The Classical Latin verb has featured prominently in theoretical morphology. In particular, the notoriously unpredictable forms of the past participles that nevertheless show reliable syncretism with a semantically diverse set of deverbals challenge our notions about the relationship between form and meaning. The various treatments of this system disagree not only in their theoretical building blocks but also in their basic assumptions about what ought to be explained, which makes it difficult to properly evaluate them against one another. This paper aims to empirically motivate the prior assumptions about productivity and arbitrariness that drive these accounts. In applying insights developed for child language acquisition to a large Latin corpus, the theoretical frameworks are compared on equal footing. It becomes clear that the productive past participle forms do not line up well with the frequency-based assumptions of prior accounts and instead mirror the diachronic developments that the system underwent on its path to Romance. A new treatment is proposed to incorporate the acquisition results and to conform with diachronic outcomes. The methods developed here reveal explanatory gaps in the theories that had not previously been appreciated and emphasize the importance of quantitative evidence from a range of sources in future morphological analysis.

古典拉丁语动词在理论形态学中占有突出的地位。特别是过去分词的不可预测的形式，尽管如此，却与一组语义多样的动词表现出可靠的融合，挑战了我们关于形式和意义之间关系的观念。该系统的各种处理方法不仅在理论构建模块上存在分歧，而且在关于应该解释什么的基本假设上也存在分歧，这使得很难正确地相互评估它们。本文旨在从经验上激发关于驱动这些账户的生产力和任意性的先前假设。在将儿童语言习得的见解应用于大型拉丁文语料库时，理论框架是在平等的基础上进行比较的。很明显，生产性过去分词形式与先前描述的基于频率的假设并不一致，而是反映了该系统在浪漫之路上经历的历时发展。提出了一种新的处理方法来合并采集结果并符合历时结果。这里开发的方法揭示了以前未被认识到的理论中的解释性差距，并强调了未来形态分析中来自各种来源的定量证据的重要性。