--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
<fortuna11111@...> wrote:
> Is there any explanation or views on why English verbs
> of Latin origin tend to go after the perfect forms in
> Latin?
> I have just been watching this phenomenon with
> interest.
Actually, they are formed on the supine / past participle, not the
perfect. The chief exception is Latin verbs in -izare (itself
derived from Greek -izein); they end in -ise or -ize according to
taste.
> I also wondered if there would be any implications for
> the semantics of two verbs like refer and relate that
> seem to be derived of the same verb referre in Latin,
> yet from the present and perfect form respectively.
> Would there be a plausible semantic or other reason
> why two verbs would emerge from different forms of the
> same verb?
Latin formed a frequentative from the supine by replacing the -um by -
are, e.g. cantare from cano, canere, cecini, cantum 'sing'. Verbs
in -are get, by this rule, a derivative form of very similar meaning
in -atare, whence the common english verbal ending in -ate.
When borrowing words directly from Latin, extracting the supine stem
give a verb form where one does not have to worry about softening 'c'
and 'g', or what to do with final vowels, and a transparent (in
spelling, anyway) relationship between the verb and verbal noun.
On the other hand, if a verb was borrowed from Old French, the
present stem would usually be the source form. Refashioning after
Latin could then happen later.
The only likely pattern when doublets occur is that the form based on
the supine is more abstract; this is simply the difference between a
popular loan and a learned loan. Thus 'transfer' usually involves
physical movement; 'translate' usually means conversion from one
language to another. However, mathematicians may use 'translate' to
refer to movement without rotation, and I do recall reference to
bishops being translated, i.e. moved from one see to another.
Richard.