# fugaces



## Dogmatix

Hi,

In "eheu fugaces labuntur anni" is "fugaces" derived from "fugere", which means "to flee"? If so, could someone explain the "aces" suffix to me please? Is it commonly used in Latin to form participles?

Thanks!


----------



## Scholiast

saluete Dogmatix et amici!


Dogmatix said:


> is "fugaces" derived from "fugere"...?


Yes. There is a whole class of (3rd-declension) adjectives formed from both verbal and nominal stems (including _fugax_), such as _audax_, _capax_, _furax_, _loquax_, _mendax_, _tenax_. But despite appearances these are not participles, they are straightforward adjectives. The stem in each of these is -_ac-_, and appears therefore in all the declined cases—in modern Italian, this resolves to _-ace_ in the singular, in English to -_acious_, hence e.g. 'audacious' (daring), 'mendacious' (deceitful), 'loquacious' (chattery), 'tenacious' (persistent) and so forth.*

In Horace's famous line here under discussion, _fugaces_ is the nominative plural form, to agree with _anni_.

The 'x' arises from the combination of the _-ac- _stem and the nominative singular termination 's', rather like nouns such as _pax_, _pac-is_, _lux_, _luc-is, vox_, _voc_-_is_.

Σ

*Edited afterthought: there are also adjectives such as _atrox_, _ferox_, which behave the same way.


----------



## Dogmatix

Thank you so much, scholiast! Could you refer me to a book that describes the _-ac-_ suffix?

P.S. I don't know if "to refer someone to a book" is idiomatic English. My English isn't that great.


----------



## Scholiast

Sorry, Dogmatix, I cannot at present offer you a precise reference. But I hope and intend to be at my local University Library tomorrow, and I'll do my best.

Σ


----------



## Snodv

If I may be so bold:  my faithful 1895 _Latin Grammar_ by Gildersleeve and Lodge (my reprint is 1963) lists _audax_ and others in Sections 80 and 81, identifying them as "K mutes," that is, adjectives having the voiceless stem that Latin spells with _-c_ in the oblique cases.  And of course when we add the nominative ending _-s_, as the learned Scholiast notes, _*audacs_ is respelled as _audax_.  Some come from verbs, and some do not:  _felix, ferox, duplex, _and_ trux_ seem not to.


----------



## A User

Aggiungo alle considerazioni precedenti: i Latini/romani non avrebbero mai potuto scrivere "audacs" al posto di "audax". Nel latino antico il segno "c" ha il suono della "g", ed è il corrispondente della "γ"greca.
A, b, c in latino; α, β, γ(gamma) in greco.
Il parlare precede la scrittura, e il suono "ks" è ben rappresentato dalla lettera "x".
Nel passaggio dal nominativo ai casi obliqui il suono "ks" si spezza, e il suono di "_audages_" è prossimo a quello di "_audaces_".
Per superare l'ambigua interpretazione vocale del segno "c", in epoca classica verrà introdotta una nuova lettera, la "G" appunto, che dalla "C" deriva, anche graficamente.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete iterum!

Thanks to Snodv and A User for these contributions. Not yet completely satisfied, but in Dessau's incomparable_ ILS_, there are specimens of _exstrucse_[_runt_] (for _extruxerunt_), 8112; _facsis_ (for _faxis_), 5035; _pincsi_ (for _pinxi_), 7759; _vicsit_ (for _vixit_), 2347, 6534; and _ucsor_ (for _uxor_), 5095. It must not be forgotten that (along with 'Y' and 'Z') 'X' was a Greek import into Latin orthography.

But I am sorry, I have not yet been able to track down a philologically authoritative explanation of the _-ac-_ (or _-ic-_, or _-oc-_) adjectival suffix. I have had to order Kühner/Gerth's 3-volume _Ausführliche Grammatik_ from a Library stack, and cannot now get to it until next week.

Σ

Edited afterthought: I also checked Gildersleeve/Lodge, in (I presume) the same imprint as Snodv was using in # 5, and which I also regard as of quasi-biblical authority, but this sheds little more light.


----------

