3

It seems like there are several verbs that have both deponent and non-deponent forms and they coincidentally are defective. So, for example, there is patio which has a deponent patior meaning the same thing, and imito also having the identical deponent imitor. Both patio and imito are defective in that they have no perfect tenses. Another example is runco / runcor.

So, what is the pattern here? Why do the words patio and imito even exist? If there are full-fledged deponents that mean the same thing and have perfect forms (patior, passus sum), why are we even bothering to have a defective form like patio? In fact, why is it defective?

Tyler Durden
  • 6,790
  • 11
  • 31
  • 3
    Your question "Why are we even bothering" makes no sense. Patio exists because Latin writers used it. Lewis & Short say "act. archaic collat. form patiunto, Cic. Leg. 3, 4,11: patias, Naev. ap. Diom. p. 395 P." which I take to mean that the active form was used in those instances. Its defectiveness may simply mean that it doesn't happen to have been used in a past tense in the instances that survive. As to why it might have been used: deponents are odd things, and it is conceivable that some speakers got confused. – Colin Fine Aug 25 '22 at 22:44
  • 2
    “Why even bother.” I have thought the same thing many times. At lower levels language is rules and exceptions to rules. Sometimes you, sadly, just have to memorize the forms and get used to them. If it’s any consolation, it’s just as bad, maybe even worse in other ancient languages. There’s none of us who hasn’t been where you are. – Epimanes Oct 18 '23 at 13:56

0 Answers0