(i.) The disuse of the distinction between the personal endings of
primary and secondary tenses, the -_t_ and -_nt_, for instance, being
used for the third person singular and plural respectively in all
tenses and moods of the active. This change was completed after the
archaic period, since we find in the oldest inscriptions -_d_
regularly used in the third person singular of past tenses, e.g.
_deded_, _feced_ in place of the later _dedit_, _fecit_; and since in
Oscan the distinction was preserved to the end, both in singular and
plural, e.g. _faamat_ (perhaps meaning "auctionatur"), but _deded_
("dedit"). It is commonly assumed from the evidence of Greek and
Sanskrit (Gr. [Greek: hesti], Sans. _asti_ beside Lat. est) that the
primary endings in Latin have lost a final -_i_, partly or wholly by
some phonetic change.
(ii.) The non-thematic conjugation is almost wholly lost, surviving
only in a few forms of very common use, _est_, "is"; _est_, "eats";
_volt_, "wills," &c.
(iii.) The complete fusion of the aorist and perfect forms, and in the
same tense the fusion of active and middle endings; thus _tutudi_,
earlier *_tutudai_, is a true middle perfect; _dixi_ is an _s_ aorist
with the same ending attached; _dixit_ is an aorist active;
_tutudisti_ is a conflation of perfect and aorist with a middle
personal ending.
(iv.) The development of perfects in -_ui_ and -_vi_, derived partly
from true perfects of roots ending in _v_ or _u_, e.g. _movi rui_.
For the origin of _monui_ see Exon, _Hermathena_ (1901), xi. 396 sq.
(v.) The complete fusion of conjunctive and optative into a single
mood, the subjunctive; _regam_, &c., are conjunctive forms, whereas
_rexerim_, _rexissem_ are certainly and _regerem_ most probably
optative; the origin of _amem_ and the like is still doubtful.
Notice, however, that true conjunctive forms were often used as
futures, _reges_, _reget_, &c., and also the simple thematic
conjunctive in forms like _ero_, _rexero_, &c.
(vi.) The development of the future in -_bo_ and imperfect in -_bam_
by compounding some form of the verb, possibly the Present Participle
with forms from the root of _fui_, *_amans-fuo_ becoming _amabo_,
*_amans-fuam_ becoming _amabam_ at a very early period of Latin; see
F. Skutsch, _Atti d. Congresso Storico Intern._ (1903), vol. ii. p.
191.
(vii.) We have already noticed the rise of the passive in -_r_ (§ 5
(d)). Observe, however, that several middle forms have been pressed
into the service, partly because the -_r_- in them which had come from
-_s_- seemed to give them a passive colour (_legere_ = Gr. [Greek:
lege(s)o], Attic [Greek: legou]). The interesting forms in -_mini_ are
a confusion of two distinct inflexions, namely, an old infinitive in
-_menai_, used for the imperative, and the participial -_menoi_,
masculine, -_menai_, feminine, used with the verb "to be" in place of
the ordinary inflexions. Since these forms had all come to have the
same shape, through phonetic change, their meanings were fused; the
imperative forms being restricted to the plural, and the participial
forms being restricted to the second person.
31. _Past Participle Passive._--Next should be mentioned the great
development in the use of the participle in -_tos_ (_factus_, _fusus_,
&c.). This participle was taken with _sum_ to form the perfect tenses
of the passive, in which, thanks partly to the fusion of perfect and
aorist active, a past aorist sense was also evolved. This reacted on
the participle itself giving it a prevailingly past colour, but its
originally timeless use survives in many places, e.g. in the
participle _ratus_, which has as a rule no past sense, and more
definitely still in such passages as Vergil, _Georg._ i. 206
(_vectis_), _Aen._ vi. 22 (_ductis_), both of which passages demand a
present sense. It is to be noticed also that in the earliest Latin, as
in Greek and Sanskrit, the _passive_ meaning, though the commonest, is
not universal. Many traces of this survive in classical Latin, of
which the chief are
1. The active meaning of deponent participles, in spite of the fact
that some of them (e.g. _adeptus_, _emensus_, _expertus_) have also
a passive sense, and
2. The familiar use of these participles by the Augustan poets with
an accusative attached (_galeam indutus_, _traiectus lora_). Here no
doubt the use of the Greek middle influenced the Latin poets, but no
doubt they thought also that they were reviving an old Latin idiom.
32. _Future Participle._--Finally may be mentioned together (a) the
development of the future participle active (in -_urus_, never so
freely used as the other participles, being rare in the ablative
absolute even in Tacitus) from an old infinitive in -_urum_ ("scio
inimicos meos hoc dicturum," C. Gracchus (and others) _apud_ Gell. 1.
7, and Priscian ix. 864 (p. 475 Keil), which arose from combining the
dative or locative of the verbal noun in -_tu_ with an old infinitive
_esom_ "esse" which survives in Oscan, *_dictu esom_ becoming
_dicturum_. This was discovered by J. P. Postgate (_Class. Review_, v.
301, and _Idg. Forschungen_ iv. 252). (b) From the same infinitival
accusative with the post-position -_do_, meaning "to," "for," "in"
(cf. _quando_ for *_quam-do_, and Eng. _to_, Germ, _zu_) was formed
the so-called gerund _agen-do_, "for doing," "in doing," which was
taken for a Case, and so gave rise to the accusative and genitive in
-_dum_ and -_di_. The form in -do still lives in Italian as an
indeclinable present participle. The modal and purposive meanings of
-_do_ appear in the uses of the gerund.
The authorities giving a fuller account of Latin morphology are the
same as those cited in § 28 above, save that the reader must consult
the second volume of Brugmann's _Grundriss_, which in the English
translation (by Conway and Rouse, Strassburg, 1890-1896) is divided
into volumes ii, iii. and iv.; and that Niedermann does not deal with
morphology.