No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Latin Imperative in -mino
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
In Plautus and elsewhere in old Latin there is an imperative suffix -mino of medio-deponential meaning: opperimino, PL True. 188 (Ambr.), progredimino, id. Pseud. 859, arbitramino, id. Epid. 695, praefamino, Cato, RR. 141, 2, famino Paul. Fest. 62, 10, Th., all 2 sg.; in legal documents, antestamino (si in ius uocat, ni it, antestamino, igitur em capito), in the XII Tables, fruimino (is eum agrum habeto niue fruimino), CIL. 1, 199, profitemino in Lex Iulia Municipalis, all 3 sg. The generally accepted explanation of the form is that it arose from a contamination of the ordinary 2 pl. medio-passive imperative in -mini and the 2, 3 sg. forms in -to, Lindsay, Latin Language, p. 517, Von Planta, Gramm. d. oskisch-umbr. Dial. II, pp. 310 sqq., Buck, Elementarb. d. oskisch-umbr. Dial. p. 112, Sommer, Hdb. d. lat. Laut- u. Formenlehre, p. 366, Stolz, Lat. Gramm*. p. 158. The Oskan and the Umbrian forms in -mo, -mu, U. spahamu, eturstahmu, persnimu, O. censamur, all of 2 or 3 sg., and U. arsmahamo, caterahamo of 2 or 3 pi., are identified with the Lat. -minō forms on the assumption that the Osk-Umbr. -mu represents an older *-mnō which in turn arose by syncope from -*menō Von Planta, l.c. This explanation is the most satisfactory that has been given, and we may suppose that Latin, Oskan, and Umbrian had an imperative form in *-menō.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Classical Association 1911
References
page 123 note 1 So Apuleius Metam. 1, 22.
page 123 note 2 Unless in Paul. Fest. ‘ famino“ dicito is 3 sg
page 123 note 3 We may add legitor uei Ugimino, Diom. 1, 356, 27, denuntiamino in the Acts of the Arval Brethren.
page 123 note 4 See also Giles, Manua 2, p. 468
page 123 note 5 The theory that Osk-Umbr. -mu, -mo is a participial form corresponding to Lith. -mas like the explanation of Lat. imper. -mini as equivalent to Gk. 
, has to account for the use of a participle as an imperative.
page 125 note 1 From this stem, and not from *so-, comes Gk. 
The spiritus asper is due to the relative us 
page 125 note 2 If it were not that in Skt. the imperat. in -tad appears to be commoner as 2 sg. than as 3, I should be inclined to explain e.g. bhavatad as *bheuet-od, that is the 3 sg. injunctive with -od; Lat. regito < *reget-od, etc. This would have the advantage of allowing the 3 pl. form e.g. regunto < *regont-od to be explained as an original and not an analogical formation. But whether *tod or *-od was the suffix, analogical extension must have taken place in the sg., unless both suffixes were used, *-tod with the 2 sg. imperat. ending in a vowel, and *-od with the 3 sg. injunct. ending in a consonant. It may be noticed that in Skt. ad is very common while tad is not.
page 125 note 3 A suffixless loc. of an -n stem may be e. g Umbr. ferine < *feren-en.