latin virus (after the expected rhotacization). This means that the Latin nominal ending -us is simply the old IE nominal ending -os (which passed into Greek unaltered) with a sound shift applied to ensure conformance to so-called "Latin sound laws". Of course, this also means that -us as a nominal ending is every bit as antique as -tio, and seems not to derive from the supine stem.
Last edited:
Oh, I see; I did not take that distinction into account.
I've just discovered this discussion exists.
I haven't read every single post (I only skimmed through it), but it seems to me noone has attempted yet to explain the semantic difference (granted there is any, but let's say there is) in the classical Latin.
To me, instinctively, it would apply in general [with outliers*] that "-us,ūs" will be used [in the word derivation] to denote an outcome of an action, while "-iō" the action itself. At least in cases, where "-us" hasn't been used for the action itself, thus preventing an "-iō" noun ever to emerge (since it would be redundant), like "cursus" rather than "cursiō" (super-rare to non-extant) ... unlike incursiō e.g.
On the other hand, I would argue that some 4th declension nouns that have a verbal origin describe indeed some form of an "outcome" even if the -io noun is non-extant and not likely to be derived (vīsus, sēnsus...).
"reditus" = a/the return; "reditiō" = [the action of] returning;
*I said outliers, since this hypothesis could never explain all pairs like that. Visiō and vīsus seem to have almost arbitrary meanings. But my hypothesis is that most pairs [statistically] could however be explained by the distinction I proposed.
But that is only my hypothesis based on some instinct.
I haven't read every single post (I only skimmed through it), but it seems to me noone has attempted yet to explain the semantic difference (granted there is any, but let's say there is) in the classical Latin.
To me, instinctively, it would apply in general [with outliers*] that "-us,ūs" will be used [in the word derivation] to denote an outcome of an action, while "-iō" the action itself. At least in cases, where "-us" hasn't been used for the action itself, thus preventing an "-iō" noun ever to emerge (since it would be redundant), like "cursus" rather than "cursiō" (super-rare to non-extant) ... unlike incursiō e.g.
On the other hand, I would argue that some 4th declension nouns that have a verbal origin describe indeed some form of an "outcome" even if the -io noun is non-extant and not likely to be derived (vīsus, sēnsus...).
"reditus" = a/the return; "reditiō" = [the action of] returning;
*I said outliers, since this hypothesis could never explain all pairs like that. Visiō and vīsus seem to have almost arbitrary meanings. But my hypothesis is that most pairs [statistically] could however be explained by the distinction I proposed.
But that is only my hypothesis based on some instinct.
Last edited:
I was looking through some older threads for items of interest, and I found this. I am glad that somebody other than myself found it interesting, as well.
The difference is largely parallel to that between sight (-us) vs seeing (-iō), flight vs fleeing, song vs singing, touch vs touching, return vs the coming back. I would summarize it as concrete vs. abstract.
Or, perhaps, to use the language applied to verbs: finite vs, non-finite?
What meaning do you assign to these terms in this context, and what is the principle difference from my suggestion?
Well, as you have characterized the difference:
, the nouns in -io appear to be the rough semantic (though not grammatical) equivalents of verbal nouns, which are non-finite verbs, while the nouns in -us more "true" nouns. That's what came to my mind when I read your post.