4

How deponent (and semi-deponent) verbs appeared in Latin, and why?

How did they evolve in descend languages? They seem extincts in descend languages (why?) but there are probably specific structured inherited of this atypical grammar.

I've read in Wikipedia:

Latin also has some verbs that are active in form but passive in meaning. fit (it is made, done) was used as the passive of facit (to do, to make). In the perfect forms (perfect, pluperfect, and future perfect), this was a compound verb just like the passive voice of regular verbs (factum est, it has been done).

Why they have no name (at least the name is not mentioned in the article, and I've only heard people talking about deponent verbs.
Is it the same for them?

Edit:

Specifically about the origin (and not the other facts), I've found these related thread, with some answers about the origin:
How accurate is the typical definition of a deponent verb? (this one, being too difficult to understand for me)

Are Deponent Verbs a feature of the Latin Language or Means of Translation?

  • An important distinction made in the first link above (the one between non-agentive deponent verbs like mori or nasci and agentive ones like loqui and hortari) is crucial to understand why only the former deponent verbs, but not the latter, evolved into Romance: e.g., cf. the obvious parallelism between Lat. Marcus natus est and It. Marco è nato. Unfortunately, as pointed out in the 1st link above, the typical definition of deponent verbs is a bit confusing since it does not make a distinction between nasci/mori-verbs and loqui/hortari-verbs. – Mitomino Nov 16 '19 at 2:30
  • I noticed this also è nato/est né (French), and it was the reason of my question. I think that è nato/est né evolved from the deponent structure, so there is maybe other case. It seems a remainder of the deponent structure. I would be interested to know more residual structures like this. Hence also my question about the origin. – Quidam Nov 16 '19 at 2:39
  • 1
    Deponent verbs of the loqui/hortari-type didn't survive in Romance because of their meaning-form mismatch (agentive but passive in form). So no surprise that a deponent verb like loqui was replaced by an active verb parabolare in Late Latin (cf. It. parlare, Fr. parler, Cat. parlar) and that tr. verbs like hortari were regularized/converted into non-deponent form: hortare. I hope that now the contents of the first link above are a bit clearer for you... but please note that the topic is not easy (see 1st link above for some relevant references that illustrate the debate). – Mitomino Nov 16 '19 at 3:12
4

Most of the time, deponent verbs in Latin come from the Indo-European middle voice, which had pretty much completely died out by Classical Latin times. But in other Indo-European languages, such as Ancient Greek and Hittite, the middle voice is well-attested: it's a third voice next to active and passive, which usually links the subject back to itself in some way.

In Latin, as opposed to those other languages, the middle voice as a distinct thing died out fairly early. After that, the passive voice (descended from the PIE medio-passive) was almost always a true passive, and middle meanings were expressed by adding extra words.

However, there were some words which were only ever commonly used in the middle voice, never in the active. For example, *s-kʷ- "follow" seems to be this way all the way back to PIE: compare Ancient Greek ἕπομαι (hépomai) and Old Irish seichithir, which never appear in the active voice. So in Latin, you end up with sequor, a form with passive morphology, but non-passive semantics. It can even take a direct object, which true passives can't do!

In Romance, this little irregularity got smoothed out: sequor gave way to *sequiō, a normal verb with normal active morphology. Most other deponents changed in the same way, or died out and were replaced by non-deponents. They were an irregularity in the system, and like most irregularities, the constant and unceasing process of language evolution ironed them out over the centuries.

On the flipside:

Latin also has some verbs that are active in form but passive in meaning.

To me, this seems just plain misleading. Fiō means "become", and it's not inherently passive any more than English "become" is.

Instead, faciō was a suppletive verb, just like ferō, feriō, sum, and others—that is, some of its forms fell out of use, and other verbs were used in their stead. In this case, it was specifically the present-system passives: instead of *clarus facier, "I am made famous", clarus fiō, "I become famous".

  • As for your statement above that in the passage to Romance, deponent verbs "were an irregularity in the system", please see the difference discussed in comments above between nasci-verbs and loqui-verbs. In particular, note that the fate of locutus/secutus est should not be mixed with the "regular" evolution of natus/mortus est (NB: the latter fall under the set of so-called "unaccusative" verbs. Cf. It. "Marco è nato" vs. "Marco ha parlato". See above for the replacement of deponent loqui by unergative parabolare in Late Latin). – Mitomino Nov 16 '19 at 3:41
  • 1
    @Mitomino Good point! Feel free to post another answer with more details if you want. Otherwise I'll update this later. – Draconis Nov 16 '19 at 3:44
  • As for your strong statement that "Fiō means 'become', nothing passive about it", I disagree. In my opinion, this verb does have "passive meaning" in the sense that its argument subject is a patient. Note the parallelism between unaccusative verbs and passive constructions: both of them have patient subjects. This said, let me clarify that I understand what you mean but I also think that you should recognize that your statement above is "too strong" and can be misinterpreted. Cf. also It. "Gianni è diventato matto" ('G. became crazy'). It. BE-verbs select patient subjects. – Mitomino Nov 16 '19 at 4:08
  • @Mitomino Fair enough; I'll rephrase that. Mostly I mean that it's not unambiguously non-active the way deponents are unambiguously non-passive. – Draconis Nov 16 '19 at 4:42
  • I'd say the notion about English is entirely misplaced. I will gladly chat about it, but that's up to you. – vectory Nov 17 '19 at 21:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.