Zibaldone

by Leopardi, Giacomo

  For p. 3705, margin. So sino is [to permit] in the perfect forms sivi. But [3849] it should be noted that the first i here is short, the opposite to what happens with those words which we are now discussing, that is of the perfects of cresco, suesco, etc., and also of sevi and of crevi from cerno. Sterno is strāvi ātum [to spread out]. This anomaly perhaps comes from the fact that sterno is defective, and the parts are replaced by the remains of an ancient stro as from the unattested στρώω, whence στρώσω [I will spread out], ἔστρωσα [I did spread], etc. I say the same about the compounds prosterno, insterno, etc. The vowel letters which precede the vi in the perfects of the other conjugations are always naturally long (except perhaps for a few anomalies), I mean those which regularly precede it, that is a in the first, e in the second, i in the fourth (since, e.g., fovi, cavi from foveo, caveo are contractions of fovevi, cavevi, so outside the rule the vi is preceded in fovi by o, in cavi by a: in any case the a and the o of these and similar words, are also long). In short the desinence of sivi is not really proper to the third conjugation but nor is it proper to any other conjugation. The opposite to what happens to the desinence of perfects of verbs in sco, which if they are in vi, the vowel which precedes this desinence, is always (I believe) long. Something which is absolutely improper to the third conjugation and a clear sign that such perfects are proper to verbs of other conjugations. (8 Nov. 1823.) See p. 3852.

  Restito [to stay behind] (from which restitrix), for which see Forcellini, is notable inasmuch as it is the continuative or frequentative of a verb which is itself continuative in origin, being a compound of the continuative sto [to stand]. See p. 3298. (8 Nov. 1823.)

  Latin monosyllables. Lax [fraud]. Mors [death], from which morior, etc. etc., very primitive ideas. Ius [law, a right], from which iuro, iniuria, etc. etc., all primitive ideas in society. Now, language does not exist before society. Fraus [deceit]. Res [thing]. (8 Nov. 1823.)

  Nuo [to nod] on which elsewhere [→Z 2009–10], apart from its continuative nutare [to nod], and its compounds, annuo, innuo, renuo [to deny], abnuo [to refuse], etc., and their continuatives adnuto [to approve], [3850] renuto [to deny], etc., is shown also both by its other derivatives, and by the verbal nutus us [nod], which is formed from the supine of nuo, according to the rule assigned elsewhere for the formation of such verbal nouns of the 4th declension. Besides, as from νεύω [to nod] undoubtedly is formed nuo, so from γεύω [to taste] could be formed, in a straightforward and likely way, and by analogy, guo, on which see elsewhere [→Z 2147–48]. And vice versa nuo from νεύω, as guo from γεύω, etc. (8 Nov. 1823.)

  For p. 3760. In the same way to guo which had become obsolete, was preferred its continuative gusto, for which verbs see elsewhere [→Z 2147–48]. In the same way the verb nuo became obsolete, while its continuative nuto remained (and its derivatives nutus [nod], gustus us [a tasting], etc., where there was no hiatus). Its compounds also remained (see the previous thought) because the hiatus in nonmonosyllables is less harsh and striking than in monosyllables,a because if there is a hiatus in these, since they are of a single syllable, they are all formed from a hiatus, and themselves are almost pure hiatus. In fact the observation on pp. 3759, end–3760 is true principally of monosyllables, and it should be taken as applying principally to these. Where the monosyllabic stem receives an addition while the hiatus remains, although the word is no longer monosyllabic, it still has fewer syllables than the corresponding form in compound verbs, and therefore in it the hiatus still appears and jars more than the latter. Besides, if the stem is lost, the word is sometimes preserved, as noitum from noo, poitum from poo, etc., though in these and their like the hiatus was suppressed by contraction, forming notum, potum, etc. (8 Nov. 1823.) See p. 3881.

  [3851] For p. 3758. Unless it were claimed that nubi-lis [marriageable], labi-lis [slipping, perishable], were like doci-lis [docile] faci-lis [easy], etc., about which verbal adjectives in lis, their formation, etc., it seems to me that one can have the same discussion as about those in bilis, and therefore draw the same arguments, etc., from them. (10 Nov. 1823.)

  Passive participles of active or neuter verbs, in an active or neuter sense, etc. I have spoken elsewhere [→Z 3072] about the Spanish parida [a woman who has recently given birth], a participle frequently (or always, see the Dictionaries) intransitive active in meaning. We too have several, and we use them very elegantly, in place of participles which are truly active in form, whose use is not very welcome in our language, in the same way as in French and Spanish. Uomo considerato, avvertito, avvisato [cautious man] mean the same as considerante, avvertente, etc., that is che considera [who reflects], etc., truly active in meaning, although intransitive. I think that similar ones are to be found in French and even more in Spanish which use them equally in place of participles active in form which are not very acceptable to those languages. Avisado meaning prudent, cautious, is also in Spanish but I am doubtful whether in Spanish avisar [to warn] has that same active sense analogous to that which accorto has in Italian. See p. 3899. This sort of activized passive participles, formed from active verbs (and in fact they always, or for the most part, still have their proper meaning, that is the passive) is principally used by our ancient writers of the 14th and 16th centuries who have a much greater abundance of them than we normally use today either at all, or only in a passive sense. In this our language was similar to Spanish which appears to me still today to preserve this use more [3852] frequently than we do, as we have moved closer to the French, in whom this use is less frequent than in other languages, while it appears singularly proper to the Spanish language, etc. etc. (10 Nov. 1823.)

  For p. 3845, margin. I do not believe, as Forcellini does, that facultas, difficultas come from facul, difficul; but that they are contractions of facilitas, difficilitas, pronounced difficulitas, faculitas. Facul, etc., are no more than apocopations of facilis, adverbial facile, etc. (pronounced faculis, etc.), of the same type as volup, etc. (see Fronto1 and Forcellini under famul [servant], which does not in fact come from famel [servant]—see Forcellini under familia—but from famulus). (10 Nov. 1823.) And they are exactly the same words as facil, difficil would be, just with a change in pronunciation.

  For p. 3636, margin. Perhaps however fourre was the same as fodera [lining], and so fourreau, almost foderetta, for fodero [sheath], hence the diminutive would have a meaning distinct from the positive, and therefore would not belong to our discussion which is examining diminutives used in place of positives. (10 Nov. 1823.)

  Positivized diminutives. Ladrillo [brick] (diminutive ladrillejo) with all its derivatives from later [brick], almost latericulus, or laterculus. And on this precise point see Forcellini on the positivized use of laterculus. (10 Nov. 1823.)

  Contracter, French, for contrarre [to contract], as in the opposite sense Spanish traher sometimes with the meaning of tractare [to drag along], in line with what I said at the start of my theory of continuatives. (10 Nov. 1823.)

  For p. 3849. The true perfect of sino [to permit] is sini. This in fact can still be found. From this, I believe, through suppression of the n (and I believe there are other examples of this suppression),a sii was formed [3853] which can also still be found, especially in compounds (as desino is ii and ivi [to cease]). From sii to avoid the hiatus siϝi, that is sĭvi, as from audii audīvi, from amai amavi, from docei docevi. This for me is more probable than believing that sii comes after sivi, as the others claim, and as they also do about 4th-conjugation preterit perfects. The supine arises, as I say elsewhere [→Z 3723–24], from the perfect. Therefore from sii or sĭvi, comes sĭtum (as from audii or audīvi, audītum, etc., from amā-vi amā-tum, etc.) in place of the regular sinĭtum. This for me is more probable than believing that sĭtum is a contraction of sinitum, formed either by absolute suppression of the syllable ni, a contraction which, as far as I know, is not Latin or by suppression of the n, whence siitum, as from sini sii, then contracted to sĭtum, in which case the i of situm would appear to h
ave to have been long. (10 Nov. 1823.)

  For p. 3702. The reflection made by me elsewhere [→Z 3723–24] that supines come from perfects, easily explains why ētum, the proper and regular desinence of the second conjugation, was changed in most cases to ĭtum, with frequently, and perhaps more often than not, the later suppression of the i. The reason is because the ēvi of perfects of that conjugation was changed to ui, and how it happened, is clearly declared above. By this one can show very well and very easily how the ētum of the supines (which is still to be found in many of them) passed into ītum, etc., a mutation which otherwise would be difficult to explain, since ē does not normally pass into ĭ, etc. Docĭtum for docētum (merĭtum from mereo [to deserve] and similar which can still be found and are for the most part the only surviving supines of their respective verbs, or the most used, etc.) whence doctum, is from docui for docēvi, as domĭtum for domātum is from domui for domāvi, no [3854] more nor less (see pp. 3715–17, 3723, etc.). And whoever would like to see contractions like doctum in first-conjugation supines in ĭtum as well, formed from perfects in ui, as is doctum, let them look at sectum, nectum from secui, necui, enecui perfects of secare, necare, etc. If the perfect of 2nd-conjugation verbs is in evi, the supine which arises from it is in ētum and not otherwise, like deleo es evi etum [to destroy]. If the supine is in ĭtum or contracted, while the preterit is in evi, as abolĭtum from aboleo abolevi, adultum from adoleo evi (compared with adolesco: adolesco has evi, adoleo has ui), then that supine certainly does not arise from the perfect in evi, but arises from and is a certain sign of another known or unknown perfect, in ui. In fact in the examples quoted, Priscian recognizes an abolui as part of aboleo, and rightly: adolui from adoleo is known and used; known too is adolui from adolesco, though very rare, says Forcellini. See p. 3872.

  I think these observations are incredibly useful in uncovering the analogy, the reason, the causes of Latin language and grammar, and of its apparent anomalies, etc. etc., and in establishing rule and cause, where the others only see vagary, variety, disorder, arbitrariness, and chance, etc. (10 Nov. 1823.)

  What we call spirit in character, manners, movements and acts, words, speech, actions, writings and style, etc., pleases us, all of us, because it is life, and arouses lively sensations in certain respects, or it awakens many and frequent sensations of all kinds, and this is something living, because feeling is. In fact spirit is also called vivacity, etc., either on its own, or vivacity of spirit, of character, style, manners, etc. etc. Its opposite in a way is death, it does not awaken sensations, or if it does they are few, weak, [3855] sluggish, unvaried, they do not follow on one another and change rapidly, and this is a dead thing. We call it spirit because we are accustomed to consider life as something nonmaterial, and belonging to nonmaterial things, and to call spirit that which is alive and lives and causes life, etc., and we are accustomed to consider matter as something dead, and not alive in itself, nor capable of life, etc. (10 Nov., octave of All Souls’ Day, 1823.)

  Among the reasons why we (and also the Spanish) lack a proper modern language and literature, we must first of all put the political and military insignificance into which Italy has fallen no less than Spain from the 17th century onward, a period in fact from which the decadence and extinction of our own languages and literatures date in Italy and Spain. This insignificance can be considered both as one of the reasons of the said effect, and also as the absolute reason for it. As one of the reasons, since if today we wholly lack our own modern political and military vocabulary in Italian and Spanish, that comes about because not since the 17th century have the Italians and Spanish had any political affairs or military force of their own.1 Italy has been a slave since the extinction of the Roman empire, because it was divided. But right up to the end of the 16th century a proper Italian military force did exist, and the Italian courts and republics operated by themselves, although they were small and weak. Government was in the hands of Italians, dynasties were Italian in far greater numbers than they were afterward [3856] and are now. Although influenced and dominated by foreign governments and armies, Italian governments and armies, for they were still Italian, did nevertheless act on their own account, and had business to conduct. These were the ones who offered themselves to foreigners, sometimes to one, sometimes another, who called foreigners in, drove them away, or contributed to doing that, who made alliances with foreigners, or against them, with other foreigners, or with other Italians, against other Italians, or in their support. The friendship of Italian governments, even if they were very small, and of individual cities, was held in regard and sought after by foreigners, and their enmity was feared, and in one way or another Italian governments and cities were friends or enemies of this or that foreign power. The Italians acted on their own account in foreign courts, and foreigners in Italian ones. See p. 3887. Therefore at that time we had a wealth of political and military words, more even than the other nations, because politics and military matters, reduced with us to an art and science, were not so with the others. In historians, in technical writers on politics and military forces, or other matters pertaining to them, and generally in Italian writers before the seventeenth century, you will find they had no problems at all in expressing themselves about everything to do with public affairs, public economy, diplomacy, negotiations, politics, or in any part of the military art, no poverty of language, nor will you see them turning to foreign words, or ones which might even be suspected to be foreign. On the contrary you will find that they were extremely straightforward [3857] in the expression of such matters, indeed very rich and abundant, furnished with very precise terms for each area and part, and also with several terms for each, all very Italian words and as much Italian as are now the French ones which the French and we and others make use of in such matters. And it is quite clear that these words and terms were not invented by those writers, and are not owed to their intelligence, but were in use in Italian speech at that period, and were very common among us (and many outside too), very well known, and with a precise and fixed meaning. Most of these, from the 17th century onward, once they were lost from spoken use, were and consequently are lost in writings, so that the very things, which we at that time very clearly and commonly expressed with very Italian words, and also with several words, now we cannot express except with entirely foreign words, or if we lack these, and they are too foreign to be introduced, or were not then introduced, we have no capability whatsoever to express those things. Very many of those words, if we used them, would be understood among us even today in their proper perfect meaning, as in those days, and would not cause obscurity. But very many of them, if they were substituted for the foreign ones which are now used, would prove to be obscure, partly because of our becoming recently accustomed to these other words, partly because their meaning would no longer be understood in as fixed a way as [3858] before. And I say the same about many words with which we could express things for which we do not even have foreign words, either because foreigners do not have them, or because they have not yet been introduced among us. Very many military, civil, and political words both from our 14th century, and from the 16th century itself, although they mean things that are still very well known and very common, are such that we now, when we read them in old writers, either do not understand them, or do not do so without studying them, or we are not aware, at least not without a great deal of acumen and attention, or only imperfectly aware of their correspondence with those which we commonly use today in the same cases. We also not infrequently feel this kind of uncertainty about words meaning things that now are not so common, and feel it more often with these words than with others. This is how, with the disappearance of political affairs and military force in Italy, our nation does not have, nor could have, nor did it have from the 17th century onward, a proper modern language to express political and military things, not that it has never had one, rather it did, but has lost it, or only has an ancient one. And in the same way one can speak proportionately a
nd equally of Spain.