Zibaldone

by Leopardi, Giacomo

  One anomalous or semianomalous continuative is hietare [to gape], formed from hiatus, as if from hietus, participle of hiare. Where the shift from a to e comes (1) from the attempt to avoid the ugly sound of hiatare, regarding which sound, always avoided in the formation of continuatives from verbs of the first conjugation, I have spoken elsewhere [→Z 1113, 1154]. Save in the case of continuatives with monosyllabic stems, e.g., dato, flato, nato, etc., as elsewhere [→Z 2986–87]. In this regard I very much doubt whether betere [to go] or bitere or bitire can be an anomalous continuative (like viso is) of a verb bo from the Greek βάω, like no from νέω, do from δόω, and other such monosyllabic Latin stems formed from such Greek verbs contracted thus. Ebito would be ἐκβαίνω ex-eo [to go out]. See Forcellini under Beto. See p. 3694.1 (2) from the fact that, although the Latins, in [2819] such a formation would change the final a of the participle for an i, making, e.g., mussitare [to be silent] instead of mussatare from mussatus, here they would not be able to do that, on account of the other i that came earlier, whence they would have formed hiitare, which proved to have an unpleasant sound, and to be hard to pronounce. (25 June 1823.)

  Bubulcitare [to keep oxen] perhaps denotes an ancient verb bubulco, from whose participle it was formed. That’s what I believe, following the normal logic observed by Latin in the formation of verbs, according to which logic and propriety it does not seem to me probable that bubulcitare was formed directly from bubulcus. (19 June 1823.)

  Subvento from subvenio, coepto from coepio, vocito from voco, coenito or cenito from coeno, dormito from dormio, sternuto from sternuo, observito from observo, perito from pereo (like ito and itito from eo), adiuto (whence aiutare, ayudar, aitare, aider, atare) and adiutor aris from adiuvo, eiulitare from eiulare, clamitare (declamitare, etc.) from clamare. Cicero notes that declamitare was a new word in his day.1 See Forcellini. Fugito from fugio, and another from fugo. Flato from flo‒flatus, whence fiatare. See Forcellini and the Glossary. Volito from volo‒volatus. Strepito from strepo‒strepitus. Sponso (whence sposare, épouser, etc.) and desponso from spondeo and despondeo, and note the continuative and durative meaning of the former by comparison with the meaning of the latter. Responso and responsito from respondere. (25 June 1823.)

  [2820] Frequentatives. Cantito. Sumptito or sumtito. From cano‒cantus, and from sumo‒sumptus or sumtus. (25 June 1823.) Missito from mitto‒missus. (26 June 1823.) Accessito.

  The verb eo [to go] is perhaps, or not even perhaps, the only one which, having a continuative ending in ito, namely, itare, also has a frequentative which also ends in ito, and is distinct from the continuative and formed by a doubling of the it, namely, ititare, which was shunned by Latin in all the other verbs in which it could have occurred, as I have said elsewhere [→Z 1112–15]. As a consequence these verbs just had the one continuative or frequentative, or either of them together, ending in a simple ito. It is true that there is just the one example of the verb ititare in Forcellini, and in my opinion a decidedly shaky one. (26 June 1823.)

  Some compound continuatives or frequentatives are formed from the simple continuative, directly, and without the verb that was the continuative’s itself having the corresponding compounds. I believe that I have spoken about this elsewhere [→Z 1167, 2226, 2814]. Look at p. 3619. E.g., recito and suscito are compound continuatives of cito which is a continuative of cieo which has neither recieo nor suscieo nor the participles recĭtus or suscĭtus. I refer to recieo, [2821] not to cio, which does indeed have the same meaning, but its participle is cītus, and from cieo cĭtus, and therefore citare, and hence excitare, incitare, concitare, etc., which have the short ci syllable, all derive from cieo. From cio, or we could say from excio, would derive the verb excīto in Statius, if it were genuine, and real. See Forcellini.1 (26 June 1823.)

  Nexo nexas is a regular continuative, as we can see, from necto‒nexus [to bind–bound]. Nexo‒nexis (see Forcellini) would be anomalous, along the lines of viso visis from video‒visus, and could perhaps serve to confirm what I believe I have said elsewhere [→Z 1167, 2226, 2814] about plecto is, or other such words, reckoned by me to be continuative, although, as such, anomalous. (26 June 1823.) See p. 2885 and also take note of pp. 2934–35.

  Verbs in tare which are continuatives, although they appear quite otherwise, and this attribute of theirs is not at first glance apparent. Confutare, refutare, etc., are continuatives, or compounds of futare, or derived from confundere, etc. And futare comes from the participle of fundere, which participle is now fusus, but in times past futus. See Forcellini under Confuto, beginning of the entry, under Futo, etc. From another participle also of fundo, ancient and unattested, namely, funditus, comes funditare. (26 June 1823.) See pp. 3585, 3625.

  Another futare Festus says was used by Cato to mean saepius fuisse [to have been more often].2 This would demonstrate the existence of an ancient participle [2822] futus of the Latin substantive verb. I repeat, of the substantive verb and not of the verb sum. This latter was originally the same as the Greek ɛἶμι or ἔω, and as the Sanskrit asham, and its participle in us must have been situs or stus or sutus (since our ancient suto should be noted, as the true and proper participle of the verb to be, whereas stato which today is used in its stead, has been borrowed from stare), as I have said elsewhere [→Z 1120–21, 2784–85]. The French été is the same as sté, since the ancients used to say esté, and the initial e is added for euphony before the impure s at the start of the word, as in espérer, espouser (now épouser), on which I have said something elsewhere [→Z 813]. Now the participle sté would indeed be stus in Latin. But the participle futus, whence futare, could only be from that verb from which the verb sum borrowed the preterite fui together with the words formed from it, namely, fueram, fuero, etc. And this verb fuo has nothing in origin to do with sum nor with ɛἶμι, but it is identical to ἔω, and see Forcellini under fuam and under sum. The participle futus of this verb must have existed, as is demonstrated by the verb futare that derives from it. And note that Festus says that the verb futare had been used by Cato for saepius fuisse, and not for saepius esse, whence it seems that this verb in Cato retains a degree of correspondence and similitude and analogy with the words fui, fuisse, etc., borrowed from sum, which all refer to the past, and that it too denotes the past by its own nature, and had a [2823] preterite signification. For that matter, just as the verb futare is different from stare [to stand], so too the participle futus, from which the former derives, is different from situs or stus from which the latter derives, and just as futus is a participle of fuo and stus one of sum, likewise futare is a continuative of fuo and stare one of sum. And the existence of the participle futus as demonstrated from the verb futare, does not prejudice my claim as regards the participle stus, since sum and fuo, which now constitute a single anomalous verb composed and assembled out of two defective verbs, were at the beginning two entirely distinct verbs, both in origin and in material form, both of which were probably complete and not defective as they are today. (26 June 1823.)

  It is noteworthy how our common people and our informal speech still retain the precise etymology and character of the verbs stupeo, stupesco, stupefacio, stupefio, etc., and we also say stupire, stupefare, stupefarsi. Instead of which verbs we often say restare, or rimanere or divenire or diventare di stoppa to mean to be utterly amazed, which are precisely the proper meaning and metaphorical intention of the Latin verbs mentioned above. [2824] That’s exactly what I think, although others derive them from stipes, and it has perhaps occurred to no one to derive them from stuppa, which is also pronounced stupa.1 This is perhaps because they did not know or notice the familiar expression noted by me. But if some mss. also feature stipeo and obstipeo, that does not count, because stupa was in ancient times pronounced stipa, according to Servius, who derives it from stipare.2 It might also be the same word as στύπη [stem, stump] from στύφω [to contract, to draw together]. Might stipare itself actually derive, who knows, from στύφω rather than from
στɛίβω [to tread, to stamp on]? See Forcellini under stipa, stipo, stuppa, etc. Certainly, if it has any connection with stupa or stipa, it comes from this word, and not the other way around, as Servius would have it. And the Greek υ, since as I have several times said [→Z 1277] it sometimes changes in Latin into i and sometimes into u, and these two vowels i and u are often interchangeable both in Latin and in the other languages, as I have also said elsewhere [→Z 1277, 2152–53, 2813]. And note in fact that the French and Bergamasque u, and the Greek υ, are in fact a mixture and as it were a compound of both these two vowels i and u, and one does not know which of the two to compare it to the most. From this you can see just how related and alike and akin to each other they are, in that they merge to make (in the mouths of many different peoples) a single vowel, where neither of the two prevails. Hence one may argue how easy it is for these two vowels to be interchanged in human [2825] pronunciation, even in the same period and people, let alone in different periods and nations and climates. SimUlare from simIlis, whence also similare, and our simigliare and somigliare; assimulare and assimilare; maximus, optimus and maxumus, optumus; amantissimus and amantissumus. See Perticari, Apologia di Dante, p. 156, ch. 16 toward the end. Lubens, decumus, reciperare and recuperare, carnufex. (26 June 1823.)

  *“Fortunatianus in the Codices of Honorius” (Augustodunensis, De luminaribus ecclesiae) “bk. 1, ch. 98, corruptly Fortunatius, African in origin, Bishop of Aquileia, attended the Council of Sardica Year 347,” and p. 179, “according to Hieronymus” (De scriptoris ecclesiasticis), “ch. 97 he wrote ‘Commentaries on the Gospels, arranged under the titles’ (as in Hilarius) ‘and in a concise vernacular language.’ On rustic Latin Fortunatianus wanted to write a book, according to what V. C. Christianus Falsterus wrote in the 3rd part of his Amoenitates Philologicae on Gellius, 13, 6.1 About this Fortunatianus, who later turned toward the Arians, there is more in Tillemont, tome 6 of his Mémoires, p. 364, 419.”* —Fabricius, Bibliotheca Latina mediae et infimae aetatis, ed. Mansi, Padua 1754, tome 2, pp. 178–79, bk. 6, article “Fortunatianus.” (26 June 1823.)

  For p. 2776. From σόω [to preserve, to save] or σώω, σώζω [to save]. Note that the Etymologicon expressly states that σώζω derives from σώω (and not vice versa), and adds, like ἕζω [to make sit, to settle], sedere facio, that is colloco, pono, from ἕω, colloco, statuo [to put, to settle]. Likewise ἵζω [to make sit], sedere facio, in sede colloco, which is the same verb as ἕζω; as Eustathius says, [2826] it is fashioned from ἕω.1 Πɛτάζω, pando explico [spread out] from πɛτάω idem. From πɛλάω‒πɛλάζω, τɛχνάω‒τɛχνάζω, ἀνιάω–ἀνιάζω, ἀτιμάω–ἀτιμάζω, τίω–ἀτίζω, πρίω–πρίζω, λωβάω άζω. Likewise from πɛτάομαι, volo, we find πɛτάζομαι in the fragments of the Φυσιολόγος [Physiologus] of Epiphanius published by Moustoxydes and Schinas in the Collection of various unpublished Greek writings (which fragments were not, I believe, despite what the Editors reckoned, unpublished).2 See the last page of the Editors’ annotations to these fragments, at the end, and, if you will, p. 2780 margin. And a fair proportion of these verbs may perhaps originally have lacked the ζ, which was then added for correctness of pronunciation or of dialect, to avoid hiatus, etc. From χάσκω χασκάζω. But this is another formation which in some way alters the meaning and renders it more continuous, etc. ἁρπάζω [to snatch] could likewise be from ἅρπω and not from ἁρπάω. Κωμάζω [to revel, to go in festal procession] seems to derive directly from κῶμος [revel, procession], and not from κωμάω; and likewise many others. βρυάζω [to teem, to swell] is from βρύω [to teem, to swell]. (26 June 1823.)

  It is worth noting that our quite distinct theory of the grammatical formation of continuatives and frequentatives also serves to demonstrate convincingly the ancient existence and use of participles or supines of many verbs that are now wholly lacking while their continuatives or frequentatives still exist, as fugitare demonstrates fugitus or fugitum from fugio [to flee], which would otherwise not be known, and likewise with a hundred others. Or of participles or supines different from those we now know, as agitare demonstrates the participle agitus which is different from actus, noscitare noscitus different from notus, futare and funditare futus and funditus, both different from fusus (see pp. 2928ff., 3037), quaeritare quaeritus, different from quaesitus which is not from quaero, but from quaeso, although it is attributed to the former, and others like them. And it further serves to illustrate and bring out the ancient usage and rule followed [2827] by Latin in the formation of participles in us and of supines, as I have shown elsewhere [→Z 1153–54] with regard to agitare, and the true origin of many more modern participles, such as actus, and their grammatical justification. And it explains and resolves many apparent anomalies, etc. etc. etc. (27 June 1823.)

  For p. 2795, margin. Once Greek pronunciation had changed, the way of producing harmony through the positioning of words was necessarily bound to change (since words positioned in the ancient manner and differently pronounced could no longer render the ancient harmony) and hence the structure of discourse was also bound to be wholly altered, and periods to assume a different tone. And in addition there was bound to be a further change in the harmony arising out of the positioning of words pronounced in the modern style, since from different elements, that is to say, from words differently pronounced it was virtually impossible for the same effect to be achieved by means of a different positioning, that is to say, that words pronounced in the modern manner and therefore distributed differently from the ancient fashion, should produce the same harmony as they produced with the ancient pronunciation and positioning. Hence a different structure and direction to discourse and period, and at the [2828] same time a different harmony. A change in the pronunciation of a language is a far more important thing than it seems. And I am only referring here to the pronunciation that has to do with quantity, that is to say, with short or long syllables, and with accents, without in any way addressing the pronunciation that has to do with the actual letters and elements of the spoken language, although it has already been shown how this pronunciation influences languages and suffices to differentiate them one from the other, and is the main cause both of the proliferation and of the continuous alteration of languages. But the pronunciation that has to do simply with the quantity of syllables and accents seems to be a thing wholly extrinsic to language. In actual fact it in no way alters the materiality of words as the other kind does. Indeed, it really is extrinsic, and accidental to words. Nonetheless, the changing of this pronunciation, though it has no influence at all on each individual word, does influence the most intrinsic parts of the spoken language, and brings absolutely essential changes to the composition and ordering of words, and hence to the tone and form of diction, and hence to the true character of the language.1 See p. 3024.