Genetic Descent

[Leo A. Connolly]

Vidhyanath Rao wrote:

>> Neither can we say that _gustar_ and _piacere_ are "passive".  What activity
>> is performed, and by whom or what?  If neither the meaning nor the form is
>> passive, in what sense can one say that these verbs are?

> I am ignorant of the fine details. What are the etymological origins of
> gustar and piacere?

_piacere_ is from Latin _place:re_ 'please', which had the same syntax:
item liked nominative, person who likes it dative.  Pokorny, IEW 831,
connects this Latin _placidus_ 'smooth, calm' and to a lot of rather
semantically unlikely words in other languages.  Not being a Latin
etymologist, I can only say that the etymology seems unsatisfactory. but
I have no better suggestion.

_gustar_ comes from Latin _gusta:re_, which has many obvious cognates in
other IE languages.  However, _gusta:re_ was construed as an active verb
meaning 'take a taste of something':

	Caesar vinum    gustavit.
	NOM    wine-ACC tasted
	'Caesar tasted the wine.'

As far as I know, this usage has been lost in Spanish, with _gustar_
adopting both the syntax and meaning of Lat. _place:re_.

> I often get the impression that, as passives so often come from
> resultative/stative constructions, people consider the latter to be
> passives (in origin). I wonder if that is the case here.

I don't quite understand the question.  I don't think either comes from
a passive, and unlike _gusta:re_, _place:re_ apparently always was
stative.  But are we discussing etymology here or people's perceptions?

Leo Connolly