14

Latin has quite a few prefixed verbs looking like -dō, -dere, -didī, -ditus (condō, abdō, reddō, trādō, ēdō, etc).

I'd previously thought these came from the verb dō, dare, dedī, datus (< *deh₃ "give", Greek δίδωμι), with regular vowel reduction. But as Asteroides pointed out to me, the etymology of these is unclear—they might instead come from *dʰeh₁ "put" (Greek τίθημι).

As Asteroides succinctly put it, "I find the etymology of Latin -dō, -dere, -didī, -ditum verbs confusing." Google confirmed that some of these verbs are thought to come from *dʰeh₁, but I'm not totally clear on how, or which ones, or if the two merged somewhere in the history of Latin, or what. (And I don't have access to de Vaan or another reputable etymological dictionary at the moment.)

Can anyone offer clarity on this?

Draconis
  • 66,625
  • 6
  • 117
  • 269
  • 2
    They did partially merge, yeah. Latin doesn't have a simplex equivalent to τίθημι (which would start with f- anyway), but in compounds it's often not possible to tell whether it's **deh₃-* or **dʰeh₁-*. Don't have it in me to write a full answer (I'd check what Weiss has to say as well), but it wouldn't be much more than this anyway. – Cairnarvon Sep 18 '21 at 01:50
  • @Cairnarvon Thanks for the reference! That's from de Vaan, I'm assuming? I'll see if I can find Weiss and write up a proper answer next week. – Draconis Sep 18 '21 at 01:53
  • Yes, that's De Vaan. – Cairnarvon Sep 18 '21 at 01:59
  • 1
    @Cairnarvon Isn't facio the simplex equivalent to τίθημι? – TKR Sep 20 '21 at 22:05
  • @TKR Arguably, though it's badly mangled. I think it's pretty universally accepted that it contains **dʰh₁* and only marginally less universally that the -k- is from an old aorist or perfect, but I'm inclined to see the form as a deverbal (hence, then, the -i- < **-ye-*, though that also just forms presents) of whatever the cognate of θῆκα (the Homeric aorist, not the noun) was at the time rather than a remodeling of that simplex itself, and that the simplex itself was subsequently lost. De Vaan doesn't discuss that possibility, though. – Cairnarvon Sep 21 '21 at 01:12
  • @Cairnarvon I'm not sure if I'm understanding correctly -- is what you're describing different from the usual theory that the -k- is from an old aorist cognate with ἔθηκα? – TKR Sep 21 '21 at 01:43
  • @TKR I agree that's where the -k- ultimately comes from, I just think it's likely facio is a deverbal derived from that aorist of the simplex, not a remodelling of the simplex itself by generalising the aorist's -k- to the other tenses for whatever reason. – Cairnarvon Sep 21 '21 at 01:50
  • @Cairnarvon Are there parallels for such a verb-to-verb derivation? It seems odd. And wouldn't you end up with fēciō? Analogical remodeling along the lines of cēpī : capiō :: fēcī :: X seems like an obvious source (and the reason would be that Italic was eliminating athematic verbs generally, and fem or whatever the reflex would be looked too weird). – TKR Sep 21 '21 at 02:08
  • de Vaan is available here: https://fr.1lib.pl/book/1253470/cbca84 – pápilió Apr 26 '22 at 11:46
  • @Cairnarvon See the Praeneste fibula, med fhefhaked Numasioi (which is a perfect, I know). – Vincent Krebs Jan 13 '23 at 00:21

0 Answers0