--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wordingham" <richard@...>
wrote:
> If you were to look 'quatio' up at
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-
> bin/resolveform?lang=la (a site Piotr commended to owners of bad
> Latin dictionaries long ago), you'd find it was used by Ovid,
> Horace, Vergil and Catullus, and others. For myself, I was happy
> enough to find it in my pocket Latin dictionary (published by
> Collins).
>
> Richard.
******
Did that, and found a anomaly I hope some can explain:
quãtio , no perf., quassum, 3, v. a. [Sanscr. root, cyu-,
to
move, set in motion; cf. Gr. skeuos, instrument; skeuazô, to
prepare] , to shake (class.; syn.: concutio, convello).
Why no perfect? "Shook" I'd think appears in English texts at
about the same frequency as "shake".
In my Allen & Greenough's Latin Grammar list "most simple verbs
of the 3rd conj." (150 or so), the only one with the perfect in ()
is "quatio, (-cussi), quass-", which I take it means the perfect is
only found in compound forms (e.g. "percutio, percussi").
There are nine verbs. ("claudo' limp, "fulgo" flash, etc.) that
have neither a perfect nor a supine, but that's another matter.
Dan