501 Latin Verbs dicit Splendeo declinet ut faveo.
faveo, favere, favi, fautum
sed alii texta tradunt:
splendeo, splendere, splendui, splenditum
Vide http://www.allverbs.com/cache/verbtables/9/s/splendeo.shtml.
_Whitakker’s Word_s participium perfectum non tradit.
Erretne 501 Latin Verbs?
splendeo is intransitive, there is no passive form. If someone wishes to take the time and dig up the one or two places where it might be found in the passive, be my guest.
It’s conjugated like habeo.
EDIT: That sounded harsh. I’m probably at wit’s end twenty to midnight at the office, categorizing textual variants in Macrobius, haha.
Actually timeodanaos
The question of a passive form is subsidiary…my main question was why does 501 Latin verbs suggest
faveo, favere, favi, fautum
as a model for the principal parts of splendeo, splendere
when the two are so clearly different.
I’ll take your word that there is seldom a passive form…but is the concept of being made splendid (glorified) so completely counter-intuitive?
Because the author is at fault, I would guess! I wouldn’t worry too much about that. I don’t know the book either, but it’s probably just a cheap piece of work.
It’s not that the concept of making something shine is alien to the Romans - but denominatives in -eo are most often intransitive. L&S mentions the verb splendido, -dare, meaning “make smth. shine”
They are not clearly different so timeodanaos was right to suppose you were referring to the lack of the past participle spenditum with splendeo. The associated adjective for splendeo is splendidum—splendidum factum for ‘made splendid’. You may imagine, pmda, that splendui and favi are different because favi looks like first conjugation past perfect but it isn’t,—it’s just that “v” = “u”.
Non exstat discimen partium inter verba dicta separatim jactura participii praeteriti perfecti spendere verbi (adjectivum purum est splendidum per splendidum factum). Quâ ratione, rectè dixit timeodanaos. Suspicor ut ita perperàm credas: “favi” praeteritum perfectum primae declinationis signum [sic]. Eadem autem littera “u” et “v”.
Salve, timeodanaos. Eodem vero tempore scripsimus.
Gratias vobis ago.
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? I’m not asking you to defend anything - I’m just tired of conjugations and especially their categorizations.
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?
Perhaps not. I would never tell anyone that the perfect forms of velle and volvere are the same, even though they are both written the same in historically accurate orthographies: VOLVI/uolui. The fact that the V in one is a consonant and in the other it is a vowel is not easily apparent.
I think it is interesting,—and the doubt about it expressed in the Oxford Latin Dictionary: “intr. [Dub.] CONST.”
Est quidem curae, non minùs dubium in OLD supra citatum.
I just searched THI (I know it isn’t complete, but it takes time to log onto LLT at Brepolis), and the only actual example of faveo used in the past ptc. was from the Historia Augusta, Pescennius Niger 2.1:
huic ob detestationem Iuliani primis imperii diebus ita Romae fautum est, a senatoribus dum taxat, qui et Severum oderant … - and there it’s used impersonally.
I would look at the OLD and the TLL, but it would force me to stand up and walk to the other end of the library.
In Richerus as well, also used impersonally.
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.
Not that he counts.
Significant that you have fauturum in Cicero? “me tamen ei fauturum”.
Nonnè momenti est fauturum apud Ciceronem inveni?
fauturus is interesting - now, not to sound too pedantisch, I have just bought a recent book about deverbatives (in which participles are (prudently) grouped along other deverbatives, with the promise to take a look at the semantic side of word formation too. Maybe there’s something even MORE interesting to be found.
There’s of course the noun fautor and even fautrix, but I don’t think they are as significant as a morpheme that expresses passive.