According to Lewis&Short's lemma for "orior":
ŏrĭor, ortus,
fut. part. oriturus, 4 (but with some forms of the 3d conj.: orĭtur, Enn. ap. Fest. p. 305 Müll.; Gell. 4, 17, 14; cf. Cic. Ac. 2, 28, 89; Ter. Hec. 2, 1, 26; Lucr. 3, 272; Verg. A. 2, 411; 680; Hor. S. 1, 5, 39; Ov. M. 1, 774 et saep.: oreris, id. ib. 10, 166; imperat. orere, Val. Max. 4, 7, 7: impf. subj. oreretur, Paul. Nol. Carm. 15, 59; and oreretur and orerentur are the more usual forms in the best MSS.; cf. Haase in Reisig's Vorles. p. 251; Neue, Formenl. 2, p. 418 sq.), v. dep. root or.; Sanscr. ar-; Gr. ὄρνυμι, ὀρίνω; v. Curt. Gr. Etym. 348 sq..
So this verb is declined like the 4th conjugation:
orior
oriris/ -re
oritur
orimur
orimini
oriuntur
And like the 3d conjugation:
orior
oreris/-re
oritur
orimur
orimini
oriuntur
The same with the imperative:
orire - orimini (4th)
orere - orimini (3d)
And the same with the imperfect subjunctive:
orirer orerer
orireris/-re orereris/-re
oriretur oreretur
oriremur oreremur
oriremini oreremini
orirentur orerentur
Even though types of the 3d conjugation are commoner. I am right? Do I miss something...?
orior...?
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 722
- Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
- Location: Chicago, IL
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 276
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:51 pm
- Location: Greece