Regarding verbs with “-sc-”: I’ve seen in several places that the meaning is intended that the action is just being set out upon when such a verb is used, but the only ones I know offhand that I can see as being such are “profiscisci” and “(cog)noscere”, in that getting to know something is the beginning of knowing it. Off the top of my head: adipisci, delitiscere, adsciscere, ulcisci… that’s not very many but they don’t seem to be inchoative. The “-sc-” is dropped in the perfect/supine forms: is this because the fact of having completed something begun is regarded as more important than just beginning it? Basically, is there a connotation to inchoative verbs that I ought to be keeping in mind?
Here are a few more from Wikipedia:
The Latin language uses the infix -sc- to show inchoative force. The infix is normally seen in the present tense stem, and is not present in the third and fourth principal parts.
apiscor, apiscī, aptus sum reach
crescō, crescere, crēvī, crētus come into being, grow up
convalescō, convalescere, convaluī recover, grow strong
discō, discere, didicī learn
īrascor, īrascī, īrātus sum be in a rage
lapidescō, lapidescere become stone
nanciscor, nanciscī, nactus/nanctus sum get
nascor, nasci, natus sum to be begotten, to be generated, to be born, as nascent life
noscō, noscere, nōvī, nōtus get to know
obdormiscō, obdormiscere, obdormīvī, obdormītus sum fall asleep
poscō, poscere, poposcī demand
proficiscor, proficiscī, profectus sum set out
rubescō, rubescere, rubuī to grow red, redden
Not to mention Wiktionary, which lists 232 of them.
Hope someone qualified to answer your question responds. (I’m sure they will!)
Vale!
Int
Right, some of the verbs so formed don’t seem to carry any “inchoative” sense at all. But many clearly do, and even in verbs where the force of the infix is not immediately obvious, I’m not sure it ever quite disappears. It’s interesting morphologically, from the point of view of historical linguistics. The formation is shared by Greek. There you have not only inchoative presents as in Latin (γίγνωσκω ~ gnosco for example) but also past-tense formations in –σκ- with “iterative” force, coexisting with regular non-iterative forms, e.g. (ἐ)φευγε he was fleeing vs. φεύγεσκε he was repeatedly fleeing (Homeric: it’s archaic). In Latin you can discern its force readily enough in most of the verbs listed in Interaxus’ post. irasci, for instance, to get angry, to (start to) get into a rage (rather than “to be in a rage” as translated), etc. etc. So it’s more than a semantically void relic (though in principle it could be), and should serve to give you some insight into these verbs’ meaning, at least into their original or “proper” meaning. “Inchoative” is an ugly term and perhaps not an entirely accurate one, since these forms tend to cover more than just the beginning of a process. It might help to recognize that. Anyway, you’re quite right to recognize that the infix has no place in the perfect, since by then the process is complete. (iratus sum vs. irascor e.g. — or delitui vs. delitisco.)
Very interesting. Thanks.