The active perfect stem conjugation in Latin resembles the conjugation of esse a lot, but I recently learned that it is likely to be a coincidence. However, the active perfect indicative forms do not resemble esse — or any other Latin conjugation.

What is the origin of the personal endings (-i, -isti, -it, -imus, -istis, -erunt/-ere)? Do they come from the same place (PIE perfect, for example), or is it a collection of elements from a number of sources? There are familiar elements (-t in third person singular, -mus in first person plural, -tis in second person plural, -nt in third person plural), but the combination of all six is unlike other personal endings. There are also elements that are totally unexpected based on other Latin conjugation.

  • 1
    -isti is probably the strangest of the bunch. I believe that -erunt is on analogy of the present tense, largely displacing earlier -ere, but I could be mistaken.
    – Anonym
    May 17, 2018 at 22:22

1 Answer 1


I've read the following etymologies

-ī> Directly from the first person perfective ending *-h₂e of PIE. (from Origins of the Greek Verb by Andreas Willi, Pg 8). He states the PIE *-h₂e became -ai in Old Latin, subsequently evolving into -ī.

-isti> Probably from PIE *-s-th₂e . The /s/ aorist marker was attached to the stem, followed by Stative *-th₂e, yielding -isti. Here, the aorist -s-, the origin of the Pluperfect and Future Perfect endings in -r-, did not undergo rhotacization due to the fact that it did not occur intervocalically.

-it> Again, from an old Latin diphthong, in this case -ei. *-e was the PIE perfective third person ending. Old Latin had what Willi calls "primary" -i, from the -i suffixed to the "secondary" endings (-m, -s, -t) to get the "present tense" primary endings of PIE (-mi, -si, -ti). Then, the third person singular marker -t may have been added as -ī > -ei became indistinguishable from the first person.

-imus> again, the use of the -i perfect marker, followed by the regular reflex of the PIE 1st person plural "primary" ending *-mos (ie -mus).

-istis> again, an amalgam of different perfect markers (-i and aorist -s-) followed by the regular present -tis ending. I am not sure of the origin of -tis, since the PIE active indicative 2nd person plural ending is -te. Perhaps the -s arose from analogy with the -s of -mus?

-ere/-erunt> As I was writing this, I found a great answer about -ere/-erunt, specifically, that is better written and clearer than what I had been saying. This answer is only about -ere / -erunt, but contains a clear explanation of the primary -i as well. Here it is:

What is the origin of the 3rd-person plural perfect ending "-ēre"?

As you probably know already, these endings were appended to an already-modified stem. Proto-Italic developed a perfect in -w- (voiced bilabial fricative). This may have from the PIE active past participle marker -wos-. The -w- perfect became -v- in Latin, and became the "regular" perfect, but many other paradigms existed in classical latin, including ablaut (capo/cepi) reduplication (do/dedo) and the long vowel perfect. -v- had an allomorphs of -u- in certain contexts, eg monēo/monuī.

I hope that helps a little bit.

  • Great answer! Welcome to the site.
    – Cerberus
    Nov 22, 2020 at 2:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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