Participles
| Present | parints |
| Past | partos |
Verbal nouns
| tu-derivative | partum |
| s-derivative | parizi |
Active
Indicative Present
| 1st sing. | parjō |
| 2nd sing. | paris |
| 3rd sing. | parit |
| 1st plur. | parimos |
| 2nd plur. | parites |
| 3rd plur. | parjont |
Subjunctive Present
| 1st sing. | parjām |
| 2nd sing. | parjās |
| 3rd sing. | parjād |
| 1st plur. | parjāmos |
| 2nd plur. | parjātes |
| 3rd plur. | parjānd |
Indicative Perfect
| 1st sing. | peparai |
| 2nd sing. | peparistai |
| 3rd sing. | peparei |
| 1st plur. | peparme |
| 2nd plur. | pepare |
| 3rd plur. | peparēri |
Imperative Present
| 2nd sing. | peres |
| 2nd plur. | parete |
Passive
Indicative Present
| 1st sing. | parjōr |
| 2nd sing. | parizo |
| 3rd sing. | paritor |
| 1st plur. | parimor |
| 3rd plur. | parjontor |
Subjunctive Present
| 1st sing. | parjār |
| 2nd sing. | parjāzo |
| 3rd sing. | parjātor |
| 1st plur. | parjāmor |
| 2nd plur. | parjām(e?)n(ai?) |
| 3rd plur. | parjāntor |
Imperative Present
Etymology
1. Ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *perh₃- (“to provide”). However, it is not clear exactly how the verb developed:
2. * According to Meiser, a root aorist *pérh₃-t ~ *pr̥h₃-ént yielded Proto-Italic *per- ~ *par-, the plural stem of which served as the basis for a new *jō-present. For a similar morphological development, compare Latin iaciō, itself possibly based ultimately on a root aorist.
3. * The LIV derives the term from Proto-Indo-European *pr̥h₃-ye-ti. If the PIE form was accented on the suffix (i.e. if it took the shape *pr̥h₃-yé-ti), it would be expected to yield **prāō, which should produce Latin **prō, prāre. To resolve this issue, it has been suggested that the pre-form was accented on the root (i.e. it took the shape *pŕ̥h₃-ye-ti, in which case it might be expected to yield Proto-Italic *parajō according to the palma-rule. This pre-form, however, would yield later **paraō, which itself would produce a verb homophonic with parō, parāre (“to prepare”).
4. * Schrijver explains the Latin outcome par- as the result of antevocalic *prH-, according to a development of *CLHV > CaL(V). Thus, Schrijver instead reconstructions an athematic i-present *pr̥h₃-i-, though De Vaan instead suggests an i-present of the shape *pérh₃-i- ~ *pr̥h₃-éy-. According to De Vaan, evidence for this i-present is perhaps present in the noun perīculum and fourth-conjugation compound verbs in Latin from the same root, such as comperiō (“to learn, discover”) and reperiō (“to find out”). According to Schrijver, the athematic i-present was probably thematicized at an early date to an ordinary ye-present in compounds. The third conjugation of pariō contradicts the theory that, in early Italic, there was an epenthesis of *-i- before *y when after heavy syllables (i.e. *-CCy-, *-CV̄Cy-, or *-CVRy- sequences), including ones that ended in a resonant. Compare verbs such as orior (“to arise, be born”) and morior (“to die”) for other third conjugation verbs with roots ending in -r. To explain this variation, Weiss tentatively suggests some analogical development, noting that these verbs all belong to a similar semantic field. Latin pariō can be construed as the causative to orior, to which morior is an antonym.
Verbs referencing "parjō"
Latin
pario.
Cognates
-