• merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    That’s really interesting, thanks for the detailed answer. I never learned Latin. Instead I learned French and Spanish. So, I only know the descendants of Latin.

    Also cool how Latin has a verb for “to be angry”, etc. English has “to anger” but that’s to make someone else angry. I wonder why languages lost that form, because it seems really useful to have a single verb for those.

    • Lvxferre [he/him]@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I wonder why languages lost that form, because it seems really useful to have a single verb for those.

      I am not sure, but I think it’s due to the changes in the passive. Latin had proper passive forms for plenty verbs, and a lot of those verbs handling states were either deponent (passive-looking with active meaning; like irascor) or relied on the passive for the state (like terreo “I terrify” → terreor “I’m terrified”). Somewhere down the road the Romance languages ditched it for the sake of the analytical passive, sum + participle.

      I’m saying this because, while irascor died, the participle survived in e.g. Portuguese (Lat. iratum → Por. irado, “angered”). And it got even re-attached to a new verb (irar “to cause anger”).