What does it mean that a perfectum is irregular?

[AnonymousPPP]

What does it mean that a perfectum is irregular? Thanks

 

[Pacifica]

It means that it isn't formed in the same way as most of the perfects of its kind of verbs.

For example, most second conjugation verbs have their perfect in - ui, uisti, etc.: you have habeo, habere, habui; teneo, tenere, tenui; caleo, calere calui... and most second conjugation verbs work like this. But there are some exceptions like maneo, manere whose perfect is not manui but mansi: it is irregular.

I hope I've explained clearly enough.

 

[Matthaeus]

Also, there are four semi-deponent verbs audeo, gaudeo, fido, soleo which take a deponent perfect ausus sum, gavisus sum, fisus sum, solitus sum

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

I am quite accepting not only of weak perfects in '-ui', but alſo of ablauting aoriſt perfects, ſigmatic aoriſt perfects, and reduplicating perfects. I only get annoy'd by the ſtupid verbs whoſe perfect stems are actually their primary root forms, ſo that naſal infixes or other nonſenſical modifications were felt to be needed to diſtinguish their preſent ſtems. (Though at leaſt the Romans drew the line at muddying the waters by uſing halfarſed reduplications to form preſent ſtems the way the Greeks ſometimes did.)

 

[Imber Ranae]

I am quite accepting not only of weak perfects in '-ui', but alſo of ablauting aoriſt perfects, ſigmatic aoriſt perfects, and reduplicating perfects. I only get annoy'd by the ſtupid verbs whoſe perfect stems are actually their primary root forms, ſo that naſal infixes or other nonſenſical modifications were felt to be needed to diſtinguish their preſent ſtems. (Though at leaſt the Romans drew the line at muddying the waters by uſing halfarſed reduplications to form preſent ſtems the way the Greeks ſometimes did.)

Would you not count bibo, gigno and sisto as examples of reduplication in the present stem? Or maybe I'm not clear on what you mean by 'half-arsed reduplications'.

 

[AnonymousPPP]

I'll come back to your post when I understand them better. Is the third conjugation perfectums called irregular? Thanks

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

Ranunculus rurſum icit.

The reduplication in 'bibo' occurs in all its ſtems, and is thus probably intenſive or frequentive in origin.
The L&S entry for 'gigno' mentions 'geno' as an earlier form, which leads one to ſuspect that the reduplicating form ſtarted as an
Helenophilic imitation of 'γίγνομαι'.
'Siſto' is an intenſive/cauſative variant of 'ſto', wherewith it ſhares the reduplicating perfect 'ſteti' (probably contracted from ſomething like '*ſteſti', and ſometimes level'd to 'ſtiti')

 

[Imber Ranae]

Ranunculus rurſum icit.

The reduplication in 'bibo' occurs in all its ſtems, and is thus probably intenſive or frequentive in origin.
The L&S entry for 'gigno' mentions 'geno' as an earlier form, which leads one to ſuspect that the reduplicating form ſtarted as an
Helenophilic imitation of 'γίγνομαι'.
'Siſto' is an intenſive/cauſative variant of 'ſto', wherewith it ſhares the reduplicating perfect 'ſteti' (probably contracted from ſomething like '*ſteſti', and ſometimes level'd to 'ſtiti')

Ah, so by 'half-arsed' you mean they're reduplicated in the present stem but not in the aorist (or future) stem, like δίδωμι or γιγνώσκω. The Latin gigno still satisfies those conditions when taking into account that the Latin perfect is equivalent to the Greek aorist.

I'm less certain than you that gigno is a Graecism, though. Reduplicated present stems seem to go all the way back to Proto-Indo-European, and if anything the perfect stem of bibo was probably reanalyzed on the present stem. There's also some indication that do originally had a reduplicated present stem from the doubled consonant in its compound reddo (cf. the perfect stems of the compound verbs reppuli, repperi, rettuli, and reccidi whose base verbs have reduplicated perfects). This could show that Latin originally had more reduplicated present stem verbs that were eventually levelled away.

 

[Imber Ranae]

Maybe I should illustrate my point, since I'm not sure the explanation I gave was completely clear:

cadō, cecidī > recidō, reccidī​

ferō, tetulī* > referō, rettulī​

pariō, peperī > reperiō, repperī​

pellō, pepulī > repellō, reppulī​

​

dō, dedī > reddō, reddidī (redditum)†​

​

On the other hand recīdī, the perfect of recīdō, doesn't have a residual consonant like reccidī, perhaps suggesting that the original perfect of caedō wasn't reduplicated (or else maybe the following long vowel somehow prevented the doubling of the consonant in the compound).

Also, I'm aware that reperiō and pariō are not of the same conjugation, but I don't think the etymological connection is in doubt. Many verbs moved in between the third and fourth conjugations, e.g. morior was anciently of the fourth conjugation.


*This is the old reduplicated perfect of ferō that was replaced with just tulī in classical Latin.
†The geminate consonant in the perfect and supine stem is probably by analogy with the present stem.

 

[Abbatiſſæ Scriptor]

Hmm... Oh well, Ranunculus is smarter
... but I still think I had a good run at it, what?