Gerundives and passive

> > > > Also, note that Lat. <secundus>, OL <sequondos>, means
> > > > '(connected with) following', hence 'second'. The sense
> > > > 'follow' is not specific to the mediopassive usage of the
> > > > root.
> > >
> > > Ernout-Meillet
> > > 'secundus, -a, -um: ancien participe de sequor avec la forme
> > > exceptionnelle en -undus, cf. oriundus, proprement "qui suit",
> > >"qui n'offre pas de résistance"'
> > >
> > The -undus participles are formally similar to gerundives, which
> > traditionally are considered passives. If Latin sequor is the
> > result of splitting in half the original paradigm of *sekW-,
> > *sekWond- would have come with that passive half.
> >
> Gerundives acquired passivity in the early history of Latin;

In the undocumented past of the history of Latin, you mean.

> <secundus> and <oriundus> show that the -ndus suffix was not
> originally passive.

'Sequor' and 'orior' are both deponent vrebs, ie verbs of passive form and active meaning, one should expect therefore also their present active participles to have the form of a present passive participle, and arguably that's exactly what a gerundive is (the jump from "who is loved" to "who should be loved" is not that far).


Torsten