Hello,
Does anyone have an idea where the first of these two forms, rettuli, comes from? I think rettuli is quite strange, and the extra t between the prepositional re- and the perfect stem tuli- is a bit weird. The fact is that a dictionary actually says that rettuli is the normal form, and can also be written as retuli!
Greetings,
GJC
“Red-” is another form of “re-”, usually used before vowels (and sometimes dentals), as in “redimere”, “redire”, or “reddere”. “Ret-” is just assimilation to the unvoiced T in “tuli”. Ed: I’m not sure why the “red” form is used here. I guses syllable stress plays a role? (I should have thought your question through more thoroughly before posting: it seemed like a simple question about the existence of “red-” before I realized what you were asking. Sorry!) Ed2: I looked at a dictionary and it seems that “red-d” is used only when it’s stressed, and it’s always “re-d” when it’s not. I’m not claiming a hard and fast rule; it’s just what I’ve observed.
I don’t think we have to explain it with “red-”. Rather, as I once got it explained to me, the perfect stem was originally duplicated: tetuli (cf. cecini, pepigi, etc.). The first syllable is completely lost in the plain verb (fero tuli), but a vestige remains in rettuli.
Good, but that doesn’t explain early Latin’s perfect passive spelling rellatum, sometimes metrically guaranteed (e.g. Lucr. 2.1001). Is that by some kind of analogical extension, or metri gratia lengthening of “l” (cf. Gk. epic ἔλλαβεν = ἔλαβεν), or what?