In the case of many other Spanish words, phrases, etc., which are found in sixteenth-century Italian writers (and also in the 17th), and which are now out of use, it is extremely probable that then they were not obsolete and taken from authors of the 14th century but were still in use (which we can see easily, if they do not appear in fourteenth-century writers, who were perhaps less [3730] studied (except the three great writers) and certainly annotated and edited in far smaller numbers than today, meaning that 16th- and 17th-century writers could not have known what we do not know about them, in fact much less than we do); nor that they were taken from Spanish, but are proper and native Italian words, although they conform entirely to the Spanish words and today are antiquated for us Italians, but not in Spanish.
In any case the Spanish, too, especially in the 16th and 17th centuries, took many words and phrases from Italian, etc., both writers and the spoken language (because of the exchange of relations both between the two literatures and the two nations and in a word for the same reasons which introduced so much Spanish into Italian). Now these Italian words and phrases remained and in very great part still remain so naturally in Spanish that they have nothing foreign about them in themselves nor for those who do not know that they are Italian, and they did not and do not appear (not to the Spanish, nor to the Italians, nor to others) adopted (as they were and are) but natural, according to the expression used by Speroni in a different context (Dialoghi, p. 115).1 [3731] (Exactly the same occurred and occurs in Italian with Spanish words and phrases, in respect of us, and the Spanish, and others.) This can also be applied to the purpose of the thought to which the present one refers. (18 Oct. 1823.)
For p. 3704. And its origin is known, because cretus is a metathesis of certus (which still remains as an adjective, and also in a certain sense as a participle, and as a participle has produced the verb certare [to contend], of which I have spoken elsewhere [→Z 2341, 2345–46], etc.), a contraction of cernitus. (19 Oct. 1823.)
Interchange between v and g, etc. Trève–tregua [truce]. (19 Oct. 1823.)
Laxus [open, spacious], whence laxare [to expand, lassare, lasciare, lasser [to leave], etc., is one of those adjectives, which, as I have said in my theory of continuatives, I think are participles of unknown verbs, or not known as the forebears of such adjectives, etc., and I think that laxare is a continuative because of its origin, etc. See Forcellini, etc. (19 Oct. 1823.)
For p. 3708, margin. Lavitum is shown by the verb lavito [to wash]. So fautum is a contraction of favitum shown (if it were needed) by favitor, etc. But the above-mentioned [3732] interchange between v and u is demonstrated ever more clearly by all or almost all verbs (etc.) which are compounds of lavo [to wash], in which lavo becomes luo. Which contraction confirms wonderfully and completely what I have supposed [→Z 3698ff.] to be the case in perfects in ui of the second and principally the first conjugation. E.g., domui [to tame, to vanquish] is from domavi in exactly the same way as abluo [to wash away] for ablavo, where the a is suppressed and the v has become u. In any case pluit ebat [to rain] has the perfect pluit and also pluvit to avoid the hiatus, as I said on p. 3706. Exuo is ui utum [to draw out]. Ruo is ui utum [to rush down] contraction of ruitum, which also exists: proof of my assertions. See Forcellini under Ruo and compounds. Fruor, ĭtus, and ctus sum [to enjoy], but fruĭtus is more used, and so fruiturus, etc. Luo is ui luitum demonstrated by luiturus. And people said or wrote luvi. See Forcellini under luo, toward the end. Fluo is fluxi [to flow], fluctum, fluxum, and fluitum demonstrated by fluito and by fluitans. Tribuo, Minuo, Statuo, Induo, Arguo, Acuo, Annuo, Innuo, etc., Imbuo, etc., ui utum, with their compounds, and similarly with those of Suo, etc. In all of these supines the i has been swallowed to avoid the hiatus, or as in docitum, etc. Note that the u in all the other tenses of these verbs, including the perfect, is always short. See p. 3735. (19 Oct. 1823.) The same with the compounds of fluo, etc.
Lavito from lavare or lavere. (19 Oct. 1823.)
For p. 3725. These observations confirm my discourse (pp. 2928–30) on the ancient form vexus, part of veho [to carry] [3733] (made by me on the subject of vexare). It is quite logical that veho should have vexum since it has vexi, and since the supine corresponds with the perfect. Vice versa that discourse confirms to a great degree these observations. They are confirmed by flexus from flexi, nexus from nexi, and the others noted here. They are confirmed by vectus itself, known, certain, and modern participle of veho, and in this vectus, where does the c come from, which has nothing whatsoever to do with this stem, unless from the perfect vecsi? You can say the same about victus for vivitus (see p. 3710), where the c comes from vixi which is in the place of the regular vivi. The same in a thousand others of this type. Fluo has fluxi; therefore fluxum; and also the very ancient fluctum (see Forcellini under fluo, end), whence also today fluctus us [flow], fluctuare [to undulate], etc. (And the same indeed is vectus for vexus.) But its regular perfect should be flui: so it also had fluitum as shown by fluito and fluitans, etc. So for different perfects, different corresponding supines will be found, I believe, in many verbs. To perfects in xi corresponds equally the supine in xum and [3734] that in ctum. Both will be found together in quite a few verbs which have their perfect in xi (in the others I could not for the moment say). Perhaps either from xi directly, or afterward from xum, ctum was said to move closer to the regular desinence of the supines which ought universally to be in tum. Perhaps xum was a corruption of ctum, or vice versa, and xum was the true and first supine of verbs which formed their perfect in xi, etc. In short which of these two, xum and ctum, is the more ancient, I do not know. Perhaps they are both the same thing (although both are not always preserved, or perhaps they have not both been always in use), different only through accident of pronunciation, etc. etc. This is to be applied to my discourse on vexus, since we already have vectus, etc. See p. 3745. Iubeo [to command] has iussi, anomalous for iubeve–iubesi: therefore its supine is iussum, and no other, although that too is anomalous. And the same with myriad others: and the correspondence between perfect and supine, and the formation and dependence of the latter on the former, in most cases at least, even though the former is anomalous, even though it is multiple, even though occasionally it is lost altogether, while the supine remains, or where such a perfect is lost while another or more than one remains, which does not correspond to the supine or supines, etc. etc. (see p. 3736); such a correspondence, I say, is evident and beyond controversy. (19 Oct. 1823.)
[3735] For p. 3732, margin —(except in the perfects of luo [to wash], etc. See Forcellini, luo: fui from fuo is short), in supines in utum it is always long (I am talking about the u of the root), except in the compounds of ruo [to rush down]; I say it is the case in the compounds, but in ruo itself not. (See Forcellini under Ruo end and under Ruta caesa [dug up and cut down].)1 The ancient futum belonging to fuo (for fuitum) must also have had the first vowel short, as has futurus which comes from it, and which stands in the place of fuiturus. See p. 3742. All of which seems to demonstrate that that root u in utum takes the place of two vowels (ui); otherwise there would be no reason for it to be long here, and in all the rest of the verb, short. And in fact if the supine is preserved original and not contracted, that is ending in uitus, the u is short no less than the i, as in ruitus (Regia Parnassi) and in fluito, fluitans, etc. (20 Oct. 1823.)
I am persuaded that up to now the constant formation of the continuatives and frequentatives from the participles or supines has been little observed by seeing that Forcellini among others from fluctus us [flow], etc., deduces the unattested supine fluctum belonging to fluo (see Fluo, end), but from the verb fluito [to float, to flow] (which he indeed calls the frequentative of fluo) it never occurs to him to deduce the uncommon fluitum, which is clearly shown to come from it. Though the same person does not fail to caution that many continuatives and frequentatives are formed from the supines of the respective original verbs. (20 Oct. 1823.)
[3736] For p. 3734, end. E.g., fusum from f
undo [to pour, to melt] could indicate an ancient perfect fusi. Fluitus from fluo an ancient perfect flui which would be the regular one and correspond to the others noted on pp. 3706, 3732, etc. And so, now that we have noted the correspondence between perfects and supines in Latin, we can make use of the known perfects both to demonstrate or conjecture the unknown supine (as we have done on p. 3733), as to do the reverse, etc. (especially when the known supines are regular, etc., and the known perfects are not, or vice versa, etc.). In fact we will be able to conjecture all the better the perfects from the supines, insofar as the former derive from the latter, but not the latter from the former. Whence, given the supines, it seems necessary to suppose the perfects; but this is not as necessary in the reverse case. (20 Oct. 1823.)
Participles in us belonging to active or neuter verbs, in active intransitive sense, or active transitive, or neuter, etc. Examples to be examined are Indutus and Exutus in Forcellini comparing them with those of Exuo [to draw out], Induo [to put on], and also with the ancient Italian usage, and elegant modern as well, of the entries Spogliare [to strip], Vestire [to dress], Spogliato (or Spoglio), Vestito, etc. (20 Oct. 1823.)
[3737] I have said elsewhere [→Z 2110–12, 2378–80] that memory cannot exist without attention, and that where there was no attention at all paid to something, it is impossible for any recollection of it to remain or come back. Attention can be greater or lesser and according to the memory (natural or acquired) of the person, and according to the greater or lesser durability and keenness of the recollection which follows from it. It can indeed be minimal, but if any recollection at all is present, it is certain that some degree of attention preceded it. It can also be the case that someone is not aware, does not think, does not remember that he ever paid any attention at all to that thing that he remembers, but in such a case, which is not uncommon, he is deceiving himself. Perhaps the attention was involuntary, perhaps it was even against his will, but it was no less attention for all that. If the particular thing struck him, made him pause, even only momentarily, even only very slightly, even decidedly against his will, even if he immediately turned his mind away from it, that is enough, the attention was there; that it struck him is the same as making him pay attention, however little and for however short a time, but making him do it in spite of himself. (20 Oct. 1823.)
[3738] For p. 3409. Similarly reading those of our classics (and that is nearly all of them) who have enriched the language by prudent derivation of words and expressions from Latin, from Greek, from Spanish, or from wherever, helps us greatly to enrich our own use of language. Not in the sense that by reading them we learn the words and expressions in the way they used them, and we could therefore still use them, because those writers were authentic in matters of language. This would be a pedantic way of using them. In fact, if those words and phrases came out in Italian as Latinisms and Hispanisms, etc., we ought not to imitate the writers who used them, classical and authentic though they be, nor would their authority be of any help to us among sensible people if we tried to use those words and expressions again. But such reading helps us inasmuch as it teaches us through the present experience of those writers that the Italian language is most capable of adopting such words and manners of speech. For we see before our very eyes that, although they are foreign in origin, they [3739] fit in those writings as if they were native to our soil, and are so clothed that they cannot be distinguished from those which are in actuality native to Italy, and it is as if they belong to the language. And so they are potentially Italian, as the others are in actuality, so that making them Italian in actuality does not depend on someone who wishes to use them and is capable of so doing, and through experience we can see that those writers, by transporting them into Italian, have been extremely able in making them, and have effectively made them, Italian in actuality, as they were potentially, and as the other, native Italian words are. Now, this is the same as what our intelligence and judgment, in place of experience, should do when we study the languages of others; that is to show us, not by evidence, as our classical writers do, but by discernment and strength of perspicacity, and refinement and soundness of feeling, although unfurnished with practical evidence, that such and such words and phrases are potentially very Italian, so that it is up to us to make them so in actuality, whether or not they already are or have been made such by use, whether in speech or in writing. For that should make a difference only to pedants. Only [3740] they are capable of criticizing and condemning the fact that such potentially Italian words and forms (Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, or even German and Arabic and Indian in origin, by birth, and in actuality), are actually made Italian without the example of writers of authority; as they alone are capable of admitting and applauding the fact that thousands and thousands of words and phrases which have no potential to be Italian (whatever their origin), are in fact used, because they were used by classical writers who infelicitously derived them from elsewhere, whether from Italian words and manners of speech, or invented by them. These never were nor will they ever be truly Italian in actuality (unless use and familiarity gradually were also to make them such through potential). The former only incidentally were born in France or in Spain or in Greece, etc., rather than in Italy, but by their proper nature they are no less Italian than Spanish, etc., nor less Italian than those which were born in Italy (and than those which passed elsewhere from Italy), and perhaps somewhat more than some of these, which were born here only incidentally. Since only by accident and against their nature did such words and phrases arrive here [3741] which in Italian are Latinisms or Gallicisms, etc., whether it was classical writers, or mediocre writers, or bad writers, or corrupt speech that introduced and used them, since these differences likewise are completely accidental, and invalid for the argument. (20 Oct. 1823.)
Concerning the low opinion in which even into the 16th century the Italian language was held (called then, almost in disrespect, vulgar) as well as its capability and nobility and dignity and efficaciousness and richness and potential and possibility of growing, etc., and its then state (which indeed was certainly a great deal more potent and efficacious and strong and expressive and rich and noble and capable and suitable than it was before or since and than it is today, after such a long time and so great an increase in the number and variety of writers who used it, and in the subjects there dealt with, and in the ideas which were and are represented there, continually, in greater quantity and variety, not only in relation to literature, but to philosophy and politics, dealings and affairs of cities, and histories, and arts and sciences of all kinds; wherefore this language was at that time less esteemed in what it had of greatest value in every way than in any other age and perhaps will not be of such value ever again), see the “Dialogo delle lingue” of Speroni, throughout, but particularly from the beginning of the Discourse between Lascari and Peretto, right to the end of the Dialogue.1 (20 Oct. 1823.)
[3742] Mutolo, almost mutulus, for muto [mute]; positivized diminutive, while the positive also remains. Hence ammutolire [to fall silent], etc., for ammutire, etc., which also exists. (20 Oct. 1823.)
The supine futum of the ancient fuo, from which futare, etc., as elsewhere [→Z 3735], is shown equally clearly from the participle futurus. Therefore no one should doubt that futare comes from futum supine of fuo like all the other continuatives although today there is no sign of any supine of the defective sum, of which the defective fuo is auxiliary or suppletive, etc., but not indeed so in origin, etc. (21 Oct. 1823.)
Elsewhere [→Z 2659–60] I stated that the ancient participle of sum [to be], active desinence, existed, and that it was not ens but sens. It should not be thought that potens [to be able] can prove the opposite. This word too contains the said participle, but with the s removed, like the f in potui, etc., which is made up of potis or pote and fui in the same way as possum from potis and sum, and potens from potis and sens. Besides it is very true that, as we have possum not potum, so people would have come to say possens instea
d of potens.
[3743] Now can we say that in all three of the daughter languages that absolutely true pronunciation and form of potens is preserved? We say potente and possente, but the latter is the most proper and ancient, because now it is not used in prose (except in a few cases, etc.) but only in verse. And this antiquity fits our case all the better. The same can be said of possanza and potenza [power], possentemente [powerfully], onnipossente [omnipotent], etc. And it should be noted that it is in no way the custom of language or pronunciation of any part of Italy to change the t to two sss, whether in Italian words, or from the beginning of the formation of our language, in relation to Latin words, etc. In short we have never at any time had that usage, and therefore we must in this case refer the said mutation from potens to possente to some other cause, because it is not one of the usual reasons, in fact it is absolutely unusual, etc. What then is this cause? That it is not a mutation but the true ancient Latin pronunciation, even predating that of potens. Because it is more regular, and was handed down to us from the populace, who certainly did not use it in order to speak in a more regular fashion than [3744] educated people, nor to correct the false pronunciation of the more ancient, but instead to preserve the more ancient usage. The French only have puissant that is possens, and not potens. So puissance that is possentia only, and not potentia; tout-puissant, puissamment, etc. The Spanish do not have the participle of posse,a neither in an adjectival sense, as the French and we do, nor in the sense of a participle, as we sometimes do (esser potente di fare una cosa [to be capable of doing something], etc. Speroni frequently),1 but they do have pujanza that is possentia, where the two sss have been changed to the aspirate, which is the norm for them. Neither the French nor the Spanish are in any way accustomed to changing the t to two sss or into the aspirate, etc., as I have said the Italians are.
Zibaldone Page 260
