[tied] Re: Nature, virtus etc. (was: Why borrow 'seven'?)

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Joao" <josimo70@...> wrote:

> The infix -sk- is not added in participles.
> So,
> gnoscere, gnotus
> nascere, natus
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: alex
> To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 5:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [tied] Re: Nature, virtus etc. (was: Why

borrow 'seven'?)

>
>
> Richard Wordingham wrote:
> >
> > Whoops! You're right, I meant *g^enh1 :)
> >
> > But Latin _na:tu:ra:lis_ and _na:ti:vus_ are readily analysed,

even

> > when Anglicised, as na:t(o)-u:r(a:)-a:li-s and na:t-i:vu-s.

The

> > suffixes -u:ra (> English -ure) and -i:vus (> English -ive)

are very

> > common additions to the past participle (or should I say

supine?).

> > _na:tus_ 'born' is the past participle of _na:scor_ 'be born'.
>
>
> strange participle , isn't it? it appears as a reduction

of "*nascotus" or

> how is to explain the "nat-" from "nasco-"?
> and if a reduction, then why should be a such big cluster

reducced ?

> na-sko-tus > na-tus ?
> I think at other verbs as "pasceo" which does not have a

participle as

> "*patus" so the reduction appears unlike here..
> Alex

************
According to my trusty Allen & Greenough's Latin Grammar:
"Inceptives or inchoatives add -sco to the present tense of
verbs. They denote the beginning of an action. Of some there is no
simple verb in existence. ... Inceptives properly have only the
present stem, but many use the perfect and supine of simple verbs."
Dan Milton