[3967] The infinitive for the imperative, on which elsewhere [→Z 2686–87]. Hippocrates at the end of the book De aere, aquis et locis: “᾿Απὸ δὲ τουτέων τεκμαιρόμενος, τὰ λοιπὰ ἐνθυμέεσθαι, καὶ οὐχ ἁμαρτήση” [“Basing yourself on this, consider the rest carefully, and you will make no mistake”]. They are the last words of the book.1 (10 Dec., day of the Translation of the Holy House, 1823.) This phrase is very frequent everywhere in Hippocrates, like the prescriptive person he is.
Positivized diminutives. Taureau. Many of the diminutives which I call positivized may very well be found to have been used sometimes, more or less frequently, either by the most ancient or by the most modern writers, etc., and may still be used, in a genuinely diminutive sense, or even frequentative, etc. etc. And it may be the majority of occasions. For me it is enough that they sometimes have or had, etc., a positive meaning, in line with the positive, etc. (10 Dec. 1823.)
For p. 3962. It is well known that Alboin king of the Lombards “made a cup from the skull of Cunimund” (king of the Gepidae, his enemy) “out of which in memory of that victory” (over the Gepidae) “he used to drink” (Machiavelli, Istorie fiorentine, bk. 1, Opere, 1550, p. 9),2 and also how from this originated his killing ordered by his wife Rosamund daughter of Cunimund, by the hand of Almachilde (id., ibid.). From this it can be seen that this custom must have been proper to the Lombards (since I do not agree with Machiavelli who attributes this fact specifically to the “ferocious nature” of Alboin), a northern people, and perhaps not very far from the Scythians, although of another race and another type of language as I believe. Because the Scythians belong to the Slav race. The Lombards, I believe, to the German. (10 Dec., Feast of the Translation of the Holy House of Loreto, 1823.)
[3968] For p. 3963, end. If diminutives in ellus, etc., were always formed from words in ulus, one would have to say the same about those in illus, illare, etc. So for instance conscribillo [to scribble] would be from a conscribulo. —To what is said about patella [dish], add the Italian padella [pan], positivized (patena [shallow dish] remaining to mean the sacred vessel, etc.), although perhaps what today is called padella is not exactly the same in meaning as the vessel or those vessels which in Latin were called patinae or patenae or patellae, and therefore the meaning of such a positivized diminutive as padella may not be exactly the same as its Latin positive, something almost inevitable in those words which belong to objects whose uses, etc., are always very variable, more so than anything else. But in such a case the meaning of the diminutive padella would not even be the same as the diminutive patella, which is indeed certainly positivized, and which padella is materially the same word as. In short padella is certainly a positivized diminutive. See French and Spanish and the Glossary, etc. (10 Dec., Feast of the Translation, 1823.) See p. 3971.
To what is said elsewhere [→Z 2864, 3811] about the positivized diminutive or term of endearment, etc., figliuolo [child], add its derivatives, etc., also positivized, such as figliolanza [offspring]. (10 Dec., Feast of the Translation, 1823.)
I have said, I do not remember where [→Z 2280–81], about a diminutive, I think an Italian one, that its inflection in ol (I do not recall whether a verb or noun, etc.) showed that it was originally Latin. But it should be observed that the diminution in olo, olare, etc., is no less proper to modern Italian than that in ulus, ulare, olus (as in filiolus), etc., is to Latin. It is indeed true that it derives completely from [3969] the Latin one, indeed it is identical with it. In any case the addition of the u in our inflection (as in figliuolo, etc.) (1) is a smoothing of the writing and orthography, a Tuscanism, it is not proper to speech, even though it may exist in Tuscan, in which case, and I don’t think it’s all that frequent in Tuscany, it would be an accident of pronunciation; (2) it is not found in the most ancient writings, nor in very many of the less ancient, even though they are precise, and actually apart from modern ones, it is perhaps missing in the majority of writings, and I believe that it is regularly missing today, at least according to the orthography of the Crusca, in many words where the olo is in fact long; (3) it regularly disappears (following the rule of mobile diphthongs) whenever the stress is not on the o: therefore from figliuolo figliolanza, etc.; (4) it is truly a property of Italian and therefore also from sono, bonus and such other simple o, we form uo, as in suono, buono, etc., as do the Spanish with ue, which is resolved into, or goes back to, an o whenever the stress is not on the e, as from volvo buelvo and then bolver, etc. See p. 4008. And even when the desinence, etc., in olus or olus, etc., is not diminutive, we often form uolo, etc., as from phaseolus, fagiuolo [bean], etc.; (5) it is missing in a great number of Italian words, as in many diminutive or frequentative verbs, etc., ending in olare of which I have spoken elsewhere [→Z 2280–81], in which it would be a big mistake to write uolare. In short this addition is not proper to this kind of Italian diminutive inflection deriving from Latin, but is an accident of pronunciation or of orthography in Italian or Tuscan, which takes place in an infinite number of other cases that are very different from this inflection, and in this inflection itself it does not always take place, etc. (10 Dec., Feast of the Translation of the Holy House of Loreto, 1823.) See pp. 3984, 3992, 3993.
For p. 3961. And the same can be said about a hundred other types of Latin formations and ones not proper to the modern languages, which can be found in a thousand modern words [3970] unknown in Latin, or only known in barbarian Latin, while those formations, etc., are not proper to the latter and were absolutely proper to good Latin, or were special to ancient Latin, etc. etc. (10 Dec., Feast of the Translation of the Holy House of Loreto, 1823.) See the following page and 3985.
I have said elsewhere [→Z 2925–26] that the word male in our languages is often used in place of non, as a privative particle, etc. This is particularly proper to the ancient forms of our languages, and perhaps even more particularly to ancient French. The French sometimes say mal- sometimes mé-, which is the same (médire, to speak ill of), and so our mis (misdire, misfare). And these particles corrupted from mal and destined for compounding, sometimes really mean male, sometimes they are absolutely negative or privative, as in mépriser [to despise], mépris, miscredente [unbelieving], misleale [disloyal], etc. This particle mis (or something like) with the same use is also common to the English, which confirms what was said above, that is, that mis and also mal, etc., from which it is corrupted, was especially proper to the ancient form of our languages, and particularly to ancient French. See if they were missing in Spanish, because if so, it would be a new proof that Spanish perhaps did not take as much from Provençal, etc., as our ancient language, especially written, etc. etc. Always provided that mis, etc., does not prove to be of northern origin, and from there have passed into English and French, etc. (10 Dec., Feast of the Translation, 1823.)
Passive participles in neuter sense. —Adjectivization of participles. Tacitus from taceo for tacens [being silent]. Similarly in Spanish callado for callante, silent (“à todo havia estado suspenso y callado” [“had been listening to everything with close attention and silently”]. Cervantes, Don Quixote).1 However it must be noted in relation to this and similar participles of neuter verbs in modern languages, used in the sense of the participle of the active form, whether such a verb is or [3971] was neuter passive, afterward becoming absolute through the ellipsis of the pronoun, always or sometimes. Something which has happened and happens an infinite number of times in our languages. E.g., callar [to keep quiet] was perhaps also or only said callarse, as se taire in French, and often in Italian too tacersi, si tacque, etc., although here the pronoun is somewhat redundant, for propriety in our language, as in many other cases, though this propriety is not part of this discussion, and it should be noted that a neuter absolute is not taken to be a neuter passive on account of this, because that would be false, so that finding a neuter with a pronoun in our languages, whether among the ancients or the moderns is not always a sign tha
t it is or that it was a neuter passive, etc., with the pronoun later suppressed, becoming callar always or most times. In such a case callado in the sense mentioned above, would only be in a passive sense, and would not be part of our discussion. (11 Dec. 1823.)
For p. 3968. If diminutives in ellus, etc., or illus, etc., are formed from words in ulus, etc., always or sometimes (because the fact that it is sometimes the case is beyond dispute), they are contractions of ulellus, etc., ulillus, etc. (11 Dec. 1823.) See p. 3987.
For the preceding page. I mean that such compounds, derivatives, etc., were not formed by writers, etc., but are proper to vulgar speech, and such that they can be considered preserved. As in fact some are, including some that belong exclusively only to familiar or spoken speech, etc., or to the most ancient and unrefined writers, and which therefore certainly belong to the vulgar languages of those times, etc., in pretty high number. (11 Dec. 1823.)
For p. 3961. To the same category belong the frequently singular grace and effect of foreign beauties or ones which have something foreign about them, whether this being beautiful belongs to the features, the body, etc., or to manners, etc., or whether the manners are foreign and not the physique, or vice versa, etc. etc. etc. (11 Dec. 1823.)
[3972] The consequence of what has been said in several places [→Z 838ff., 1683–84, 3253–62] about the nature of a language truly suited (especially in our times) to universality, is that it cannot be more able to translate than other languages, more able to assume the mantle of other languages—whether all of them or in greater number or better than each of the others—or to adapt itself more than any other, to somehow represent other languages. On the contrary it must by its nature be the exact opposite, that is, supremely unique in character, in expression, etc., and supremely unable to be anything other than itself, and minimally varied in itself, and as minimally different as it can be from itself in every case. And a language which contains its exact opposite is by its nature, especially in our times, supremely incapable of universality. There is no need therefore to imagine that a universal language must or can bring the benefit of making up for the knowledge of other languages, of being like the mirror of all the rest, of collecting them all, so to speak, into itself, with the power of assuming their character, etc., but only that it must stand in place of all the other languages, and be substituted for them. In fact all it can truly do is to be substituted for the use of other languages and each one, not to stand in their place, etc. It would indeed be a great benefit, but it is the exact opposite of the nature of a universal language. Such is French in fact. So neither the French nor foreigners should flatter themselves that they have in that language everything that could exist in other languages. What they have is a language which by its nature is very different from the others, whose use they can easily substitute for that of all the others. Nor should they think that if they wish to know [3973] other languages, authors, etc., that the possession of French exempts them more than any other language from the study of all the others. On the contrary, French is no use at all for this purpose, and because the French speak a language that is supremely disposed to universality as their native tongue, they have to content themselves with having a language which is wholly incapable of translating, totally unsuited to acting as a mirror and example to them, and even as a means to understanding any other language, author, etc. The case of the French language proves these assertions. Though the French with their extreme neglect of other languages show that they are convinced of the contrary. The nature of Greek was exactly the opposite.1 In fact, even in ancient times, it could not be universal except in a very weak way and bore no comparison with the possible universality of a language, and even with the effective present universality of French, in spite of its many qualities, and especially the infinite number of extrinsic circumstances (power, commerce, literature, and unique civilization of the nation that spoke it) which favored (and for a long time) and almost necessitated its universality, much more than the extrinsic circumstances of French, etc. (11 Dec. 1823.)
There is no doubt that civilization, the advances of the human mind, etc., have miraculously increased both in number and in size and in extent the human faculties, and generally the forces of man, who since he is now, contrary to how he was at the beginning, more spirit than body, as I say elsewhere [→Z 3909ff., 3932ff.], is truly capable, also in material things, of infinitely more than he was at the beginning. But one must see whether these new faculties, this increase in forces, etc., correspond to and were destined by nature, [3974] both general and that of the human species in particular, and whether they benefit or harm the happiness of that species, because if they do harm, then it is certain that they do not correspond to nature, etc. It is incredible how many abilities we can actually see that very many animals are capable of (down to fleas trained by someone to pull a little golden coach).1 The ancients saw them too and tell wonders of them, like the modern ones, but some of them greater, because of the greater industry of the ancients, in this as in many other things, manufactures, works of art, etc. Anyone who had not heard them from irrefutable witnesses, or seen them with their own eyes or heard them with their own ears, would never even have imagined them, nor conceived the possibility, the capacity, the physical aptitude in a given species of animals, as for example elephants, dogs, bears, cats, rats (true), etc. etc., even very fierce ones, and apparently the ones least capable of discipline and of changing their habits, etc., and being tamed and obeying men, etc. Now who can say whether such abilities which increase the faculties of those animals, etc., were prescribed for that purpose by nature, either general or their own particular nature, etc., whether they are beneficial for their happiness, etc., and whether their respective species would be more perfect or less imperfect, if such abilities in them were more common, or universal, etc.? And without going too far, look how many properties, abilities, etc., far removed from their primitive condition, cart horses, riding-school horses, etc., have acquired continually before our very eyes, and continually exercise, etc., properties and abilities which no longer cause us any wonder, because they are habitual and frequent, and because the art of teaching them such things is very common, and at present and a long time since, easy as well; but neither the latter nor the former are thereby less worthy of wonder. [3975] Now with all this, and with the fact that the number of individuals so trained is very great, and so continuous and successive, etc., who can say whether, etc., as above? Only the person who believes that the whole world, and in it the horse species, was made by nature for the service of man, and that it tends toward this as to its own end, and that it cannot have its own perfection outside of this, by which it is destined and disposed naturally toward the acquisition of those faculties and qualities which are required or befitting or of use in such service, so that a horse is not perfectly a horse unless and until he can carry a man on his back, and obey his signals and anticipate them and guess them, etc. etc., and do all of this perfectly.1 (11 Dec. 1823.)
Zibaldone Page 281
