{"history":[],"article":{"id":"9d94c5a7-8976-4d30-a14b-a579974fffff","title":"Suppletion","slug":"suppletion","content":":::summary\n:::\n\n# \nIn [linguistics](https://bliptext.com/articles/linguistics) and [etymology](https://bliptext.com/articles/etymology), **suppletion** is traditionally understood as the use of one word as the [inflected](https://bliptext.com/articles/inflection) form of another word when the two words are not [cognate](https://bliptext.com/articles/cognate).\nFor those learning a language, suppletive forms will be seen as \"irregular\" or even \"highly irregular\".\nFor example, go:went is a suppletive paradigm, because go and went are not etymologically related, whereas mouse:mice is irregular but not suppletive, since the two words come from the same Old English ancestor.\nThe term \"suppletion\" implies that a gap in the [paradigm](https://bliptext.com/articles/word-stem) was filled by a form \"supplied\" by a different [paradigm](https://bliptext.com/articles/word-stem).\nInstances of suppletion are overwhelmingly restricted to the most commonly used [lexical items](https://bliptext.com/articles/lexical-item) in a language.\n\n# Irregularity and suppletion\nAn irregular paradigm is one in which the derived forms of a word cannot be deduced by simple rules from the base form.\nFor example, someone who knows only a little English can deduce that the plural of girl is girls but cannot deduce that the plural of man is men.\nLanguage learners are often most aware of [irregular verbs](https://bliptext.com/articles/irregular-verb), but any part of speech with inflections can be irregular.\nFor most synchronic purposes—first-language acquisition studies, [psycholinguistics](https://bliptext.com/articles/psycholinguistics), language-teaching theory—it suffices to note that these forms are irregular.\nHowever, historical linguistics seeks to explain how they came to be so and distinguishes different kinds of irregularity according to their origins.\nMost irregular paradigms (like man:men) can be explained by phonological developments that affected one form of a word but not another (in this case, [Germanic umlaut](https://bliptext.com/articles/germanic-umlaut)).\nIn such cases, the historical antecedents of the current forms once constituted a regular paradigm.\nHistorical linguistics uses the term \"suppletion\"\nto distinguish irregularities like person:people or [cow:cattle](https://bliptext.com/articles/cattle) that cannot be so explained because the parts of the paradigm have not evolved out of a single form.\n[Hermann Osthoff](https://bliptext.com/articles/hermann-osthoff) coined the term \"suppletion\" in German in an 1899 study of the phenomenon in [Indo-European languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-european-languages).\nSuppletion exists in many languages around the world.\nThese languages are from various language families: [Indo-Aryan](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-aryan-languages), [Dravidian](https://bliptext.com/articles/dravidian-languages), [Semitic](https://bliptext.com/articles/semitic-languages), [Romance](https://bliptext.com/articles/romance-languages), etc.\nFor example, in [Georgian](https://bliptext.com/articles/georgian-language), the paradigm for the verb \"to come\" is composed of four different roots (di-, -val-, -vid-, and -sul-).\nSimilarly, in [Modern Standard Arabic](https://bliptext.com/articles/modern-standard-arabic), the verb **' (\"come\") usually uses the form '** for its imperative, and the plural of **' (\"woman\") is '**.\nSome of the more archaic Indo-European languages are particularly known for suppletion.\n[Ancient Greek](https://bliptext.com/articles/ancient-greek), for example, has some [twenty verbs with suppletive paradigms](https://bliptext.com/articles/ancient-greek-verbs), many with three separate roots.\n\n# Example words\n\n## To go\nIn [English](https://bliptext.com/articles/english-language), the past tense of the verb go is went, which comes from the past tense of the verb wend, archaic in this sense.\n(The modern past tense of wend is wended.) See [Go (verb)](https://bliptext.com/articles/go-verb).\nThe [Romance languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/romance-languages) have a variety of suppletive forms in conjugating the verb \"to go\", as these first-person singular forms illustrate (second-person singular forms in imperative):\nThe sources of these forms, numbered in the table, are six different [Latin](https://bliptext.com/articles/latin) verbs:\nMany of the Romance languages use forms from different verbs in the present tense; for example, French has je vais ‘I go’ from vadere, but nous allons ‘we go’ from ambulare.\nGalician-Portuguese has a similar example: imos from ire ‘to go’ and vamos from vadere ‘we go’; the former is somewhat disused in modern Portuguese but very alive in modern Galician.\nEven ides, from itis second-person plural of ire, is the only form for ‘you (plural) go’ both in Galician and Portuguese (Spanish vais, from vadere).\nSometimes, the conjugations differ between dialects.\nFor instance, the [Limba Sarda Comuna](https://bliptext.com/articles/limba-sarda-comuna) standard of Sardinian supported a fully regular conjugation of andare, but other dialects like [Logudorese](https://bliptext.com/articles/logudorese-dialect) do not (see also [Sardinian conjugation](https://bliptext.com/articles/sardinian-conjugation)).\nIn Romansh, [Rumantsch Grischun](https://bliptext.com/articles/rumantsch-grischun) substitutes present and subjunctive forms of ir with vom and giaja (both are from Latin vādere and īre, respectively) in the place of mon and mondi in Sursilvan.\nSimilarly, the Welsh verb mynd ‘to go’ has a variety of suppletive forms such as af ‘I shall go’ and euthum ‘we went’.\nIrish téigh ‘to go’ also has suppletive forms: dul ‘going’ and rachaidh ‘will go’.\nIn [Estonian](https://bliptext.com/articles/estonian-language), the inflected forms of the verb minema ‘to go’ were originally those of a verb cognate with the Finnish lähteä ‘to leave’, except for the passive and infinitive.\n\n## Good and bad\nIn [Germanic](https://bliptext.com/articles/germanic-languages), [Romance](https://bliptext.com/articles/romance-languages) (except [Romanian](https://bliptext.com/articles/romanian-language)), [Celtic](https://bliptext.com/articles/celtic-languages), [Slavic](https://bliptext.com/articles/slavic-languages) (except [Bulgarian](https://bliptext.com/articles/bulgarian-language) and [Macedonian](https://bliptext.com/articles/macedonian-language)), and [Indo-Iranian](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-iranian-languages) languages, the [comparative](https://bliptext.com/articles/grammatical-comparative) and [superlative](https://bliptext.com/articles/grammatical-superlative) of the adjective \"good\" is suppletive; in many of these languages the adjective \"bad\" is also suppletive.\nThe comparison of \"good\" is also suppletive in → parem → parim and → parempi → paras.\nSimilarly to the Italian noted above, the English adverb form of \"good\" is the unrelated word \"well\", from Old English wel, cognate to wyllan \"to wish\".\n\n## Great and small\nCeltic languages:\n! Language !!\nAdjective !!\nComparative / superlative\n! [Irish](https://bliptext.com/articles/irish-language)\n([Old Irish](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-irish) bec < [Proto-Celtic](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-celtic) *bikkos) || níos lú / is lú (< [Old Irish](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-irish) laigiu < [Proto-Celtic](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-celtic) *lagyūs < PIE *h₁lengʷʰ- (\"lightweight\"))\n! [Welsh](https://bliptext.com/articles/welsh-language)\n(< [Brythonic](https://bliptext.com/articles/common-brittonic) *bɨx < Proto-Celtic *bikkos) || llai / lleiaf\n(< PIE *h₁lengʷʰ- (“lightweight”))\n! Language !!\nAdjective !!\nComparative / superlative\n! [Irish](https://bliptext.com/articles/irish-language)\n(< Proto-Celtic *māros < PIE *moh₁ros) || níos mó / is mó < Proto-Celtic *māyos < PIE *meh₁-) ! [Welsh](https://bliptext.com/articles/welsh-language) (< Proto-Celtic *māros < PIE *moh₁ros) || mwy / mwyaf < Proto-Celtic *māyos < PIE *meh₁-)\nIn many Slavic languages, great and small are suppletive:\n! Language !!\nAdjective !!\nComparative / superlative\n! [Polish](https://bliptext.com/articles/polish-language)\n! [Czech](https://bliptext.com/articles/czech-language)\n! [Slovak](https://bliptext.com/articles/slovak-language)\n! [Slovene](https://bliptext.com/articles/slovene-language)\n! [Ukrainian](https://bliptext.com/articles/ukrainian-language)\n! [Russian](https://bliptext.com/articles/russian-language)\n! Language !!\nAdjective !!\nComparative / superlative\n! [Polish](https://bliptext.com/articles/polish-language)\n! [Czech](https://bliptext.com/articles/czech-language)\n! [Slovak](https://bliptext.com/articles/slovak-language)\n! [Slovene](https://bliptext.com/articles/slovene-language)\n! [Ukrainian](https://bliptext.com/articles/ukrainian-language)\n\n# Examples in languages\n\n## Albanian\nIn [Albanian](https://bliptext.com/articles/albanian-language) there are 14 irregular verbs divided into suppletive and non-suppletive:\n! Verb\n!Meaning!!\nPresent !!\nPreterite !!\nImperfect\n! qenë!!to be ! pasur!!to have\n! ngrënë!!to eat\n! ardhur!!to come\n! dhënë!!to give\n! parë!!to see\n! rënë!!to fall, strike\n! prurë!!to bring\n! ndenjur!!\nto stay\n\n## Ancient Greek\n[Ancient Greek](https://bliptext.com/articles/ancient-greek) had a large number of suppletive verbs.\nA few examples, listed by [principal parts](https://bliptext.com/articles/principal-parts):\n\n## Bulgarian\nIn [Bulgarian](https://bliptext.com/articles/bulgarian-language), the word (\"man\", \"human being\") is suppletive.\nThe strict plural form,, is used only in Biblical context.\nIn modern usage it has been replaced by the Greek loan.\nThe counter form (the special form for masculine nouns, used after numerals) is suppletive as well: (with the accent on the first syllable).\nFor example, (\"two, three people\"); this form has no singular either.\n(A related but different noun is the plural, singular (\"soul\"), both with accent on the last syllable.)\n\n## English\nIn English, the complicated [irregular verb](https://bliptext.com/articles/irregular-verb) to be has forms from several different roots:\nThis verb is suppletive in most Indo-European languages, as well as in some non-Indo-European languages such as [Finnish](https://bliptext.com/articles/finnish-language).\nAn incomplete suppletion exists in English with the plural of person (from the [Latin](https://bliptext.com/articles/latin) persona).\nThe regular plural persons occurs mainly in legalistic use.\nMore commonly, the singular of the unrelated noun people (from Latin populus) is used as the plural; for example, \"two people were living on a one-person salary\" (note the plural verb).\nIn its original sense of \"populace, ethnic group\", people is itself a singular noun with regular plural peoples.\n\n## Hungarian\n\n## Irish\nSeveral irregular [Irish verbs](https://bliptext.com/articles/irish-verbs) are suppletive:\nThere are several suppletive [comparative and superlative](https://bliptext.com/articles/comparative-and-superlative) forms in Irish; in addition to the ones [listed above](https://bliptext.com/articles/), there is:\n\n## Japanese\nIn modern Japanese, the copulae だ, である and です take な to create \"attributive forms\" of [adjectival nouns](https://bliptext.com/articles/adjectival-noun-japanese) (hence the English moniker, \"na-adjectives\"):\nThe \"conclusive\" and \"attributive\" forms, だ and な, were constructed similarly, from a combination of a [particle](https://bliptext.com/articles/japanese-particles) and an inflection form of the old verb あり (ari, \"to exist\").\n(Note: で itself was also a contraction of earlier にて. )\nIn modern Japanese, である (\"conclusive\") simply retains the older appearance of だ, while です is a different verb that can be used as a suppleted form of だ.\nMultiple hypotheses have been proposed for the etymology of です, one of which is a contraction of であります:\nThe basic construction of the negative form of a Japanese verb is the \"irrealis\" form followed by ない, which would result in such hypothetical constructions as *だらない and *であらない.\nHowever, these constructions are not used in modern Japanese, and the construction ではない is used instead.\nThis is because *あらない, the hypothetically regular negative form of ある, is not used either, and is simply replaced with ない.\nWhile the auxiliary ない causes suppletion, other auxiliaries such as ん and ありません do not necessarily.\nFor です, its historical \"irrealis\" form, でせ has not been attested to create a negative form (only でせう → でしょう has been attested, and there were and are no *でせん and *でせない).\nThus, it has to borrow でありません as its negative form instead.\nTo express a potential meaning, as in \"can do\", most verbs use the \"irrealis\" form followed by れる or られる.\nする, notably has no such construction, and has to use a different verb for this meaning, できる.\n\n## Latin\n[Latin](https://bliptext.com/articles/latin) has several suppletive verbs.\nA few examples, listed by [principal parts](https://bliptext.com/articles/principal-parts):\n\n## Polish\nIn some Slavic languages, a few verbs have imperfective and perfective forms arising from different roots.\nFor example, in [Polish](https://bliptext.com/articles/polish-language):\nNote that z—, przy—, w—, and wy— are [prefixes](https://bliptext.com/articles/prefix) and are not part of the root\nIn [Polish](https://bliptext.com/articles/polish-language), the plural form of rok (\"year\") is lata which comes from the plural of lato (\"summer\").\nA similar suppletion occurs in (\"year\") > (genitive of \"years\").\n\n## Romanian\nThe Romanian verb a fi (\"to be\") is suppletive and irregular, with the infinitive coming from Latin fieri, but conjugated forms from forms of already suppletive Latin sum.\nFor example, eu sunt (\"I am\"), tu ești (\"you are\"), eu am fost (\"I have been\"), eu eram (\"I used to be\"), eu fusei/fui (\"I was\"); while the subjunctive, also used to form the future in o să fiu (\"I will be/am going to be\"), is linked to the infinitive.\n\n## Russian\nIn [Russian](https://bliptext.com/articles/russian-language), the word (\"man, human being\") is suppletive.\nThe strict plural form,, is used only in Orthodox Church contexts, with numerals (e. g. \"five people\") and in humorous context.\nIt may have originally been the unattested.\nIn any case, in modern usage, it has been replaced by, the singular form of which is known in Russian only as a component of compound words (such as ).\nThis suppletion also exists in [Polish](https://bliptext.com/articles/polish-language) (człowiek > ludzie), [Czech](https://bliptext.com/articles/czech-language) (člověk > lidé), [Serbo-Croatian](https://bliptext.com/articles/serbo-croatian) (čovjek > ljudi), [Slovene](https://bliptext.com/articles/slovene-language) (človek > ljudje), and [Macedonian](https://bliptext.com/articles/macedonian-language) (човек > луѓе ).\n\n# Generalizations\nStrictly speaking, suppletion occurs when different inflections of a lexeme (i.e., with the same [lexical category](https://bliptext.com/articles/lexical-category)) have etymologically unrelated stems.\nThe term is also used in looser senses, albeit less formally.\n\n## Semantic relations\nThe term \"suppletion\" is also used in the looser sense when there is a semantic link between words but not an etymological one; unlike the strict inflectional sense, these may be in different [lexical categories](https://bliptext.com/articles/lexical-category), such as noun/verb.\nEnglish noun/adjective pairs such as father/paternal or cow/bovine are also referred to as [collateral adjectives](https://bliptext.com/articles/collateral-adjectives).\nIn this sense of the term, father/fatherly is non-suppletive.\nFatherly is [derived](https://bliptext.com/articles/derivation-linguistics) from father, while father/paternal is suppletive.\nLikewise cow/cowish is non-suppletive, while cow/bovine is suppletive.\nIn these cases, father/pater- and cow/bov- are cognate via [Proto-Indo-European](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-indo-european-language), but 'paternal' and 'bovine' are borrowings into English (via Old French and Latin).\nThe pairs are distantly etymologically related, but the words are not from a single Modern English stem.\n\n## Weak suppletion\nThe term \"weak suppletion\" is sometimes used in contemporary synchronic morphology in reference to sets of stems whose alternations cannot be accounted for by [synchronically](https://bliptext.com/articles/synchrony-and-diachrony) [productive](https://bliptext.com/articles/productivity-linguistics) phonological rules.\nFor example, the two forms child/children are etymologically from the same source, but the alternation does not reflect any regular morphological process in modern English: this makes the pair appear to be suppletive, even though the forms go back to the same root.\nIn that understanding, English has abundant examples of weak suppletion in its [verbal inflection](https://bliptext.com/articles/english-irregular-verbs): e.g. bring/brought, take/took, see/saw, etc. Even though the forms are [etymologically related](https://bliptext.com/articles/germanic-strong-verb) in each pair, no productive morphological rule can derive one form from the other in synchrony.\nAlternations just have to be learned by speakers — in much the same way as truly suppletive pairs such as go/went.\nSuch cases, which were traditionally simply labelled \"[irregular](https://bliptext.com/articles/inflection)\", are sometimes described with the term \"weak suppletion\", so as to restrict the term \"suppletion\" to etymologically unrelated stems.","current_revision":null,"created_by":"kACnuQmH5k9Nr5VNVEpVeg7XpvUmMctD","created_at":"2025-01-25T17:51:12.372Z","updated_at":"2025-01-25T17:51:12.372Z","search_vector":"'supplet':1","search_content":" \n \n\n# \nIn [linguistics](https://bliptext.com/articles/linguistics) and [etymology](https://bliptext.com/articles/etymology), **suppletion** is traditionally understood as the use of one word as the [inflected](https://bliptext.com/articles/inflection) form of another word when the two words are not [cognate](https://bliptext.com/articles/cognate).\nFor those learning a language, suppletive forms will be seen as \"irregular\" or even \"highly irregular\".\nFor example, go:went is a suppletive paradigm, because go and went are not etymologically related, whereas mouse:mice is irregular but not suppletive, since the two words come from the same Old English ancestor.\nThe term \"suppletion\" implies that a gap in the [paradigm](https://bliptext.com/articles/word-stem) was filled by a form \"supplied\" by a different [paradigm](https://bliptext.com/articles/word-stem).\nInstances of suppletion are overwhelmingly restricted to the most commonly used [lexical items](https://bliptext.com/articles/lexical-item) in a language.\n\n# Irregularity and suppletion\nAn irregular paradigm is one in which the derived forms of a word cannot be deduced by simple rules from the base form.\nFor example, someone who knows only a little English can deduce that the plural of girl is girls but cannot deduce that the plural of man is men.\nLanguage learners are often most aware of [irregular verbs](https://bliptext.com/articles/irregular-verb), but any part of speech with inflections can be irregular.\nFor most synchronic purposes—first-language acquisition studies, [psycholinguistics](https://bliptext.com/articles/psycholinguistics), language-teaching theory—it suffices to note that these forms are irregular.\nHowever, historical linguistics seeks to explain how they came to be so and distinguishes different kinds of irregularity according to their origins.\nMost irregular paradigms (like man:men) can be explained by phonological developments that affected one form of a word but not another (in this case, [Germanic umlaut](https://bliptext.com/articles/germanic-umlaut)).\nIn such cases, the historical antecedents of the current forms once constituted a regular paradigm.\nHistorical linguistics uses the term \"suppletion\"\nto distinguish irregularities like person:people or [cow:cattle](https://bliptext.com/articles/cattle) that cannot be so explained because the parts of the paradigm have not evolved out of a single form.\n[Hermann Osthoff](https://bliptext.com/articles/hermann-osthoff) coined the term \"suppletion\" in German in an 1899 study of the phenomenon in [Indo-European languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-european-languages).\nSuppletion exists in many languages around the world.\nThese languages are from various language families: [Indo-Aryan](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-aryan-languages), [Dravidian](https://bliptext.com/articles/dravidian-languages), [Semitic](https://bliptext.com/articles/semitic-languages), [Romance](https://bliptext.com/articles/romance-languages), etc.\nFor example, in [Georgian](https://bliptext.com/articles/georgian-language), the paradigm for the verb \"to come\" is composed of four different roots (di-, -val-, -vid-, and -sul-).\nSimilarly, in [Modern Standard Arabic](https://bliptext.com/articles/modern-standard-arabic), the verb **' (\"come\") usually uses the form '** for its imperative, and the plural of **' (\"woman\") is '**.\nSome of the more archaic Indo-European languages are particularly known for suppletion.\n[Ancient Greek](https://bliptext.com/articles/ancient-greek), for example, has some [twenty verbs with suppletive paradigms](https://bliptext.com/articles/ancient-greek-verbs), many with three separate roots.\n\n# Example words\n\n## To go\nIn [English](https://bliptext.com/articles/english-language), the past tense of the verb go is went, which comes from the past tense of the verb wend, archaic in this sense.\n(The modern past tense of wend is wended.) See [Go (verb)](https://bliptext.com/articles/go-verb).\nThe [Romance languages](https://bliptext.com/articles/romance-languages) have a variety of suppletive forms in conjugating the verb \"to go\", as these first-person singular forms illustrate (second-person singular forms in imperative):\nThe sources of these forms, numbered in the table, are six different [Latin](https://bliptext.com/articles/latin) verbs:\nMany of the Romance languages use forms from different verbs in the present tense; for example, French has je vais ‘I go’ from vadere, but nous allons ‘we go’ from ambulare.\nGalician-Portuguese has a similar example: imos from ire ‘to go’ and vamos from vadere ‘we go’; the former is somewhat disused in modern Portuguese but very alive in modern Galician.\nEven ides, from itis second-person plural of ire, is the only form for ‘you (plural) go’ both in Galician and Portuguese (Spanish vais, from vadere).\nSometimes, the conjugations differ between dialects.\nFor instance, the [Limba Sarda Comuna](https://bliptext.com/articles/limba-sarda-comuna) standard of Sardinian supported a fully regular conjugation of andare, but other dialects like [Logudorese](https://bliptext.com/articles/logudorese-dialect) do not (see also [Sardinian conjugation](https://bliptext.com/articles/sardinian-conjugation)).\nIn Romansh, [Rumantsch Grischun](https://bliptext.com/articles/rumantsch-grischun) substitutes present and subjunctive forms of ir with vom and giaja (both are from Latin vādere and īre, respectively) in the place of mon and mondi in Sursilvan.\nSimilarly, the Welsh verb mynd ‘to go’ has a variety of suppletive forms such as af ‘I shall go’ and euthum ‘we went’.\nIrish téigh ‘to go’ also has suppletive forms: dul ‘going’ and rachaidh ‘will go’.\nIn [Estonian](https://bliptext.com/articles/estonian-language), the inflected forms of the verb minema ‘to go’ were originally those of a verb cognate with the Finnish lähteä ‘to leave’, except for the passive and infinitive.\n\n## Good and bad\nIn [Germanic](https://bliptext.com/articles/germanic-languages), [Romance](https://bliptext.com/articles/romance-languages) (except [Romanian](https://bliptext.com/articles/romanian-language)), [Celtic](https://bliptext.com/articles/celtic-languages), [Slavic](https://bliptext.com/articles/slavic-languages) (except [Bulgarian](https://bliptext.com/articles/bulgarian-language) and [Macedonian](https://bliptext.com/articles/macedonian-language)), and [Indo-Iranian](https://bliptext.com/articles/indo-iranian-languages) languages, the [comparative](https://bliptext.com/articles/grammatical-comparative) and [superlative](https://bliptext.com/articles/grammatical-superlative) of the adjective \"good\" is suppletive; in many of these languages the adjective \"bad\" is also suppletive.\nThe comparison of \"good\" is also suppletive in → parem → parim and → parempi → paras.\nSimilarly to the Italian noted above, the English adverb form of \"good\" is the unrelated word \"well\", from Old English wel, cognate to wyllan \"to wish\".\n\n## Great and small\nCeltic languages:\n! Language !!\nAdjective !!\nComparative / superlative\n! [Irish](https://bliptext.com/articles/irish-language)\n([Old Irish](https://bliptext.com/articles/old-irish) bec (genitive of \"years\").\n\n## Romanian\nThe Romanian verb a fi (\"to be\") is suppletive and irregular, with the infinitive coming from Latin fieri, but conjugated forms from forms of already suppletive Latin sum.\nFor example, eu sunt (\"I am\"), tu ești (\"you are\"), eu am fost (\"I have been\"), eu eram (\"I used to be\"), eu fusei/fui (\"I was\"); while the subjunctive, also used to form the future in o să fiu (\"I will be/am going to be\"), is linked to the infinitive.\n\n## Russian\nIn [Russian](https://bliptext.com/articles/russian-language), the word (\"man, human being\") is suppletive.\nThe strict plural form,, is used only in Orthodox Church contexts, with numerals (e. g. \"five people\") and in humorous context.\nIt may have originally been the unattested.\nIn any case, in modern usage, it has been replaced by, the singular form of which is known in Russian only as a component of compound words (such as ).\nThis suppletion also exists in [Polish](https://bliptext.com/articles/polish-language) (człowiek > ludzie), [Czech](https://bliptext.com/articles/czech-language) (člověk > lidé), [Serbo-Croatian](https://bliptext.com/articles/serbo-croatian) (čovjek > ljudi), [Slovene](https://bliptext.com/articles/slovene-language) (človek > ljudje), and [Macedonian](https://bliptext.com/articles/macedonian-language) (човек > луѓе ).\n\n# Generalizations\nStrictly speaking, suppletion occurs when different inflections of a lexeme (i.e., with the same [lexical category](https://bliptext.com/articles/lexical-category)) have etymologically unrelated stems.\nThe term is also used in looser senses, albeit less formally.\n\n## Semantic relations\nThe term \"suppletion\" is also used in the looser sense when there is a semantic link between words but not an etymological one; unlike the strict inflectional sense, these may be in different [lexical categories](https://bliptext.com/articles/lexical-category), such as noun/verb.\nEnglish noun/adjective pairs such as father/paternal or cow/bovine are also referred to as [collateral adjectives](https://bliptext.com/articles/collateral-adjectives).\nIn this sense of the term, father/fatherly is non-suppletive.\nFatherly is [derived](https://bliptext.com/articles/derivation-linguistics) from father, while father/paternal is suppletive.\nLikewise cow/cowish is non-suppletive, while cow/bovine is suppletive.\nIn these cases, father/pater- and cow/bov- are cognate via [Proto-Indo-European](https://bliptext.com/articles/proto-indo-european-language), but 'paternal' and 'bovine' are borrowings into English (via Old French and Latin).\nThe pairs are distantly etymologically related, but the words are not from a single Modern English stem.\n\n## Weak suppletion\nThe term \"weak suppletion\" is sometimes used in contemporary synchronic morphology in reference to sets of stems whose alternations cannot be accounted for by [synchronically](https://bliptext.com/articles/synchrony-and-diachrony) [productive](https://bliptext.com/articles/productivity-linguistics) phonological rules.\nFor example, the two forms child/children are etymologically from the same source, but the alternation does not reflect any regular morphological process in modern English: this makes the pair appear to be suppletive, even though the forms go back to the same root.\nIn that understanding, English has abundant examples of weak suppletion in its [verbal inflection](https://bliptext.com/articles/english-irregular-verbs): e.g. bring/brought, take/took, see/saw, etc. Even though the forms are [etymologically related](https://bliptext.com/articles/germanic-strong-verb) in each pair, no productive morphological rule can derive one form from the other in synchrony.\nAlternations just have to be learned by speakers — in much the same way as truly suppletive pairs such as go/went.\nSuch cases, which were traditionally simply labelled \"[irregular](https://bliptext.com/articles/inflection)\", are sometimes described with the term \"weak suppletion\", so as to restrict the term \"suppletion\" to etymologically unrelated stems.","revisionCount":0},"hasMore":false,"nextCursor":null}

History