Ignotus, which is a type of participle, understood actively for qui non novit [someone who does not know]. See Forcellini. (14 Oct. 1823.)
In my theory of continuatives I have spoken elsewhere [→Z 1113, 1144] about exercitare [to exercise] and about arctare [to draw tight], the former the continuative of exerceo, the latter of arceo. It should be noted that exerceo is one of the compounds of arceo (at least that is what I judge it to be), like coerceo, and perhaps (although it [3687] gives us coercitum) it is the origin of coarctare [to pack together], etc., as I said when speaking about arctare, etc. (14 Oct. 1823.)
Sella [seat] is certainly a positivized diminutive of sedes (or of sedia, which I have talked of elsewhere [→Z 3350]), as in our language seggiola and seggetta are positivized diminutives of seggia, a corruption of sedia, which we also have, that is seggia and sedia, siège, etc. The Spanish have silla, also a positivized diminutive. Sella Italian, selle French, in one of the meanings of the Latin sella. Here too the Spanish have silla. Sella for sedia, sede, is found in Dante.1 Sella in a colloquial sense, see the Crusca. Sella in Latin is a diminutive like trulla [small ladle] and similar words. Diminutive of the diminutive, sellula. Therefore sellularius [of a sedentary occupation], whose meaning can be called positive. Also very frequently formula Latin formola, etc., for forma. (14 Oct. 1823.)
For p. 3618, end. I believe that none of the verbs of this type has its own perfect, nor the tenses which depend on it, nor a supine, nor a participle in us, but that they borrow them (see p. 3725) from the original verb. For if this does not exist, I believe that once upon a time it did. E.g., in the case of suesco [to become accustomed], adolesco [to grow up], cresco [to increase], etc., which have perfect and supine, I believe that there were original verbs, such as sueo [to be accustomed], adoleo [to smell], etc. (see p. 3696), to which belonged the above-mentioned perfects and participles, since [3688] the regular and rightful perfect and participle or supine of suesco, etc., would be suesci, suescitum, not suevi, suetum. See p. 3703. I say the same of adipiscor [to obtain], of nascor [to be born], of nosco [to get knowledge]. If this is true, notus, natus, would not be contractions of noscitus (this once existed which proves there was a verb noscitare), and of nascitus and this is proved from nasciturus (nor is adeptus a contraction of adipiscitus) as I have said in several other places [→Z 1119, 2826, 2835, 3063], but are rightfully the participles and supines of unknown verbs from which nosco, nascor, etc., would have been formed. And nosco would not come from νοΐσκω, as I said on p. 2777, but in Latin as well there would have been an original verb no (different from nare [to swim]) corresponding to the Greek νοῶ (like δόω do, πόω po which we have demonstrated elsewhere [→Z 2772, 2972], and similar monosyllables which I have spoken of in other places [→Z 2775]); from no the verb nosco would have been formed, not in the Greek fashion, but in the Latin fashion (and following the Latin pattern of formation and meaning, etc.) as far as the material of its formation and form are concerned in this part of the verb in accordance with the Greek, which indeed had νοΐσκω and νώσκω, from which come γινώσκω and γιγνώσκω, which sound the same as nosco. But in accordance only by pure chance, indeed perhaps uniquely so. See p. 3826.
I firmly believe that all of these sorts of verbs [3689] were originally formed from other unknown verbs, such as vivesco [to become alive] from the known vivo (see p. 3708), hisco [to open] from hio, and others like this with desinence in sco. And I believe this because, as vivesco signifies to become alive, that is to become that which is signified to be by the verb vivo, that is to be alive, and as hisco signifies aprirsi, that is to become open, while hio signifies to be open, etc., in the same way all the above-mentioned verbs nosco, nascor, adipiscor, suesco, adolesco, cresco, etc., whose original verbs are unknown, therefore signify to become, to begin to be, or to do such and such a thing or action, to be in the course of being or undergoing, etc., depending on whether they are neuter or active in meaning, and so also the respective original verbs, etc., which is the characteristic of the meaning of the Latin verbs in sco. And I think there must have been, for all of these, as many original verbs which signified the full being such and such a thing, the full doing or undergoing such and such an action or passive feeling. Like vivo in relation to vivesco, hio in relation to hisco, and not a few others of the same sort. So augesco in relation to the neuter augeo [to grow] (see Forcellini under Augeo, end). So also scisco from scio, is properly [3690] divenire sciens, that is almost imparare, intendere, conscius, certior fieri, divenire, esser fatto consapevole [to learn, to become aware of], and what the Romans call discere [to learn] is a verb (lacking its supine) also belonging to this category. And since the perfects and supines of such verbs (if they have them) are not regular, I believe that this is because the perfects and supines are not properly their own, but come from other original verbs, in which they would have been regular, and I think that such irregularity and such perfects and supines, which fit other verbs, and do not fit (through grammatical analogy) those verbs to which they now belong, denote other original verbs now lost. Especially as there exist the vestiges of regular supines, etc., of the already mentioned verbs which now exist, such as noscitare, nasciturus, which exhibit the regular supines of nascor and nosco, i.e., noscitus and nascitus, it is not likely that these forms have in their turn been contracted to natus and notus, and that they are grammatically one and the same as these. Posco [to ask] has poposci, that is, by removing the duplication (which is accidental), posci, regular and not povi. Why then nosco novi? Posco today has no supine. Why scisco scivi, suesco evi, and not suesci, nosci, etc.? The defective novi novisti, used in the sense of the present, etc. (which is why it cannot be considered as part of nosco, as the grammarians would claim), is, in my opinion, a remnant and evident sign [3691] of a lost verb no, which formed its perfect in novi, and its supine in notum (as po formed potum which still remains, whence potare [to drink]; the participle potus also remains), forms then carried over to its derivative nosco, which grammatically is in truth defective, and the same with novi isti, with which it is supplied, creating a single verb out of both. That novi novisti comes from a verb other than nosco, is proved both from its present tense meaning (why would that be so if it were the actual perfect of nosco? which has in fact its own present tense) and its imperfect and pluperfect, etc.; and also from seeing that the grammarians, although on one side they make it part of nosco, on the other side, ancients and moderns consider it to be defective and so describe it, like memini, in exactly the same way. Therefore they suppose it has another stem, and this unknown, like memini, odi, etc.1 So memini [to remember] is a remnant and evident sign of a lost meno, indeed it is now defective; from which reminiscor or reminisco (lacking perfect and supine) which also belongs to this category, and its companions, if there are any; such as, in my opinion, comminiscor, which comes, I believe, from meno (not from mens [mind] as Forcellini says), to which or to commeno (unknown) belongs, grammatically speaking, the participle commentus, contracted from menitus or from commenitus. (See p. 2774.)
Besides if people were to want to believe somehow, as they have up to now, that, e.g., suevi suetum are the proper perfect and supine of suesco, and not borrowed, then we would have to say that scivi scitum as well, which are of the [3692] same form, are proper and true parts of scisco, which is of the same form, type of meaning, and category as suesco. But the verb sciscitor showing the supine sciscitum is another example which confirms, like noscito, my opinion. And it is likewise confirmed when we see that the perfect and the supine of scisco are in fact, grammatically, the same as those of scio, a known verb which exists and is used, and the verb recognized beyond doubt as the origin of scisco. See p. 3763.
Niteo es ui–nitesco is [to shine]. Albeo es–albesco is [to appear white]. Nigreo es ui–nigresco is [to darken]. Flaveo es–flavesco is [to be yellow]. Horreo es ui–horresco is [to dread, to bristle]. Candeo es ui–candesco is–excandesco is ui [to gleam white] (note the same p
erfect as candeo, which certainly, at least grammatically, is from an unknown excandeo and not, as is claimed, from excandesco. You may say the same of extimesco, and pertimesco is [to take fright], [3693] which have the perfect ui, which certainly comes grammatically from a pertimeo and an extimeo, both from timeo which in fact has timui. And indeed we find pertimens, and perhaps also the verb extimeo). Notesco is ui [to become known], etc. Vireo–Viresco [to be green]. Valeo–Valesco–Convalesco, ui [to be strong, healthy]. Sanesco, Consanesco ui [to recover]. Fluesco [to flow]. Liquesco [to become liquid]. Seneo, Senesco, Consenesco ui [to be old]. Crebresco is ui [to become frequent]. Flammesco is [to become inflamed]. (14 Oct. 1823.) All these verbs in esco signify fio [to come into existence] with the active participle of the respective verbs in eo. That is nitens fio, candens fio, etc. Concupisco is–concupio. The proper sense of verbs in sco, is as we have defined it, though there will be occasions when always or most of the time or sometimes they have a different meaning, e.g., conforming to that of their original verbs, whether they are known or unknown. See, e.g., the definition of tremisco [to begin to shake] in Forcellini. This is not surprising. I have noted similar things happening in continuatives. And this example of verbs in sco, about whose proper meaning there is no controversy,a can serve as a reply to those who from the noncontinuative meaning of many continuatives, or in many cases, etc., might wish to find a reason for criticizing our theory of the true and proper and regular significance of continuatives, etc. (14 Oct. 1823.)
Credito as from credo itus [to give as a loan, to believe]. (14 Oct. 1823.)
Concerning the verb nicto [to blink], which I have spoken of elsewhere [→Z 1166, 2885–87], see Forcellini under nico is [to beckon]. I am greatly inclined to believe that the former is the continuative of the latter, instead of another verb; I refer [3694] to that nicto which stands more or less for μύω [to shut one’s eyes], etc. (14 Oct. 1823.)
For p. 2819, margin. Vado [to go] which is βάδω (derivative of βάω, or rather the same verb pronounced differently, etc.), would have been originally closely linked to bito [to go] or beto in its etymology, in the same way as it is through similar significance. In any case, the meaning of bito and βαίνω [to go] (alteration of βάω as φαίνω [to bring to light] is of φάω, etc. etc., which I have spoken of elsewhere [→Z 2775]) is properly the same. Bito is continuative would be like nicto is, piso is, and similar verbs discussed elsewhere [→Z 2934–35, 3035ff.]. However, there is some doubt about their existence, or of some of them. Nevertheless one group can serve as a support for the others, and the certain for the doubtful, bringing them together in our theory, and in our principles of formation, etc., which demonstrate the analogy that exists between one group and the other, not hitherto observed, etc. (14 Oct. 1823.) See p. 3710.
Aiguille, aguglia, aguja, guglia [point, needle] (with their derivatives, etc.) often a positivized diminutive, from the Latin aculeus [sting], also a diminutive like equuleus [colt]. The Greek ὀβελίσκος [spit, skewer] when it means guglia is also a positivized diminutive. ᾿Οβελίσκος and aguglia or guglia, aiguille, aguja sound very similar one to the other in their meaning as well. (15 Oct. 1823.)
[3695] For p. 2777, end. The protactic g before the n, is found in Latin also added to words which are simply Latin, not Greek, like to the stem nascor in many of its compounds: adgnascor, agnatus, prognatus, cognatus, cognatio, etc., and also in the simple gnatus. So gnavus, gnavare [to do zealously], etc., for navus, navare, and ignavus [idle] for iñavus. See Forcellini under gnarus, ignarus, and the above-mentioned words and similar, etc. (15 Oct. 1823.) See p. 3727.
For p. 2996, margin. Nigreo–nigrico–nigro as [to be black]. If nigro came from nigreo it would perhaps form part of our theory, at least in relation to derivation and formation, and we would need to note that its original verb would belong to the second conjugation, not the third. But perhaps nigro comes in fact from niger gri [black]. Nigrico either from nigreo, or from nigro. (15 Oct. 1823.)
Obsoleto as from obsolesco–obsoletus [to grow old]. (15 Oct. 1823.) But this is not continuative. It means obsoletum reddere [to make (clothes) dirty, grubby], a meaning very different from its formation. It is only found in Tertullian and other writers of the later Latin period (Forcellini and the Glossary). Its barbarousness is more clearly demonstrated through our [3696] theory of continuatives which makes obvious the total lack of a proper and analogical link (because there is no other example, that I am aware of, in good Latin) in its meaning and use. See Forcellini under oleto. Completare, compléter, etc., a modern word, would be of a similar kind of meaning since it properly stands for far completo [make complete], but this does coincide with the meaning of the original verb complere [to fill up], which does not happen with obsoletare, because obsolesco is neuter and obsoleto active. I think I have spoken of completare elsewhere [→Z 2035]. Verbs of this nature are formed from the respective participles (such as obsoletus, completus) which have already become adjectives, and not as participles but as adjectives, so that they do not concern our theory. There are a great number of them. Perhaps there are some in good Latin, in this respect. But fewer, I believe, than in late Latin, and among the moderns. (15 Oct. 1823.)
For p. 2996, end. Obsoleo [to wear out], obsolesco from obs and oleo, olesco. See the following thought. (15 Oct. 1823.)
For p. 3687. That adoleo or certainly the simple oleo once existed, see Forcellini under Obsolesco, beginning. I mean an oleo and an adoleo different [3697] from the ones which now exist, or with a different meaning. What this meaning was I could not say. Forcellini, loc. cit., says cresco, but this is the meaning of the derivatives adolesco, etc., and is proper to the type and grammatical form of those derivatives. It can however be said that the stem which we are looking for still exists; in obsoleo that is and in exoleo, and see also Forcellini. If obsolesco is from obsoleo, exolesco from exoleo, that is the same as saying that adolesco, inolesco, etc., are from adoleo inoleo, etc. All of these from one stem, and the reason for one group is the same as the reason for the other. From a very different stem comes the verb obsolesco, some derive it (and perhaps obsoleo too) from ob and soleo (Forcellini, loc. cit.). But those who do this show that they have not considered the blood brothers of obsolesco in which the first s does not appear, nor the verb exoleo, brother of obsoleo, which can only be from ex and oleo. Only a fool would deny that these verbs are brothers. The meaning proves it. Exolesco and obsolesco are, one can say, equal to each other. The others correspond, according to the respective prepositions. [3698] Furthermore, does soleo perhaps have the perfect solui or solevi? Does it perhaps produce as its supine soletum? Soletus as its participle? Now that is what obsoleo does. And if obsoleo has nothing to do with soleo, how then would obsolesco? can one deny that this comes from obsoleo? apart from the fact that it is more than evident in itself, and through so many other analogous examples, is it not shown by the example of its exact companion, of exolesco from exoleo? Finally that the first s of obsolesco and of obsoleo belongs to the preposition ob, see p. 2996, and the references given there.
Besides whoever wished to claim that the proper preterit perfect of oleo, adoleo, and similar was and ought to be olui, adolui, etc., and that therefore adolevi, inolevi, etc., are not proper to adoleo, inoleo (unknown), but actually to adolesco and to inolesco, etc., let them note that the other oleo also in its compounds forms olevi in place of olui (Forcellini under oleo),a and that these desinences evi and ui, are in truth the same, that is different only in pronunciation, because the ancient Latins especially, and afterward nonancient, or less ancient, and also the moderns, etc., very frequently blurred the u and the v (see p. 3708) (that formerly only had one single and common character). So that olevi is the same as olui, with the e interposed to soften the pronunciation, while olui is the same as olevi, with the e omitted for correctness of pronunciation. Because the v of the latter and the u of the former were never considered [3699] by the Latins except as the same letter.
So in Hebrew, so in modern languages, right up to recent times, and in the Dictionaries of our languages (as in the Latin) the custom of ordering words as if the u and the v in the alphabet were the same letter still continues, etc. etc. etc. Therefore I could not say, nor do I believe it is possible to say, whether the true, regular, and original perfect of the second conjugation has its desinence in evi or in ui, whether it is docui or docevi: and one ought rather to say, that if they are not both original, both these desinences are regular, in fact that they are both one and the same. For my part I believe that the most ancient is that in evi, in ancient times ei (retained in the Italian: potei, sedei, etc., which through adopting the corruption which becomes the norm, also has the form sedetti, etc.),a then to avoid the hiatus eϝi, and then evi (as I have said elsewhere [→Z 1126ff.] about the perfect of the first conjugation: amai, retained in the Italian, etc., amaϝi, amavi), afterward vi (docvi) or ui (docui), which are one and the same, and descend from the contraction of that in evi. And it is a broadly held opinion that from doceo there was originally formed in the perfect, docei, [3700] retaining the e, the characteristic letter of the second conjugation, like the a in the first, whence the ancient amai. But how did the u come to have a place in the desinence of perfects of the second conjugation, since it is a letter completely extraneous to the roots (as it is to doceo), etc.? a The answer is easy if one adopts the above-mentioned points: otherwise there is no way of explaining it. The u appeared in the second conjugation, as the v, which is the same letter, appeared in the first and the fourth: to avoid the hiatus. The u and the v in the perfects of these conjugations and in the tenses depending on the perfects are therefore letters which are completely accidental, accessories, extraneous, introduced by the needs of pronunciation, as opposed to the original forms of the verbs, though they then became the norm in written Latin. Became the norm in the first two. The fourth is the only one which still retains its original perfect (as generally and regularly does the third, which did not tolerate nor could it tolerate this alteration) alongside the corrupt: audii, audivi. Vulgar Latin, on the contrary, only retained, and Italian only retains, the original: amai, dovei, udii. These observations show the analogy (up till now, [3701] I believe unknown) which originally existed between the grammatical cause, the formation and the desinence of perfects of the first, second, and fourth conjugations and which effectively exists between the origin of the forms and desinences of all three. An analogy which was later obscured and rendered invisible by the alterations which those desinences received in their pronunciation, in their use, etc., and these alterations then becoming the norm, they were then believed to be the original forms, etc. Perhaps the conjugation in which can be found more verbs which have their perfect (and its dependent tenses) truly in its original form, and that without a double form as the perfects of the fourth conjugation have, is in fact the third.
Zibaldone Page 257
