Zibaldone

by Leopardi, Giacomo

  From raptus, participle of rapere [to seize], is derived raptare, that is, to drag, an action which, as anyone may see, is far more continuous and drawn-out than rapere.

  Likewise from captus, participle of capere [to take, to seize] is created [1107] captare, which does not imply continuation of capere or to seize, because the action of seizing cannot be continued, but means to strive to seize, that is, in short, to search for, to seek, and the like, a continuative action. See Forcellini. And from acceptus, participle of accipere [to take], there is acceptare [to accept] whose continuative sense may be seen in the second and third examples given by Forcellini,1 which signify not the simple act of receiving but the continued habit of receiving, and I say continued advisedly because continued is quite different from frequent. See p. 1148. See Exceptare [to catch] in Virgil, Georgics 3, 274, and p. 2348.

  From saltus, an old participle of salire [to leap]a (or from the supine saltum, which comes to the same thing) is derived saltare. And here the continuative impact (if I may so put it) of this way of forming verbs is perfectly plain. Because strictly speaking salire means saltum edere [to execute a leap], and saltare means to dance, which is a continuation of salire, a series of leaps.

  Likewise from cantus, an old participle of canere [to utter melodious sounds], we have cantare [to sing], a verb which originally signified a far more continuous action than did canere.

  From adventus, an old participle of advenire, comes adventare, which signifies the continued action of drawing closer, or being about to arrive, where advenire signifies the act of arriving or of arriving suddenly.

  [1108] Forcellini says of the verb tentare [to try] that it derives from the supine tentum of the verb teneo [I hold]. *“For it is” (take note) “to hold long and often and to handle as is habitual with anyone testing something.”* See p. 2344 and p. 1992, beginning.

  Likewise rictare from rictus, participle of ringi; dictare from dictus, participle of the verb dicere; and ductare from ductus, participle of the verb ducere; and nuptare from nuptus, participle of nubere; and Cato the Elder’s flexare from flexus, etc.; adfectare from adfectus, participle of adficere; and adflictare from adflictus, participle of adfligere; and volutare from volutus, participle of volvere; and consultare from consultus, participle of consulere; commentari and commentare from commentus, participle of comminisci and comminiscere; natare from the old natus or natum from nare; and reptare (on which see Forcellini if you will) from reptus or reptum from repere; and offensare from offensus, participle of offendere; and argutare and argutari (see Forcellini) from argutus, participle of arguere; and occultare from occultus, participle of occulere; and pressare from pressus, participle of premere (the Italians, the French, etc., and the Glossary also have oppressare [to oppress] from oppressus); see pp. 2052, 2349, and vectare from vectus, participle of vehere. See in Forcellini the examples that demonstrate that subvectare [to bring up from below] and convectare [to bear, carry, or bring together in abundance] denote precisely the custom and occupation of subvehere [to carry], etc.

  Sectari [to follow constantly], which implies (for anyone observing it carefully) a more continuous and lasting action than the verb sequi [to follow], must certainly derive from secutus, the participle of this latter verb, contracted to sectus. Or rather at the beginning they said secutari, and then by contraction sectari. And lest this syncopation be reckoned mere supposition on my part (something plucked out of the air or imagined), consider the French verb exécuter [to carry out], and the Spanish executar, which is to say in Latin executari, a compound of secutari. Indeed, I believe that this first form of the verb sectari lasted in Vulgar Latin right up to the end, and I believe it as much because of the French and Spanish verbs mentioned above as because our own seguitare [to continue] would not seem to derive from anything else but secutari or sequutari, just as seguire [to follow] did from sequi. Since from sectari we would not have created seguitare but settare, as affettare from adfectare, [1109] and so too in the case of countless other words. On the other hand, with us even seguitare has, strictly speaking, a more continuous sense than seguire. See p. 2117, end.

  Whether it was ancient Vulgar Latin, or the Latin spoken in later times, or the vernaculars that eventually derived from it that then put these into circulation, what is certain is that our languages, which are daughters of Latin, have an abundance of verbs formed from the participles of other old Latin verbs of a similar kind, whereas these new verbs are not found in good classical Latin, such as usare [to use] (Glossary), abusare, etc., from usus, participle of uti [to use], etc.; inventare from inventus, participle of invenio [to find out, to invent]; infettare [to infect] from infectus, participle of inficio [to taint]; traslatare from translatus, participle of transferre [to transfer], although from this verb the Italians also have trasferire (translatare is in the Glossary); fissare [to fix] and ficcare [to stick] (fixer, fixar) from fixus, etc. (Glossary); fixare oculos [to fasten one’s eyes on something]; disertare [to lay waste], déserter, etc., despertar [to awaken] from experrectus, participle of expergiscere [to awaken], see p. 2194; votare [to vote] from votus, participle of vovere [to vow] (Glossary); from junctus, participle of jungere [to join] the Spanish juntar [to join, to assemble] (it is not in the Glossary though Juncta is given for Giunta, a word adopted by Spanish barbarian Latin writers); invasare [to invade, attack] from invasus, participle of invadere [to enter upon] (the Glossary has invasatus, that is, obsessus a daemone [possessed by a spirit]); confessare [to confess] (Glossary) from confessus, participle of confiteri [to acknowledge, to confess]; and thousands of others likewise. See pp. 1527 and 2023. (The first two verbs are not to be found in Du Fresne.) See p. 1142. A number of which are in our languages in place of their Latin originals, no longer used, and it would seem that in the creating of them no account was any longer taken of the nature of continuative verbs.

  In this regard, it would seem appropriate to draw attention to an error in Monti, (Proposta di alcune correzioni ed aggiunte al Vocabolario della Crusca, vol. 1, part 2, Milan 1818, under the entry allettare [to allure; to confine to bed], pp. 42ff.), who is adamant that our allettare (and consequently the Latin adlectare [to allure], which is the same word as ours, as Monti asserts p. 43) “is derived from Letto [bed], just as Allattare [to breast-feed] is derived from Latte [milk], Adescare [to lure] from Esca [bait], Allenare [to give strength, to train] from Lena [endurance], and so too with a host of others,” which means Dar letto [to offer a bed] and “Because, indeed, a bed is rest, and taking one’s rest is the softest and most delightful thing, [1110] it followed that Allettare, that is Apprestare il letto [to prepare a bed] immediately became by metaphor Invitar con lusinghe [invite with blandishments], and gradually the overwhelming power of usage caused the transferred meaning to stand in for the proper meaning and to usurp its functions. This etymology, if by chance it is not wrongly deduced, could readily pave the way to finding another etymology as well, namely, that of Dilettare [to delight in] and Diletto [delight] with all their derivatives,” as a consequence (say I) of the Latin delectare, illectare, oblectare, and the like. And he denies that these verbs have anything to do with allicere [to attract], for which he gives a quite different etymology (p. 44).

  I won’t go into the fact that this metaphoric meaning, and the subsequent metamorphoses of the meaning of allettare, natural though they may appear to Monti, seem to me to bear the usual stamp of some very famous etymologies, and that the whole thread of his reasonings could easily break and snap because it is too thin and weak at this point. But he has not grasped that adlectare (and therefore allettare) was formed from adlectus, participle of adlicio in the very same way as the many verbs mentioned above and many others one could mention. Now allettare is a continuous action, and so too is oblectare, which means trastullare [to amuse], etc., and thus dilettare [to delight], etc. Whereas adlicere is strictly speaking the act of pulling, seizing, [1111] inducing with blandishments. And his lacio plain and simple, which means to deceive, to de
fraud likewise implies a noncontinuous action, whereas lactare, being formed from lacere (as distinct from the word formed from lac) does indeed signify a continuous action, more or less the same as adlectare or allettare. See p. 2078. Since even in the etymology of the verb adlicere Monti is mistaken (p. 44), thinking to derive it from the licium [thread] or liccio [heald or heddle] of “amorous enchantments.” “Its etymology,” says he, “to the best of my belief is this, since I cannot find anyone who can give me a single clue.” But he would have found the real etymology in Forcellini, under allicio [to arrange the warp lines], and under lacio [snare]. Adlicio, then (like inlicio, etc. etc.), is compounded from ad and lacio (which derives from lax, fraus [fraud]), with the a changed to i as a result of the composition, as in adficio from facio, and in adjicio from jacio, etc. etc. Besides, even though we may in ordinary and everyday speech say allettare for to put to bed, and allettarsi for putting oneself to bed, this verb differs as much from adlectare, though uniform in sound, as does letto the past participle of leggere [to read] from letto [bed] the noun, in meaning and in origin, though uniform in sound. See the passage from Cicero cited by Monti and try if you can to substitute adlicere for adlectare.1 Instead of adlectare coming from lectus (Festus),2 I wonder whether lectus (the noun) might itself come from adlicere. Forcellini, under Lectus i.

  One must not confuse this kind of verb, which I call continuative, and which signifies continuation or the greater duration of the action expressed by their original verbs, with frequentative verbs, [1112] which imply frequency of one and the same action, and have at the same time a measure of diminutive force. The latter (setting aside the frequentatives with infinitives in essere, which cannot be confused with our continuatives) are indeed formed from the participle in us or from the supine in um, of other verbs, apocopating their endings, but substituting in their stead not the simple infinitive ending are or ari but rather that of itare or itari where the verb from which they are formed is deponent (or passive). Thus from lectus, the participle of legere, lectitare; thus from victus or victum from vivere, victitare; from missus from mittere, missitare; from scriptus from scribere, scriptitare; from esus from edere, esitare; from sessus or sessum from sedere, sessitare; from emptus from emere, emptitare; from factus from facio, factitare; from territus from terreo, territare; from ventus from venio (or from the supine ventum), ventitare; from lusus from ludere, lusitare; from haesus or haesum from haerere, haesitare; from sumptus from sumere, sumptitare; from risus from ridere, Naevius’s risitare.1 Except in those cases in which the participle or supine of the verb from which the frequentative was supposed to be formed ended in itus or itum, where it would then have been very difficult to add the ending itare or itari, thereby making ititare or ititari. In such cases, then, with the desinence us or um of the participle or the supine truncated, they would add the simple desinence are or ari, with the frequentative tending nevertheless to end in itare or itari all the same. Thus from venditus from vendere, they would create venditare (not vendititare); from meritus from merere, meritare (which appears to be continuative and to denote habit sometimes); from pavitus, old participle of pavere, pavitare; from solitus, etc., solitare; from latitus, old participle, or from latitum, old supine of latere, they created latitare; [1113] from monitus from monere, monitare; from domitus from domare, domitare; from dormitus or dormitum from dormire, dormitare; from licitus from liceri, licitari; from vomitus from vomere, vomitare; from territus, territare; from itus or itum from the verb ire, itare; from pollicitus from polliceri, pollicitari; from exercitus, participle of exercere, exercitare; from citus, participle of cieo, citare, and its compounds; from strepitus or strepitum, old supine or participle of strepere, and from crepitus or crepitum, old supine or participle of crepare, strepitare and crepitare; from scitus from sciscere or from scire, scitari, sciscitare, and sciscitari; from noscitus or noscitum, old supine or participle of noscere, noscitare; from agitus, old participle of agere, later contracted to agtus, and finally changed to actus, agitare. This exception is worth noting because in these instances the formation of frequentatives is no different from that of continuatives and they could be mistaken one for the other. And likewise some verbs ending in itare or itari, but formed from a participle or supine in itus or itum, will either always or sometimes belong to the continuatives (as, e.g., agitare, domitare, etc., and see Forcellini under tinnito), which means that they will not end with the desinence given above, if only because of their being derived from such a participle or supine. See p. 1338, beginning. Minitari and minitare, formed from minatus, from minari and minare, are created thus either through contraction and apocopation not only of the us but also of the atus of the participle in order to avoid the disagreeable sound atitare, or through a shift of the participle’s a to i, done for the same purpose. Likewise rogitare from rogatus, from rogare; coenitare from coenatus, from coenare. See p. 1154. See p. 1656, paragraph 1.

  I have developed this argument at some length and sought to give a clear explanation of all these points because they seem to me to have escaped the notice of both grammarians and lexicographers. Forcellini applies the term frequentative indiscriminately both to verbs ending in itare or itari and to those which I call continuatives. And he is mistaken, because [1114] the difference both in formation and in meaning makes plain the difference between these two kinds of verb. E.g., in the case of raptare, which he calls a frequentative version of rapere [to seize], and which means to drag, anyone can appreciate that this action is not frequent but continuous. And if the Latins had wished to create a frequentative from rapere, they would have created raptitare and not raptare from the participle raptus, indeed Gellius actually mentions just such a verb, raptitare, 9, 61 and in that passage you can see many examples of such frequentatives in itari created (as he himself notes) from participles of original verbs. And for the verbs augere, salire, jacere, prehendere or prendere, currere, mergere, defendere, capere, dicere, ducere, facere, vehere, venire, pendere, gerere, and others of the same sort that have their own continuatives, auctare, saltare, iactare, prehensare or prensare, cursare, mersare, defensare, captare, dictare, ductare (which the grammarians call a contraction of ductitare, and are mistaken), see p. 2340, factare, vectare, ventare, pensare, gestare, all of which are formed from their participles or supines, following the laws observed by us, also have the frequentatives auctitare, saltitare, iactitare, prensitare, cursitare, mersitare, defensitare, captitare, dictitare, ductitare, factitare, vectitare, ventitare, pensitare, gestitare, distinct in form and meaning from the above-mentioned continuatives and not derived (or certainly not usually) from the latter (as Forcellini says from time to time) but directly from the original verbs. See p. 1201. The verb videre [to see], from which the anomalous continuative verb visere [to look at attentively] (instead of visare) derives, also has its own frequentative visitare, from the participle [1115] visus, shared with videre, with its continuative visere, and that by anomaly. Legere [to read] and scribere [to write], which have their own frequentatives, etc., are still believed to have the continuatives lectare and scriptare, on which see Forcellini, under Lecto, which are not frequentatives, nor indeed are they the same as lectitare and scriptitare, though Forcellini maintains that they are, ibid. and see under Scripto. The same goes for the verb vivere [to live], which has the frequentative victitare, since some are convinced that they have found victare in Plautus (Captivi 1, 1, l. 15). From prandere [to breakfast], which has the frequentative pransitare [to snack, eat often], we have pransare [to dine], which today is pronounced pranzare, but pranso whether as adjective or as participle and substantive may be found in Caro and in Dante (Alberti).1 See the Spanish Dictionaries. See p. 2194. See pp. 1140 and 2021. From mansus, from manere [to stay], you have mantare [to persist] (for mansare), and mansitare [to stay often]. See p. 2149 end.

  Thus, not only do the grammarians not distinguish, so far as I know, the frequentative from the continuative, but they do not even recognize, so far as I know, this kind of verb
, which is, however, so common and important and which I call continuative, employing a new word because the observation is new.

  It is indeed as true as it is natural and inevitable that the primordial meanings and attributes of continuative, frequentative, and original verbs were very often confused in ordinary usage, and not only in barbarian Latin, and in the daughter languages, but even in the good and the very best authors, especially not the very earliest. And they used, e.g., the continuative with the same meaning as its original verb, or else the original verb was lost and only the continuative remained, and was used instead of the former (as we Italians, French, etc., say saltare [to jump], etc., where speakers of good Latin used to say salire [to jump], a verb which today has lost this meaning and acquired another, etc. etc., see p. 1162, and in place of the Latin saltare [to dance] we say ballare, danzare, etc.), or perhaps the continuative sometimes assumed the force of the [1116] frequentative, or sometimes vice versa, or finally, the original verb was used instead of the continuative, whether the latter had fallen out of use or not. Nice, almost metaphysical distinctions, very difficult or impossible to sustain even in the most sophisticated and closely studied languages and in those like Latin, which guard their attributes most jealously and scrupulously and which, as they gradually fade, give rise to synonyms, on which see pp. 1477ff. And Forcellini time and time again notes that such and such a frequentative is often, and perhaps always, used to mean the same thing as its positive, and yet no one doubts either that this kind of verb exists or that such verbs were not actually and originally frequentatives. Verbs newly formed from participles in the daughter languages of Latin ordinarily only have the force of the original Latin verb. See p. 2022.