Where did Latin's passive voice (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fero#Latin) originate from? Looking at Proto-Celtic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Celt ... uage#Verbs), it looks like this form was common to Proto-Italic-Celtic.
Could this suffix originally have been "-s-" (from the same source as "sum/esse"), which was then rhotacized into "-r-" (with the final vowel later dropping)?
Origin of Latin's Passive Voice
Re: Origin of Latin's Passive Voice
It's not just Proto-Italic or Proto-Celtic; the form comes from the PIE mediopassive, and cognate forms have been attested in the Italic, Celtic, Anatolian, Tocharian, Greek, Indo-Iranian, Germanic, and Albanian branches. The original endings were something like *-h2er, *-th2er, *-(t)or, *-medhh2, *-dhue, *-ro/-ntor (primary) and *-h2e, *-th2e, *-(t)o, *-meddh2, *-dhue, *-ro/-nto (secondary).
http://www.veche.net/
http://www.veche.net/novegradian - Grammar of Novegradian
http://www.veche.net/alashian - Grammar of Alashian
http://www.veche.net/novegradian - Grammar of Novegradian
http://www.veche.net/alashian - Grammar of Alashian
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: Origin of Latin's Passive Voice
Huh. So you don't believe in the -y mediopassive form in the central dialects (Greek, II, Albanian, Germanic)?Mecislau wrote:It's not just Proto-Italic or Proto-Celtic; the form comes from the PIE mediopassive, and cognate forms have been attested in the Italic, Celtic, Anatolian, Tocharian, Greek, Indo-Iranian, Germanic, and Albanian branches. The original endings were something like *-h2er, *-th2er, *-(t)or, *-medhh2, *-dhue, *-ro/-ntor (primary) and *-h2e, *-th2e, *-(t)o, *-meddh2, *-dhue, *-ro/-nto (secondary).
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Re: Origin of Latin's Passive Voice
Less that and more "I didn't really want to delve into that mess" since it's not directly relevant to the question at hand. I have no idea where current opinion tends to side on which endings were original and where the non-original set must have come from.Salmoneus wrote:Huh. So you don't believe in the -y mediopassive form in the central dialects (Greek, II, Albanian, Germanic)?
http://www.veche.net/
http://www.veche.net/novegradian - Grammar of Novegradian
http://www.veche.net/alashian - Grammar of Alashian
http://www.veche.net/novegradian - Grammar of Novegradian
http://www.veche.net/alashian - Grammar of Alashian
Re: Origin of Latin's Passive Voice
You mean the -y in endings like Greek -mai / -toi? But that's clearly the same "primary" ending *-i as in the active forms and, as such, not part of the original active - mediopassive contrast. Or do you mean something else?Salmoneus wrote:Huh. So you don't believe in the -y mediopassive form in the central dialects (Greek, II, Albanian, Germanic)?
- Salmoneus
- Sanno
- Posts: 3197
- Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: One of the dark places of the world
Re: Origin of Latin's Passive Voice
It's relevent because they (apparently) used the same 'primary' ending in both active and mediopassive - rather than, as in the peripheral languages and as under discussion here, replacing it with -r. I wasn't saying -y mediopassives to distinguish them from the actives, but distinguish them from -r mediopassives.hwhatting wrote:You mean the -y in endings like Greek -mai / -toi? But that's clearly the same "primary" ending *-i as in the active forms and, as such, not part of the original active - mediopassive contrast. Or do you mean something else?Salmoneus wrote:Huh. So you don't believe in the -y mediopassive form in the central dialects (Greek, II, Albanian, Germanic)?
Blog: [url]http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/[/url]
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!
Re: Origin of Latin's Passive Voice
I didn't say it's "irrelevant", I just said that it's not part of the original active - mediopassive contrast. It seems clear that the primary - secondary distinction was transferred to the mediopassive at different times in different languages, and in some perhaps*1) not at all. Anatolian is a good case of having both a primary *i and r-endings in the mediopassive, with the *i being added to the r-endings, so the transfer clearly happened later. The big difference between the Graeco-Aryan-Germanic system on one side and the Italo-Celtic, Tokharian, and Anatolian systems on the other side is not the absence or presence of primary *i in the mediopassive endings, but the absence or presence of r-endings.Salmoneus wrote:It's relevent because they (apparently) used the same 'primary' ending in both active and mediopassive - rather than, as in the peripheral languages and as under discussion here, replacing it with -r. I wasn't saying -y mediopassives to distinguish them from the actives, but distinguish them from -r mediopassives.hwhatting wrote:You mean the -y in endings like Greek -mai / -toi? But that's clearly the same "primary" ending *-i as in the active forms and, as such, not part of the original active - mediopassive contrast. Or do you mean something else?Salmoneus wrote:Huh. So you don't believe in the -y mediopassive form in the central dialects (Greek, II, Albanian, Germanic)?
*1) Due to the fact that those languages who do not show primary *i in the mediopassive all have gone through various apocopes and AFAIK treat *-ri# and *-r# the same, I wouldn't venture to say that they never had forms comparable to Anatolian -ari / -tari etc.