The Dantean formulas with desiderative se have recently attracted the attention of several reputable scholars and have given occasion to a lively discussion. Nicholson in Romania, LXI (1935), 3 ff., proposed to abandon the traditional etymology Ital. sẹt<Lat. sī, and suggested Ital. sẹt < Lat. sǐt. Among those who accepted Mr. Nicholson's conclusion are: E. C. Armstrong, MLN., LI, 68; K. McKenzie, Italica, XIII, 70, who closely examined the passages of Dante, and finally Miss Lograsso, Italica, XV, 152. He was strongly opposed, on the other hand, by E. B. Place, Hisp. Rev., V, (1937), 259, to whom he replied in the same journal, VI, 250 ff., and finally by L. Spitzer, Romania, LXV (1939), 290 ff., who defended the old etymology Ital. sẹt < Lat. sī. Having read the arguments of both camps, and having arrived at the conclusion that this usage of Dantean sẹt cannot be explained either by Lat. sǐ or by s࿐t, I venture to express my opinion on the subject.