Re: [tied] Meaning of Optative, Subjunctive; *-si in infinitives an

>Sihler says that the Latin infinitives in -ere (e.g. legere) are regularly
>derived from
>a form that ended with *-esi (*legesi), that the change of *-i to -e is
>regular,
>as is the rhotacism of *s. But earlier in his work he says that the Latin
>2nd sing.
>present active ending of these verbs, -is (e.g. legis) is from *-si
>(*legesi) with
>loss of the *-i. Why does *legesi become legere in one instance, and legis
>in another?

Check what Sihler says about the Greek forms on section 425. The same sort
of thing applies to Latin. The -s would survive in (a) athematic forms (of
which there are quite a bunch in Latin, including, for example, es < ess <
*essi) and (b) past tense and subjunctive forms (the "secondary" forms)
which had final -s not -si. The survival of -s here means that -s survives
or is re-inserted in the present.

>Is there another explanation for the origin of Latin -ere?

No. Teh traditional explanation seems undeniable.

>One more question I forgot to mention in the "subject" line is, what is the
>meaning of the term "supine"? How is it any different from the infinitive?

The supine is a verbal noun, a survival of old -to- stems from PIE. It is
the form which is quoted in dictionaries etc for the fourth stem of the verb
in Latin, from which the passive past participle comes. It has a very
restricted range of uses:
(a) in the accusative (therefore ending -um) it indicates purpose after a
verb of motion.
Ovid Ars Amatoria: spectatum veniunt, veniunt spectentur ut
ipsae.
They come to see: they come to be seen.
(b) in the ablative, usually with adjectives:
facile dictu: easy to say
mirabile visu: wonderful to see

Peter