8

The verb doesn't actually mean simply 'to do many things' – though that idea could conceivably be rendered by πολυπράττειν, if such a verb existed (it isn't attested in LSJ), or by πολλὰ πράττειν. Instead, it's a denominative verb (a verb formed from the stem of a substantive or adjective). In this case, it's formed from the adjective πολυπράγμων, '...


6

As @cnread's comment indicates, the geminate t of rettuli is thought to be a remnant of Indo-European perfect reduplication. The Proto-Indo-European perfect tense was formed with reduplication of the first consonant of the root; a few Latin perfects still do this, e.g. cecidi, peperi, cucurri. Rettuli would then come from an older form re-tetuli; the short ...


5

To supplement Tom Cotton's answer— There's one other verb which similarly shortens its imperative: ferō, ferre, tulī, lātus, imperative fer, ferte. Compounds always use the shortened/apocopated form (adfer/adferte, offer/offerte etc), with *adfere / *adferete, *offere / *offerete etc entirely absent from the PHI corpus. So these two seem relatively certain:...


5

Generally, verbs of mixed 3rd/4th conjugation and their compounds (inf. -ere, 1st. pres. sing. in -io) all follow the same pattern, which includes compounds of facio, but not facio itself — which means that effice, etc. are the correct forms. Fac is a peculiarity. Unlike those of facio, the compounds of dico and duco mainly follow the pattern of the simple ...


5

All three are fine! While there might be a slight difference in nuance, I would say that you can freely use any of them that feels best in that situation. There just turns out to be many ways to express the same things, and there are a great many other verbs for similar purposes like ingredi and intrare. There are examples in Lewis and Short: You can use ...


5

The etymology I've heard, though I can provide no sources on it, is that it started with the idiom neque it "he doesn't go yet" = "he cannot" (compare French ne pas "not a step" used to negate verbs). Through regular elision, this then became nequit "he cannot". And once the link to the original neque was lost, this was rebracketed as nē quit, since nē was ...


4

As Weiss 2009/2011 mentions, word-final –e is “normally retained” (p. 147; emphasis mine – Alex B.). That being said, there are some few cases when word-final –e was lost (or apocopated). In your question, you ask us specifically about imperatives from compound verbs of dico, duco, and facio. In my answer below I will address this issue only. If you are ...


4

Yes, this is an attested usage. Lewis and Short should be your first place to check for such information. For advenio they specifically give the list of constructions "absol., with ad, in, or acc.", and cite several examples with in. Here's an example from Cicero, Philippic 11.30: quamcumque in provinciam eius belli gerendi causa advenerit "in whatever ...


4

Emere would indeed be possible, but the prefix co- adds a flavor which suits this situation well. It is not intensified, but rather toned. I might translate coemere as "to collect by buying" or "to buy up". When buying everything needed for a long journey, I would use coemere instead of emere. Latin is redundant here: the fact that it is more coemere than ...


4

All three versions (Július villam advenit, Július ad villam advenit, and Július ad villam venit) are grammatically correct. My sense is that the latter two are more frequently found than the first, but I can't swear by that. In Latin Prose Through English Idiom (1882), Edwin Abbott writes (all emphases and capitalization as in the original) A few general ...


3

The prefix re- also appears as red-, an older form which mostly disappeared along with other final -ds (personal med, preposition extrad, imperative estod, ablative marid...). You can see this d in forms like red-īre and red-dere, and remnants of it in religiō/relligiō and redūcō/rēdūcō (assimilation and compensatory lengthening). While most -ds disappeared,...


3

There actually is an apparo (ad + paro). The prefix ad- was assimilated and the 'd' turned into a 'p'. The word apparo means to prepare or provide. As C.M. Weimer commented, in- has an accusative sense which means to or into. There are many compound verbs prefixed by in which carry this sense, such as ingredior, infero, and ineo. There is another ...


2

A brief comment re: geminate vs. non-geminate perfect forms of refero.


2

The cases are derived from the parts (and meaning) of the word, not vice versa. Furthermore "impero" can have accusative-like component as well, referring to what is being commanded, albeit this is typically a verb. So to distinguish, the target of the command is probably considered the "beneficiary" of the verb, hence dative. As to why it is im- + parare ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible