Zibaldone

by Leopardi, Giacomo

  ᾿Εθέλω ἐγρηγορέω—θέλω γρηγορέω [to want, to be awake] can be examples either of augmentatives or of apocopations formed by Greeks on their stems without alteration of meaning. So too λῶ for ἐθέλω, whether this word is the root, or its apocopated form, on which elsewhere [→Z 2779]. (12 March 1824.)

  [4046] Acertado for que acierta or que suele acertar [which establishes, verifies], both of a person and a thing. Don Quixote, part 2, ch. 25, toward the end, ch. 26, a little after the beginning, etc. (12 March 1824.)

  ᾿Εθέλω [I want] for δύναμαι [I can], etc., mentioned elsewhere [→Z 2919, 4002, 4034]. See Lucian, Opera, 1687, tome 1, p. 222, line 10, in Dearum iudicium, and Plato, Phaedo, Opera, ed. Ast, tome 1, p. 478b. (12 March 1824.)

  Our pronoun si, especially in Tuscan, is very often redundant, to provide the grace and character of the language and its idiomatic expression, contravening the grammatical rules of languages. Likewise among the Latins the pronoun sibi (to which our si corresponds, which, in cases referred to, perhaps in all, is dative, as in se n’andò [he went away] and the like), especially among the ancients, and these others, the comic writers, which means such a usage must have been characteristic of vulgar or informal speech. See Forcellini on Sui. (13 March 1824.) See below.

  Essere in se [to be in itself] (être en soi, etc. See the French and Spanish dictionaries)—ἐν ἑαυτῷ εἶναι. See Lucian in the “Dialogue of Neptune and Polyphemus,” Opera, 1687, tome 1, p. 241, end. Often found in this writer and others. Forcellini does not have anything on this, neither under Sui, nor under Sum. (13 March 1824.)

  Carra plural of carro [cart]. (14 March, 2nd Sunday of Lent, 1824.)

  Necessitado for que necessita, that is ha menester [needy, who/which needs], and is joined also with the genitive, as is its verb. Don Quixote in several passages. As far as errado [mistaken] is concerned, mentioned elsewhere [→Z 4015, 4022], note that in Spanish you say errarse [to mistake] as well. Don Quixote, part 2, ch. 27, se havia errado (avea sbagliato) [he had mistaken]. (14 March 1824.)

  For paragraph 3, of this page. I would not be surprised to find similar usages in French and even more so in Spanish.1 See for example the end of the preceding thought. (14 March 1824.)

  Our diminutive or pejorative nouns, etc., in acchio ecchio, etc., and diminutive or frequentative or pejorative verbs, etc., in acchiare ecchiare, etc., come from one form deriving specifically from the Latin, that is from the diminutive or frequentative, [4047] etc., in culus and culare. It is the same with French diminutive or frequentative or pejorative nouns or verbs, etc., in ail aille ailler iller eiller (sommeiller) [to doze], etc., mentioned elsewhere [→Z 980, 2375–76, 3514–15, 3991, 4005]. And I think even Spanish illo or illar, etc., may come from this Latin form (like periglio, péril, etc., from periculum [danger], mentioned in several places [→Z 3515, 3557]) rather than from the form ending in illus illare, etc. (15 March 1824.)

  To other human barbarities noted by me elsewhere [→Z 1840–41, 2387–88, 3638–43, 3795ff., 390ff., 3961–62], add pederasty, an infamous unnaturalness which was and still is very common in the East (not to mention other places) and was not just characteristic of barbarian races but of one whole nation as civilized as the Greek, and for a considerable period (leaving aside the Romans), and so characteristic of them that whenever the Greeks write of love in verse and prose, they mean (except in very few cases) this kind of love, intended to be turned into sentimental love particularly in Plato, in the Symposium and even more so in the Phaedrus, and elsewhere, and also in Xenophon in the Symposium. And Sappho with such tenderness sings of her beloved.1 To what extent this infamous vice is harmful to society and to the propagation of the human race, is evident, etc. etc. Add too the spectacles of the gladiators, and other Roman barbarities, etc. etc. (15 March 1824.)

  Positivized Greek diminutives. Lucian in the “Dialogue of Doris and Thetis” says first ἐς κιβωτὸν [wooden chest] and then speaking without any distinction about the same chest τὸ κιβώτιον and then again τὴν κιβωτὸν, and likewise in the Dialogue of Triton and the Nereids ἐν τῇ κιβωτῷ speaking about the same chest.2 See the Lexicons, etc. That shows that the meaning of this diminutive and the positive form corresponded, or else that in Greek too the diminutive was used as an elegant alternative for the positive form or as a personal choice, or as catachresis or enallage, etc., or whatever. Lucian uses the diminutive here only for variation or simply to produce grace and elegance, without any other reason, and with no difference in meaning from the positive form which he adopts at the same time. (15 March 1824.)

  [4048] Greek duplications. ἄγω–ἤγαγεν, ἄγηχα, ἀγήοχα, ἀγαγεῖν [to lead], etc. They are called Atticisms, but they are (with certain changes, except however the duplication) also found in the Ionians, Dorians, etc. See Schrevel and Scapula in the index of entries of anomalous verbs at the back of the Lexicon, etc. (15 March 1824.)

  Prolato as in the sense of to put off, etc., from profero which has this sense as well. See Forcellini on Prolato, Prolatatio, Prolatatus. (16 March 1824.)

  Lucian in the “Dialogue of Menippus, Amphilochus, and Trophonius.” “τί δὲ” (I read δὴ [then] as the context requires) “ὁ ἥρως ἐστίν; ἀγνοῶ γάρ. T. ἐξ ἀνθρώπου τι καὶ θεοῦ σύνθετον. M. ὃ μήτε ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν, ὡς φῄς, μήτε θεός, καὶ συναμφότερόν ἐστι” [“Menippus: ‘What is a hero, then? I don’t know.’ Trophonius: ‘A compound between man and god.’ M: ‘And so, you mean that he is neither man nor god, but both things together’”].1 Relate this to what I mentioned elsewhere [→Z 3494–97, 3544–45] about the opinion of the ancients on the demigods, a mark of the exalted notion of human nature they had. (16 March 1824.)

  Greek positivized diminutives. ῥάκος–ῥάκιον [rag] unless the latter is no more pejorative than the former. (20 March 1824.)

  Changes in the Greek stems, without alteration of meaning. στρέφω–στροφάω, στρωφάω [to turn around] (with their compounds), verbs which must have originally (and later partly) meant the same as στρέφω. See the Lexicons. And the same will be true of many other changed verbs, that now differ in meaning somewhat from the first stem, or have a more specific meaning, or two, etc., while the stem itself has even more, or vice versa, etc. etc., but originally perhaps meant the same as it did. (20 March 1824.)

  A new proof of the ancient tradition, mentioned elsewhere [→Z 2331–35], that the population of the world, or certainly of Europe, came from Asia, can be deduced from the myth (or history) that Europa was named after a woman from Asia with that name. See the dream of Europa in Moschus’s second idyll,2 etc. (20 March 1824.) See too the mythologists and critics, etc.

  [4049] Στλεγγὶς [strigil, scraper] perhaps from the start was a diminutive of a now unknown positive form. (20 March 1824.)

  Troia for scrofa [sow], mentioned elsewhere [→Z 95–96, 511, 2662]. In French truye or truie. I remember finding as well in the second part of Don Quixote the word troya,1 which I assumed must have this or a similar meaning, although it is used, if my assumption is true, metaphorically. (20 March 1824.)

  Fante for adult man with all its derivatives and diminutives, etc. (among them fancello for fanciullo [young boy] which is perhaps a corruption of it, hence fanciullo would be strictly little man, unless it is a corruption of infanticello, which I do not believe; and the same may be said of other diminutives of fante) as opposed to infante, is characteristic not only of our ancient writers (see the Crusca), but also of modern colloquial and informal speech, where we still have the proverbial lesto fante [someone smart, who knows his way around]2 (which is found in Alberti too). Now this word and this meaning of it is certainly entirely Latin, since fante is none other than the participle fans of for faris [to speak], a verb which is not found in modern languages, and so cannot have been characteristic of later Latin.
Besides it is the opposite of infans that is not speaking (νήπιος), and means speaking and for that reason can only refer to man. And nevertheless this word is not found with this meaning in Latin writers, with the exception of a very analogous meaning, in a passage in Plautus,3 which serves as well to show the antiquity of the meaning of this word as the opposite of infante. Even in all its other senses the word is only a metaphor, or, etc., for uomo [man]; for example fante for soldato pedone [foot soldier] strictly speaking means uomo (so we say mille uomini, mille hommes, etc., for mille soldati; uomini d’arme [a thousand soldiers, men-at-arms], that is heavy cavalry, etc. etc., gente or genti for esercito [army]; gente a piè, [foot soldiers] d’arme, etc., gendarmes [men-at-arms], etc. etc.). The French fantassin, from Italian fantaccino [infantryman], which is a diminutive or positivized pejorative. Infanterie seems only a corruption of fanteria [infantry]. See the Spanish dictionaries. It is the same with the meaning servo or serva, which is now that of fante [servant], from which meaning derives fantesca [maid], etc. See too the Spanish, etc. See as well the Glossary and the article by Foscolo on the Odyssey [4050] of Pindemonte in Annali di scienze e lettere of Milan, 1810.1 (21 March, Sunday, 1824.)

  Positivized diminutives. Taurus–taureau [bull]. Fante–fantaccino (perhaps also with pejorative meaning originally), hence fantassin, that is fante. See the preceding thought. (21 March 1824.)

  On ancient opinions about demigods and heroes, mentioned elsewhere [→Z 3494–97, 3544–55, 4048], see again the “Dialogue of Diogenes and Heracles” in Lucian’s Dialogues of the Dead.2 (21 March 1824.)

  “Οὐκ ἔστι μαθεῖν τοῦτο ῥᾴδιον, συνθέτους δύ' ὄντας ῾Ηρακλέας, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ ὥσπερ ἱπποκενταυρός τις ἦτε” [“It’s a little difficult to grasp, the two Heracles in one, unless you were like a Centaur”] Lucian in Dialogi mortuorum, “Dialogus Diogenis et Herculis.”3 I mention elsewhere this Italianism which comes from the Greek.4 (21 March 1824.) See p. 4054. See it also in Reviviscentes, Opera, 1687, tome 1, p. 393.

  Θανέω or θάνω–θνήσκω [to die]. Here the alteration is not only in the ending, but also in the omission of the α, hence θνήσκω for θανήσκω from the future θανήσω from which those verbs in σκω are formed, according to Weller. (21 March 1824.)

  On the reasons for the universality of the French language, see Voltaire, On Languages, in his selected works, London (Venice), published by Milocco, three tomes, in Italian, 1760, tome 3, pp. 136–39.5 (21 March 1824.)

  How in ancient times the French pronounced as they wrote and partly write today, see the passage quoted from Voltaire, pp. 139–40. (21 March 1824.)

  Poverty of words in the French language in comparison with Italian. See the quoted volume of Voltaire, p. 207, in the note, number 3. (21 March 1824.)

  On the superiority of the Latin language over Greek in some parts and qualities, about which I have spoken in relation to continuatives which the Greeks do not have, [→Z 1117, 2142, 2784–86] that is to say they do not have a fixed class of them, the same [4051] can be said about inchoatives, of which the Greeks do not have a fixed and assigned class and form as the Latins do, although they do often use, to express inchoation, verbs in ίζω formed from ones which have a positive active or passive sense, or they add to stems in άω, έω, etc., ζ making them άζω, έζω, etc. But these forms are not fixed specifically as inchoative in meaning, because an infinite number of verbs with the same form have quite another meaning, an infinite number mean the same as the original stem (mentioned elsewhere [→Z 2825–26, 3284ff.], although perhaps originally they may have had a different meaning), an infinite number do not have another stem, at least a known one, and they do not have an inchoative sense, etc., whether they and the verbs mentioned above have lost such a meaning over time, and it became confused, etc., or else they never had it, which, at least for many of them, is certain, because often the ending in ίζω or ζω is frequentative.1 The Greeks do not have fixed frequentatives either, etc., whereas the Romans do, and also the Italians (and many different classes of them, as in Latin too there is more than one), the French, etc. Neither do they have pejorative verbs, or of endearment, etc. etc., that Romans and Italians, etc., have, and more than one class. (21 March 1824.)

  Many of the words which I call positivized diminutives might be called rather pejoratives or words expressing endearment or frequentatives which are positivized, etc., both verbs and nouns, both nouns and adjectives, etc. But there can be nothing wrong in calling them diminutives generally, because that is just what they all are, and diminution is the means by which they signify a pejorative sense, endearment, etc., according to the way it is applied and understood. (21 March 1824.)

  Shortcomings of Italian spelling in past centuries. We know that [4052] the original manuscripts of even the most learned men in the best of centuries, particularly and expressly those of Ariosto and Tasso, which are so full of corrections, give us incredibly distorted and incorrect spelling, with the kind of errors that even the most inexperienced copyist or boy just learning would not commit today, and the same word is written sometimes with one spelling, sometimes with another, sometimes with yet another. (21 March, Third Sunday in Lent, 1824.)

  The richness and variety and power and fecundity of the Italian language should be considered not only in relation to the abundance of its words and expressions and to the great ability it has to form them but also in relation to the great number and variety of types so to speak and minting dies that it possesses, making it able to form words and expressions with the same kind of meaning, (so many have already been formed, and are able still to be formed with discretion whenever one wants and has need of them). The many frequentative or diminutive or pejorative, etc., endings of verbs may serve as an example, which I have mentioned elsewhere [→Z 1116–17, 1240–42, 3764]. So many diminutive endings of nouns, etc. etc. In the abundance of its coinages our language surpasses by a long way not only its sister languages, but Latin and Greek as well, and perhaps any other language in the ancient or modern world. And this abundance does not produce confusion or indeterminacy of meaning, because although the aforementioned coinages in each kind are many, they are of well-determined quality and value and are applied and appropriate to each kind of meaning. (21 March 1824.)

  Κύμβον, κύμβη [bowl]—κυμβίον, κυμβαῖον, κυμβεῖον, positivized diminutives in certain significations. See Scapula. (22 March 1824.)

  Positivized diminutives. Limon, limoneux–limus [mud, muddy]. (23 March 1824.) See the following page, paragraph 1.

  Lixi-v-ia, lixi-v-ium [lye]—lexia or Spanish legia. (23 March 1824.)

  Tomber, Spanish tumbar [to fall down] with their derivatives and compounds, etc.—tombolare [to tumble] with the same. (23 March 1824.)

  [4053] Tomba from τύμβος [tomb], mentioned elsewhere [→Z 107] Spanish tumba, French tombeau, which is originally the same, that is a positivized diminutive of it like so many others. (23 March 1824.) The French have tombe too, an ancient and poetic word now with a somewhat different meaning. See the Dictionaries. See p. 4076.

  Venire for essere as an auxiliary verb, linked with the passive participles of other verbs, is used not only in Italian, even ancient Italian, which I think I have mentioned elsewhere [→Z 3008], but also in Spanish, perhaps in imitation of Italian. See Don Quixote, part 2 (this part has an extraordinary number of clear Italianisms, many more than the first, etc.) ch. 32, Madrid 1765, tome 3, p. 370. (23 March 1824.)

  The gallantry of ancient Italians can be demonstrated by the etymology of the generic noun donna [woman],1 an etymology which I think will not be found in the corresponding noun of any other language, modern or ancient. (24 March, Vigil of the Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 1824.) See p. 4067.

  To what was said elsewhere [→Z 4006] about the positivized diminutive sencillo [simple], add sencillamente, and consider other adverbs
of this kind from other nouns too, etc. (24 March 1824.)

  Origliare [to eavesdrop], origliere [pillow] from auricula [ear]. Another proof of the frequent change of Latin cul into Italian gli, although for auricula we say orecchia, not oreglia, as the French. (25 March, Feast of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, 1824.) We also say, and today better so, orecchiare [to eavesdrop].

  Speculum–speglio [mirror] ancient and poetic. (26 March 1824.)

  Discursos entretenidos for entretenientes, that is for entertainment, or pastime. Don Quixote. (26 March, last Friday, 1824.)

  Continuo for continuamente [continuously]. Don Quixote. Adjectival noun in place of the adverb, mentioned elsewhere [→Z 2789–90, 4012]. (26 March 1824.)

  Participles in us in neuter verbs. Licitus, licitum est or fuit from the impersonal licet [it is allowed], like gavisus and gavisus sum from the personal gaudeo [to rejoice]. See Forcellini under Licitus, licet ebat, liceor, liceo, licito an adverb formed from this participle, etc. (27 March 1824.)

  [4054] For p. 4050. We say eccetto se non, se pure non, se però non, fuorché se or se non, quando non, salvo se non [except if], etc. And these phrases and the Greek correspond to Latin nisi or nisi si. The non in both Greek and Italian are there for no reason and proper in common to both languages. (28 March, fourth Sunday in Lent, 1824.)

  Ri-v-us, ri-v-o, ri-g-agnolo, etc.—Italian and Spanish rio [rivulet]. (28 March 1824.)

  Positivized diminutives. Rivus, ruisseau, and ruscello [stream] which are partly and often positivized. Latin ascia Italian ascia and asce, French hâche, etc.—accetta almost ascetta, often positivized, etc., because ascia and accetta [axe, hatchet] are used promiscuously, the one in place of the other, although perhaps there is a difference in their meaning, which however they did not have originally, apart from the diminution. (28 March 1824.)