From: Richard Wordingham
Message: 24340
Date: 2003-07-09
----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel J. Milton"
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 1:10 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: cutulare
--- 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
<Snip>
> 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").
'Quatio' is 'semideponent'. That is, the non-perfect tenses are active in
from, but the perfect (quassus sum) is passive in form. There are a few
verbs where the perfect can be active or passive in form, e.g 'odi' or 'osus
sum' 'I hate' (= I have come to hate?).
I always found it hard to comprehend verbs with a passive form having a
direct object, but I suppose they're no worse than the English 'The dog was
given a bone.' - 'to be given (of a person)' = 'to receive'. I never did
learn how one forms the passive of a sentence that uses a deponent verb.
Richard.