14

This is a contracted perfect form, which is fairly common in poetry, particularly in the first conjugation. Basically, whenever you have a second person perfect active ending in -āvisti (like amāvisti "you loved"), it can be contracted to -āsti without changing the meaning (e.g. amāsti "you loved"). It's somewhat like how English uses "don't" instead of "...


12

I have two thoughts about this. First, the thing to keep in mind here is that different languages use different tenses differently. In English, for example, I'd use the present tense followed by the future tense followed by the present tense to say If you arrive tomorrow, I'll see you. In French, however, such a thing would make no sense. How can you ...


11

Since you’re asking about reduplicated perfect (and not reduplicated present, as in bibo < *pi-ph3-e or sero < si-sh1-e, Weiss 2009: 405), I will try to address perfect formation only. One of the problems is that synchronically we may not see all cases of reduplicated perfect in Classical Latin. However, by drawing on data from Old Latin and other ...


10

I'd say you want the present tense. A&G 466, "Present with iam diu etc.": The Present with expressions of duration of time (especially iam diu, iam dudum) denotes an action continuing in the present, but begun in the past... In this use the present is commonly to be rendered by the perfect in English They give examples such as annum iam audis ...


9

(This answer is based on Weiss's Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin, which is usually the place to go for this kind of thing.) The most common Indo-European 3pl active ending is -nt(i), which is part of the familiar set -m(i), -s(i), -t(i), ..., -nt(i). (The 1pl and 2pl are a bit harder to reconstruct because they vary more in the individual ...


9

It's actually not indicative, but subjunctive. I know Perseus' morph tool parses it as both indicative and subjunctive, but both Gildersleeve and the OLD say it's subjunctive and do not mention anything about it being indicative: faxo, faxim (where later writers use fecero, fecerim) The normal perfect indicative of facio was feci, fecisti, fecit (etc.).


7

faxim is (according to one theory) the subjunctive (historically: optative) of the old s-aorist; note that Old Latin also had an s-future faxō. There is a rather convoluted discussion of this in Sihler §502.


7

In the Greek original of Mt 25, 35-36: ἐπείνασα γάρ, καὶ ἐδώκατέ μοι φαγεῖν, ἐδίψησα, καὶ ἐποτίσατέ με, ξένος ἤμην, καὶ συνηγάγετέ με, γυμνός, καὶ περιεβάλετέ με, ἠσθένησα, καὶ ἐπεσκέψασθέ με, ἐν φυλακῇ ἤμην, καὶ ἤλθετε πρός με all the verbs are in the aorist tense, except for “I was”, which, in both of its occurrences, is imperfect (in the post-classical ...


7

The double ss is evidence for a short vowel in ussi (at least at some point) Just a short time after posting this question, I remembered a relevant fact. Even though there wasn't (as far as I know) a regular Latin sound change that would have shortened ū to u in this context, there was a Latin sound change that would have shortened ss to s after a long vowel ...


6

There is, in fact! As you mention, the Latin "perfect tense" is a combination of the present perfective and past aoristic tense-aspect combinations, which remained separate in Greek (the "perfect" and "aorist"). So a "perfect" verb form can be either a present perfective (an action was completed in the past and affects ...


6

Just to complement fdb's answer, the tense selection does not make the text grammatically wrong, but adds a nuance if read as it is written. The imperfect is not necessarily ongoing now, but was ongoing in the past. Hence the difference with perfect may be nuanced, depending on the context. As you say, it may denote an action that has not finished. But not ...


6

In general, this is called suppletion: when some forms of a verb are stolen from a totally different verb. For example, English to go has no past-tense forms; the past tense is taken from the unrelated verb to wend (as in "wend your way"). In later Latin leading into Romance, for an extreme example, the verb eō, īre lost many of its conjugations, replacing ...


6

Unfortunately you do need to memorize the perfect stem for each verb you learn. Many verbs are similar, and it helps a lot that many first conjugation verbs have the -v- in perfect forms. But not all have, and I can't think of a reliable way to tell when a first conjugation verb is going to have an irregular perfect stem. Especially when it comes to the ...


6

According to Perseus's morphology tool, this form comes from the compound εἰσ-άγω, "to lead into".


6

It is the second option with arbitrata. For the purposes of agreement, you can think of the participle as an adjective, so that Syra arbitrata est and Syra Romana est have exactly the same form. The gender agreement holds for all subjects of all numbers in the same way. For example, uxores arbitratae sunt and mariti arbitrati sunt. And there is no difference ...


6

Woodcock in Paragraph 112 uses the imperfect subjunctive to express these meanings. Tu ne faceres tale, "you should not have behaved so", quoting Plautus. [Argentum] non redderes, "you shouldn't have returned the money", again Plautus. Following his lead, I'd go with Illud ne diceres or Illud non diceres to answer your question. Later, in ...


5

First, it's not at all clear that Proto-Indo-European used the augment (temporal or syllabic): it's found in Greek, Indo-Iranian, Armenian, and Phrygian, but not in the other languages, so most likely it was not an obligatory marker of the imperfect and aorist in PIE, if it was used at all. As for Latin, as far I know, there's no evidence it ever used an ...


5

As indicated in previous answers, reduplication comes from Proto-Indoeuropean, mainly for stative aspect and imperfective aspect verb forms. This reduplication is seen in many PIE-derived languages, as cited in the above article: Ancient Greek: λύω lúō 'I free' vs. λέλυκα léluka "I have freed" Gothic: hald "I hold" vs. haíhald (hĕhald) "I/he held" ...


5

Note: Not a direct answer, but... According to A.G. Rigg, 'Morphologoy and Syntax' in Mantello and Rigg, eds, Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide (Washington, DC, 1996), 85: In Classical Latin the past participle is sometimes (though rarely) used predicatively after habere: domitas habere libidines, "to have one's desires tamed," i....


5

Yes, it does happen. The esse and the perfect participle need not be anywhere near each other. For example, Cicero (in Verrem 2.1.16) writes: In Siciliam sum inquirendi causa profectus. The verb proficisci is deponent, but it doesn't invalidate the point. The same freedom is found with other verbs as well (Pro Caecina 84.1): …sum ex eo loco ...


5

They come from the same source, in this case. The noun benedictus is a substantive: that is, an adjective on its own, acting as a noun. This is very common in Latin, and also shows up sometimes in English, as in "the good, the bad, and the ugly". The adjective benedictus, meanwhile, is a participle: a special form of a verb that acts like an adjective. ...


5

Manu Leumann's Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre (Munich 1977) groups the contraction of -āvis- to -ās- in forms like amāstī and amāssem together with the contraction of -āver- to -ār- in forms like amāram and amāro. Leumann says that "Bei Plautus sind noch die Kurzformen seltener als die Vollformen" ("in Plautus, the short forms are still rarer than the ...


5

Both habuerō and lēgerō (not legerō, as there is no such form) are future perfect forms. A very literal translation of the end of the quote would be: Sī unquam habuerō codicēs saeculārēs, sī lēgerō, tē negāvī. If I will ever have had secular books and if I will have read them, I have denied you. That is, Jerome can only possess and read such books if he ...


5

The form sustuli appears under the entries for both tollo and suffero in Lewis and Short. However, sustinuit is a form of sustineo, and not of suffero (contrary to what the link you provided says). Since Lewis and Short is more authoritative, I believe the site that you linked to should be considered incorrect. My take on this is that Cicero's usage was ...


4

This is essentially a partial answer, but you're asking two questions so maybe someone else can provide the other half. I can only reply to your first question: It seems to be exceedingly rare, if it occurs at all. The only other possible occurrence I could think of, and I wouldn't have thought about it if you hadn't mentioned ăgo > ēgi, is ĕmere > ēmi. ...


4

I believe they are very rare, but it is possible to find some others. I have found vixet in the Aeneid: [Publius Vergilius Maro, Aeneis 11.118] apparat, his mecum decuit concurrere telis: uixet cui uitam deus aut sua dextra dedisset. nunc ite et miseris supponite ciuibus ignem.' On which comments Maurus Servius Honoratus, a late fourth-century ...


4

After talking to another classicist, I can offer some thoughts, though sadly without definitive sources. It seems unlikely that the two are related, for various reasons: Contracted perfects are extremely rare with the syncopated ending: amārunt and amāvere are both possible for the third person plural perfect, but *amāre generally isn't. Historically, the ...


4

Pinkster in the Oxford Latin Syntax (pp. 492ff.) discusses this question, but finds no clear answer. He considers three explanations: (a) there is a difference in meaning, specifically a difference of aspect; (b) the perfect subjunctive in potential clauses is a Graecism due largely to Cicero; (c) there is a pragmatic difference in that perfect subjunctive ...


4

Good question! In Proto-Indo-European, there were multiple complete sets of person-number markings, used for different tenses of the same verb. You can see the relics of this most clearly in Ancient Greek, where the present tense conjugates -ō -eis -ei, the aorist tense conjugates -a -as -en, and the imperfect tense conjugates -on -es -en. In Latin, one ...


4

Sufferō is an interesting case. Ferō "bear" on its own is quite a common verb. For whatever reason, its perfect forms fell out of use, and it stole perfect forms from tollō "lift"; this is a not uncommon process, and is how we got present "go" with past "went" (stolen from "wend") in English. The perfect ...


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