pmda wrote:The question of a passive form is subsidiary...when the two are so clearly different.
timeodanaos wrote:Adrianus, I didn't think about that - of course it's the same perfect morpheme. Those darn v's always trick me. But is it really pedagogical to group splendeo and faveo together considering how differently their roots are affected by the morpheme?
timeodanaos wrote:Interesting, by the way, isn't it? faveo is the same type of denominative as splendeo but has a passive ptc.; could we assume it's analogical and formed because of the more or less regular dative object?
Pro parte tamen ei fautum est, pro parte vero suppressum; ita tamen, ut et regi injuria non fieret, et operi nefario dux non consentiens pareret.
L&S wrote:Cic. Brut. 97, 331: “rescripsi ... me ei fauturum,”...Pass. impers.: “non modo non invidetur illi aetati, verum etiam favetur,” Cic. Off. 2, 13, 45; so, “favetur,” id. de Or. 2, 51, 207; Quint. 5, 7, 31: huic Romae ita fautum est, ut, etc., Spartian. Pescenn. 2.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Paul Derouda and 34 guests