Latin Reference Texts
Study Guide to Wheelock Latin
NOTE: Mirrored from a collection of resource materials from the
University of
Washington which is no longer available
online.
(This text is formatted for viewing in a monospaced font.)
Latin Textbook (Based on Wheelock's Latin)
STUDY GUIDE TO WHEELOCK LATIN
by
Dale A Grote
UNC Charlotte
[This copy FTP'd from milton.u.washington.edu, 19-Jan-93]
From FFL00DAG@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU Tue Jan 19 18:15:19 1993
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 93 21:08:32 EST
From: FFL00DAG@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU
Subject: Re: Latin Textbook
To: Thomas Dell
Thomas,
I call the guides "Study Guide to Wheelock," and have made them
available for free use to anyone who'd like use them. I think
the answer to your question, therefore, is "Yes." I sent them
up so they could get some good beta-testing. So far as I'm
conncerned they can be copied and sent anywhere.
Dale A. Grote
FFL00DAG@UNCCVM.BITNET
Department of Foreign Languages
UNC Charlotte
Charlotte, NC 28223
704-547-4242
---
12/30/92
PREFACE TO MY COLLEAGUES
Wheelock's Latin is now, and probably will be for sometime in the future, the
most widely used introductory Latin book used in American colleges and
universities. And with good reason. His exclusive emphasis on the details
of Latin grammar squares with the general expectation that students
acquire a rudimentary, independent reading ability in real Latin after only
two semesters of study. Surely Wheelock has its drawbacks and limitations,
but it is still the best text around.
A growing difficulty with the book has become apparent in recent
years, a problem that is entirely external to the text itself: students are
less and less able to understand his explanations of Latin grammar because
their grasp of English grammar is becoming more tenuous. This
obsolescence hardly comes as a surprise, since the main outlines of
Wheelock's grammar were set down in the forties and fifties, when it was
safe to assume that college students were well versed in at least the
basics of English grammar. We may lament this change, write heated letters
to school boards and state legislatures, but all this is of little help when
confronted as we are with classrooms filled with beginning Latin students
who have never learned the difference between a participle and a pronoun,
or who have never heard the word "case" in their lives.
As the years went by, I found that I was required to dedicate
unacceptable amounts of class time to discussions of elementary
grammatical concepts and to redrafting Wheelock's explanations into forms
my students could understand, leaving less time for actually confronting
Latin in the classroom. The results were predictable: it became nearly
impossible to complete the forty chapters of grammatical material in two
semesters. The third semester had to be called into the service of the
basic grammar of the language, thus reducing the reading we could do and
delaying the feeling of mastery and independence that drives students on
to read more.
Slowly, I began to compile a rather extensive body of notes and
exercises designed to teach the basic grammatical concepts to students of
Latin, as they needed them, while learning Latin from Wheelock, and to slow
down and recast Wheelock's treatment of the grammar into language which
they could understand on their own. My intention for these notes was to
get the repetitive transfer of basic information out of the classroom, so
that we could spend more class time reviewing, translating, and drilling.
These notes, therefore, represent nothing more than what I found myself
repeating year after year in front of a class. By setting them into a
written text, however, and removing it from the daily classroom agenda,
there is no doubt that I have greatly increased the productivity of class
time. Whereas I previously struggled to finish twenty chapters in a
semester, my first semester class now easily finishes twenty-seven
chapters in the first semester, with time left over for some connected
readings. In the second semester, we have time to do considerable amounts
of extended reading after the forty chapters of grammar have been
covered.
There is really nothing miraculous about this increased productivity.
In fact, it was to be expected. Previously, students, who could make
neither heads nor tails of Wheelock, relied on my in-class presentations to
explain Latin grammar to them. After the grammar was explained, they would
review their classroom notes, and begin the chapter exercises, without
ever having read Wheelock, which had been replaced by my lectures. In
essence, then, I was doing their homework for them, but I was doing it in
class, not outside of class. By removing basic grammar from the class by
putting it into a workbook, I only transferred the time spent on learning
Latin grammar outside the class, and freed up time in class for drilling and
taking specific questions.
An unexpected, and admittedly self-interested, advantage I reaped
from these printed notes was that students who tend to fall behind, or to
miss class (and fall behind), had a body of notes which they could use on
their own to catch up, and -- perhaps more importantly -- to which I could
refer them when they came knocking at my door to find out "if they'd missed
anything important in class." Previously this presented a real moral bind.
Either I spent hours reteaching the class (or classes) for them, in the
(usually vain) hope that they would reform once they had been set up on a
sure foundation, or I sent them away uninformed, knowing that things would
only get worse for them because they couldn't possibly draw the
information they needed from Wheelock by themselves. Now, I refer them to
my notes, express my willingness to answer their specific questions after
they've worked through them, and send them on their way, hoping for the
best.
Here's how I've incorporated these notes into my syllabus and
classroom routine. In the first place, going through my notes for each
chapter is entirely optional. I make no assignments from them, nor do we
use class time to go over any of the exercises they contain. Instead, I
merely assign the Practice and Review sentences of, say, Chapter 5, for the
next class period. How the students learn the material in Chapter 5 is
entirely their affair, though I do recommend they read my notes. If,
however, a student can understand Wheelock perfectly, then s/he is under
no obligation to read my presentation of the chapter. Most students do
read my notes instead of Wheelock. After reading my notes, I recommend
that they read Wheelock's chapter, which provides a compressed "review" of
what I leisurely set out in my chapter notes. For an added review and
translation exercises, I also recommend that students work through
Wheelock's Self-Help Tutorials before turning to the specified assignment.
After so much preparation, students regularly find the sentences quite
straight-forward. In class, then, after a verbal review of the important
concepts in the chapter, we work quickly through the sentences, then, in the
time remaining, we sight read either from the Sententiae Antiquae, or from
the book 38 Latin Stories designed to go along with Wheelock. My class
covers three chapters per week -- one chapter per day, since we meet MWF
for an hour and half. Classes meeting five times per week, of course, would
divide the material differently.
I would like to stress again that I don't claim to have created
anything new, revolutionary, or destined to reshape the way Latin is
taught for the next 25 years. Perhaps I do have one claim to originality,
insofar as my book combines a grammar text and workbook, but I hardly think
that's worthy of much note. I merely believe that I have put together a
study guide which will help teach Latin from Wheelock more efficiently by
making more classroom time available for direct contact with the language
itself. The text is not meant to intrude directly on classroom work. It is
for students use at night, by themselves, to prepare for classes and exams.
I myself designate the book as an optional purchase and make it available
at a nearby copy store, and at first a substantial fraction of my class
doesn't buy it. After three weeks, however, nearly all of them have a copy.
My students, at least, find the book very helpful, and frequently make
remarks about it on their course evaluations. For what it's worth, here
are their remarks from last semester.
"The book the instructor made that goes along with Wheelock's book
provided a much better understanding of Latin."
"His notebook that went along with the Wheelock book was also
immensely helpful. The explanations were thorough and easy to
understand."
"The workbook that he created to go along with the text helped a lot
in the understanding of the work."
"Dr. Grote's handbook for the class is a great teaching tool and
helped students be prepared for class."
"Grote's handbook -- especially helpful."
"He supplies a handbook written by him that helps a great deal in
learning Latin."
"Dr. Grote's book was very helpful! His explanations are elaborate
and very clear. I'd vote for publication!!" [Emphases in the original]
I'm providing you draft of my book for the usual reasons. I would
appreciate your making the text available to your students -- as I do -- at
a copy shop and calling their attention to it. Would you please take note of
their reactions, positive and negative, and send them along to me during or
at the end of the semester. I would greatly value, of course, any remarks
you would care to make about my presentations. Since I'm preparing the copy
myself, any corrigenda you spot would save me a lot of embarrassment. If
you have any questions I've left unanswered, please don't hesitate to
contact me.
Dale A. Grote
UNC Charlotte
Department of Foreign Languages
Charlotte, NC 28223
(704) 547-4242
FFL00DAG@UNCCVM.BITNET
12/30/92
CHAPTER 1
"First and Second Conjugation Verbs: Indicative,
Imperative, and Infinitive"
VERBS: THE BASICS OF CONJUGATION
Let's start simply: a verb is a word which indicates action or state of
being. Everyone ought to know that. Look at some of the different forms of
a simple verb in English, the verb "to see":
GROUP I GROUP II GROUP III
I see. I saw. I am seen.
I do see. I was seen.
I am seeing. I will be seen.
I will see. I should have been seen.
I should be seeing.
I would see.
See.
I want to see.
And so on; there are several left out. Look at the first group for now. You
can detect something interesting going on here. You have a basic form of
the verb -- "see" -- and it's undergoing changes. One kind of change is that
different words are put before it, another is the "-ing" suffix attached to
the end, and another is the addition of a suffix "-s" when you want to say
"he/she/it sees".
You can see that the verb "to see" has a basic form, which is being
modified slightly to show that the verb is being used in a different way.
This modification of a verb to show different aspects or conditions of the
action is called "conjugation" (kahn juh GAY chion), and a verb is said to
"conjugate" (KAHN juh gate) when it's modified to exhibit these different
conditions. A verb, therefore, has a basic form or set of forms, which then
conjugate in order to change the way its meaning is to be understood in a
particular context. These basic forms contain the core meaning of the
verb, but the way the action is being applied and the circumstances under
which the action is changing.
Now look at the second group -- it's really a group of one. Here you
have an entirely different form: "saw". How do you know that it's a part of
the verb "to see?" From your experience with English, of course. This form
of the verb is an entirely different stem, yet it's still just a variation of
the basic verb "to see". So a verb can change its form entirely and still be
a part of the same family of meaning. So also with the third group. "Seen"
is another stem of the basic verb "to see", and your native English sense
tells you it's merely a variation of a verb you already know: "to see".
Again, we can put all kinds of words in front to conjugate it, but with this
stem, no changes actually affect the stem itself. There's no such form as
"seening", for example.
Now let's try an experiment. Suppose you're not an English speaker
and you come across the word "saw" while you're reading something. You
don't know what it is, so you try to look it up in the dictionary just as it
is: "saw". Unless you have a very unusual dictionary you won't find it. Why
not? Because "saw" is a variation of a more basic form. In the same way,
would you expect to find an entry in a dictionary for the word "stones?" Of
course not, because "stones" is just the plural form of "stone", a form you
can easily deduce from the basic form "stone", if you know the rules of
English grammar. So before you can use a dictionary, you already have to
know something about the language. And that's entirely understandable.
How big would a dictionary have to be to list all the possible varieties of
every word in the language? Consequently, before you look up a word in a
dictionary, you must first reduce it to a form under which the dictionary
will list it, and that often takes patience and some mental effort.
Let's go back to the verb "to see". It has three different stems in its
conjugation -- "see, saw, seen" -- and to use the verb intelligently you
must know them all and you must know the rules governing their use. We call
these forms, the "principal parts" of the verb. You'll notice in English the
way these principal parts are conjugated is by piling up all kinds of words
in front of them. These words change the aspect of the action. To sum up,
to use any verb fully, you must know two things: (1) all the principal parts
of the verb, and (2) the rules governing the conjugation of English verbs.
This is also true of Latin verbs.
LATIN VERBS: THE BASICS
As you may have guessed, Latin verbs have different rules governing the
way they conjugate. For the most part -- almost exclusively -- Latin
verbs conjugate by attaching endings to the stems themselves, without all
the separate helping words put in front of the stem as in English to tell
you how to understand the action. So for a Latin verb, you must learn two
things: (1) the stems, and (2) how the stems are modified at their ends to
show different conditions under which the action is occurring. Let's look
at English again. Here is the conjugation of the verb "to see" in the
present tense.
SINGULAR PLURAL
I see we see
you see you see
he, she, it, sees they see
With the exception of the form "sees", the differences among these forms is
made by the preceding word. In this instance, the change is in the person
who is performing the action. Now look at the Latin translation for the
verb English verb "to see" with these modifications.
LATIN ENGLISH
1st video I see
2nd vides you see
3rd videt he/she/it sees
1st videmus we see
2nd videtis you see
3rd vident they see
As I told you before, Latin conjugates its verbs by attaching endings to
the root of the verb itself, and here you can see it happening. The common
feature of the verb "to see" in Latin is the stem "vide-" and to show
changes in person and number, Latin adds a suffix. These suffixes are
called the "personal endings", because they indicate the person and the
number of the conjugated form of the verb. Let's set these personal
endings out:
1st person -o = I
2nd person -s = you (singular)
3rd person -t = he, she, it
1st person -mus = we
2nd person -tis = you (plural)
3rd person -nt = they
Now try your hand at conjugating some other Latin verbs. The verb
meaning "to warn, advise" in Latin has the stem "mone-"; the verb meaning
"to be strong" in Latin has the stem "vale-"; and the verb meaning "to owe,
ought" in Latin has the stem "debe-". Translate the following into Latin.
we owe, ought debemus
they see ____________________
she advises ____________________
you (pl.) are strong ____________________
they warn ____________________
you (sg.) are strong ____________________
I owe, ought ____________________
we see ____________________
CONJUGATIONS OF LATIN VERBS
You now know the single most important characteristic of Latin nouns: they
conjugate by adding suffixes to a stem. You also now know the most common
kind of suffix: the personal endings. Next you need to know something more
about the stems. There are four groups of Latin verbs, called
"conjugations", determined by the final vowel attached to the end of the
stem. The verbs you've been working with have stems which end in "-e".
Verbs whose stems end in "-e" are called "2nd conjugation" verbs. If,
however, the stem of the verb ends in "-a" then it's called a "1st
conjugation" verb. Verbs whose stem ends in short "-e" are called "3rd
conjugation". And verbs whose stem ends in "-i" are called "4th
conjugation". Like this:
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
lauda- vale- duc- veni-
ama- vide- ag- senti-
cogita- mone- carp- audi-
The first several chapters of Wheelock are concerned only with the first
and second conjugations, so for now we'll postpone any further discussion
of the third and fourth conjugation. But for now, you need to recognize
that the principal difference between the four conjugations of Latin verbs
is in the vowel that comes between the stem and the personal endings. All
four conjugations follow the same rules for conjugating: stem (which
includes the characteristic stem vowel) + personal endings.
You have already worked with second conjugation verbs. Now let's
have a look at an example of a first conjugation verb. We'll use the verb
"to love" as the example, which has the stem "ama-". So "ama-" means "love"
but to use it in a sentence, we have to add the personal endings. The
stem of the verb is "ama-", so to conjugate it, we just add the personal
endings to it, following the same rules that apply to second conjugation
verbs. Fill in the stem and personal endings in the blanks on the following
chart but hold off filling in the conjugated forms for now.
STEM + PERSONAL ENDING = CONJUGATED FORM
1st ________ + __________ = _______________
2nd ________ + __________ = _______________
3rd ________ + __________ = _______________
1st ________ + __________ = _______________
2nd ________ + __________ = _______________
3rd ________ + __________ = _______________
Now for the conjugated forms. If you follow the rules of conjugation that
apply for second conjugation verbs, you should write the form "amao" for
the first person singular. But listen to how easily the two vowels "a" and
"o" can be simplified into a single "o" sound. Say "ao" several times quickly
and you'll see that the two sounds are made in the same place in the mouth.
Over time, Latin simplified the sound "ao" to just "o". The final written
form is "amo", not "amao". So write "amo" for "I love". Aside from this small
irregularity, however, the personal endings are attached directly to the
stem without any alteration or loss of the stem vowel. Fill in the rest of
the conjugated forms. (If you're unsure of yourself, check your work
against the paradigm on page 3 of Wheelock.)
Now conjugate another paradigm of a second conjugation verbs: "mone-"
STEM + PERSONAL ENDING = CONJUGATED FORM
1st ________ + __________ = _______________
2nd ________ + __________ = _______________
3rd ________ + __________ = _______________
1st ________ + __________ = _______________
2nd ________ + __________ = _______________
3rd ________ + __________ = _______________
THE ENGLISH PRESENT TENSES
Look at the following conjugated forms of the English verb "to see".
I see.
I am seeing.
I do see.
Each of these forms refers to present time -- and are therefore present
tenses -- but each is different. We're so accustomed to these different
present tenses in English that we can hardly explain what the different
meanings are, even though we're instantly aware that there is a distinction
being made. Try to explain the differences among "I see", "I am seeing" and "I
do see". It's difficult, but these different present tenses are essential to
the way we speak. In reality English is one of the few languages which has
these three present tenses, and it's very hard to foreign students of
English to learn how and when to use them. "I see" is called the Simple
Present tense; "I am seeing" is called the Present Progressive; and "I do
see" is called the Present Emphatic. Now try to come up with the
differences. The point of this is that Latin has only one present tense. So,
when we see "laudas", for example, it can be translated into English as "you
praise", "you do praise", or "you are praising". We have to let our native
sense of the simple present, the present progressive, and the present
emphatic tell us which to use.
THE IMPERATIVE
Another conjugated form of Latin verbs is the "imperative" mood, or the
direct command. Its name is its definition. It's how you turn a verb into a
direct command: "Look here", "Watch out", "Stop that", etc. To form the
imperative mood of any Latin verb, follow these rules:
Second Person Singular stem
Second Person Plural stem + te
Form the imperative mood of the following Latin verbs:
lauda-
singular ____________________
plural ____________________
mone-
singular ____________________
plural ____________________
THE INFINITIVE
Verb forms which specify no person -- 1st, 2nd, or 3rd -- we call "infinite"
or "infinitive", which means, literally, "without boundary". That is to say,
the form is not bounded by or limited to a certain person. Theoretically,
there are many verb forms which are "infinite", but in common usage the
word "infinitive" is generally limited to forms which are translated into
English as "to x" (where "x" is the meaning of the verb). To form the
infinitive, a "-re" suffix is added to the stem.
lauda + re = laudare (to praise)
mone + re = monere (to warn)
DICTIONARY CONVENTIONS FOR VERBS
As you can see, each verb has at least six different forms (there are many,
many more which you'll learn later), and, for obvious reasons, it would be
impossible for a dictionary to list all six of these possibilities under
separate entries. That is, you can't look up "laudant" just as it's here,
anymore than you could look up "they are saying" under "they" in an English
dictionary. You have to strip the conjugated form of the verb down to the
form under which the dictionary will give it to you. For the English "they
are saying", obviously, you would look up "say", because you know the
conventions an English dictionary uses for listing an English verb. What
are the conventions for a Latin dictionary? If you see a form like
"laudant" in a text you're reading and want to look it up, how do you do it?
What is its "dictionary" form?
The dictionary form for a Latin verb is not the stem, but the first
person singular. This means that when you want to look up "laudant" you
have to look it up under the conjugated form "laudo", not under its raw stem
"lauda-". What you have to do to look up a Latin verb, therefore, is to
imagine what the verb looks like in the first person singular and look it up
under that. There is no reason it has to be like this; Latin dictionaries
could have adopted any other of a number of different conventions for
listing verbs, but this just happens to be the way it is. A consequence of
this is that the first personal singular of a verb is considered to be the
basic form of the verb. So, I'll say, for example, "The Latin verb for "to
see" is "video", which is really saying "The Latin verb for "to see" is 'I
see.'" Again, this is just conventional, but it's how it's done. To repeat, in
order to look a verb up in the dictionary, you first have to reduce it to its
first person singular form. In the case of the conjugated form "laudant"
you would follow this process.
(1) The "-nt" suffix is the third person plural personal ending, so
you take it off; that leaves you with "lauda-".
(2) You remember that verbs conjugate by adding personal endings
to the stem, so "lauda-" is the stem. But you can't look it up
under the stem alone, because a dictionary lists verbs under
the first person singular. You must reconstruct the first
person singular to look this verb up.
(3) Next ask yourself what the conjugation of a verb like "lauda-"
is going to be, first or second conjugation? Since the final
vowel of the stem is "-a-", the verb you're looking at is a first
conjugation verb. And what does the first person singular or a
first conjugation verb look like? It's "lauda + o = laudo" (since
the "a" and the "o" contract to just "o"). So we say that
"laudant" is from "laudo", just as we might say in English "seen"
is from "to see".
(4) Now you've simplified the verb to something you can look it up
under -- "laudo" -- and the translation is "to praise".
(5) The second entry for a verb in the Latin dictionary is its
infinitive form. After "laudo", therefore, you see "laudare".
Since you know that an infinitive is the stem plus the ending
"-re", you can easily see the true stem of the verb simply by
dropping off the final "-re" infinitive ending. This confirms the
fact that the verb you're looking up is a first conjugation
verb.
(6) Now translate "laudant". With the personal ending brought back
in the translation is "they praise" (or "they are praising", or
"they do praise").
I know this may seem tedious at first, but concentrate on
internalizing each one of these steps. You'll benefit immensely when the
grammar becomes more complicated. The moral of all this is that you should
never go browsing around in the dictionary hoping to find something that
might match the word you're looking up. You must think carefully about what
you're looking for before you turn the first page of the dictionary. (You'll
hear me say this repeatedly.)
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
debeo, debere This verb has an apparently odd combinations of
meanings -- "to owe; should, must, ought" -- until we
remember that our English verb "ought" is really an
archaic past tense of the verb "to owe". As with the
English verb "ought", the Latin verb "debeo" is often
followed by an infinitive to complete its meaning: "I ought
to see" = "Debeo videre". An infinitive which completes
the meaning of another verb is called a "complementary
infinitive".
servo, servare Despite its appearance, this verb doesn't mean "to serve".
Be careful with this one.
12/31/92
CHAPTER 2
"Cases; First Declension; Agreement of Adjectives"
CASES AND INFLECTION
Consider the following sentence: "The girl saw the dog". How can
you tell that this sentence does not mean that the dog is seeing
the girl? The answer is obvious to an English speaker. "Girl"
comes before the verb, and "dog" comes after it, and this
arrangement tells us that the "girl" is performing the action of
verb, and the "dog" is receiving the action. We say that the one
who is performing the action of the verb is the "subject" of the
verb. So "girl" is the "subject" of "saw". The dog, however, is
the "object" of the verb, since it's the object of the action.
And in English, we generally show these functions -- subject and
object -- by position relative to the verb. The subject of the
verb tends to come before the verb, the object tends to come
after it.
But position isn't the only way we show which word is the
subject and object of a verb. Now consider this sentence: "Him I
like, them I despise". Obviously this sentence has an usual
arrangement for rhetorical purposes, but how can you tell who is
doing what to whom? Even though English grammar shows
grammatical relationship between words in a sentence mainly by
position, in many instances a change in the word itself provides
you additional help. The word "him", although it comes first in
the sentence, is not the subject because its form -- "him"
instead of "he" -- is not the one used to indicate that it's the
subject of the verb. We use the form "he" to show that.
Furthermore, the word "I" is the form we use when the first
person is subject of the verb. Hence, the words "he" and "I"
change their forms as their grammatical function in the sentence
changes. The change in form of a word to show grammatical
functions is called "inflection".
The English personal pronouns change quite a lot to show you how
they're being used in the sentence. Watch.
FORM FUNCTION
I subject
my possessor (it owns
something
me object (something is
being done to it)
First Person Pronoun
we subject
our possessor
us object
you subject
your possessor
you object
Second Person Pronoun
you subject
your possessor
you object
he,she,it subject
his,her,its possessor
him,her,it object
Third Person Pronoun
they subject
their possessor
them object
This inflection (change of form to show grammatical
function) in the pronouns is very useful for helping us to
understand each other -- although, as you can see, the second
person pronoun "you, etc" doesn't inflect nearly so much as the
first and third. The plural forms are even identical to the
singular forms. We can still get by.
In English, inflection is rather limited, and we rely on
position mainly to tell us what the words in the sentence are
doing to each other. The only grammatical functions that involve
a change in form for all nouns is the possessive case and the
plural forms, where we attach an "-s" to the end of the word.
(In written English we even include an apostrophe "'" mark to
help us see the difference between a pluralized noun and a noun
that's in the possessive case.) For example
SINGULAR PLURAL
apple subject apples subject
apple's possessor apples' possessor
apple object apples object
Watch how we combine position with inflection in English to make
sense to one another. As you can see, position is the principal
guide.
"These apples' [plural, possessor] cores are hard, but
apples [plural, subject] are usually soft. When you
[singular, subject] buy apples [plural, object], you
[singular, subject] should first pick up each apple
[object, singular] and bounce it [singular, object] off
the floor several times. Then check its [singular,
possessor] skin. If it [singular, subject] is bruised,
discretely put it [singular, object] back with the
other apples [plural, object], making certain that no
one [singular, subject] is watching you [singular,
object]".
Unlike English, languages which rely primarily on inflection of
words to show grammatical relationship are called "inflected"
languages. English, though it has some inflection, is not an
inflected language. Latin, however, is an inflected language,
because it relies almost entirely on changes in the words
themselves to indicate their grammatical function in a sentence.
The different grammatical functions a word can have in a
sentence is called "case". In English there are three
recognizable different cases, that is grammatical functions, a
word can have: the subjective case, the possessive case, and the
objective case. So we say there are three cases in English. In
Latin there are six difference cases. Here are the Latin cases.
(Don't try to memorize them all at once here. Just read through
the list; there will be plenty of time to firm up your
familiarity of them.)
LATIN APPROXIMATE ENGLISH EQUIVALENT
Nominative (Subjective)
Genitive (Possessive Case)
Dative (Object of words like "to" or "for")
Accusative (Objective Case)
Ablative (Adverbial Usages: "by", "with")
Vocative (Direct Address)
We'll look at the way these cases are used in Latin in the next
part of these notes, although some of them won't be difficult at
all: the nominative, genitive, and accusative cases are almost
the same as their English counterparts. The ablative, dative and
vocative will need some explanation. Before then, however, let's
look at how a Latin noun inflects to show all these different
cases.
Let's look at some English pronouns which inflect to show
the three different cases. Do you remember "they, their, them?"
The pronoun is inflecting through its different cases, but we can
definitely spot a pattern of similarity among the three forms.
There is a definite root of the word. The root (that is, the
part of the word that contains the meaning of the word) is "the-"
to which then the endings "-y", "-ir" and "-m". So we could say
that the word is inflecting by adding certain case endings to a
stem. The stem contains the core of the meaning of the word, and
the endings merely inflect or alter its grammar.
This is precisely how Latin nouns show their different
cases: they add additional letters to the end of the basic form
of the word. This basic form that does not change throughout its
inflection is called the "stem". There are, consequently, two
parts of a Latin word that you must note: the stem and the case
ending. The stem contains the meaning of the word and its gender
(masculine, feminine, or neuter). The case ending will tell you
(1) how the noun is being used in its sentence, and (2) whether
the noun is singular or plural. Let's watch a the Latin noun
"puella" (girl) as it inflects through its different cases:
SINGULAR APPROXIMATE ENGLISH TRANSLATION
NOMINATIVE puella girl
GENITIVE puellae of the girl
DATIVE puellae to/for the girl
ACCUSATIVE puellam girl
ABLATIVE puella by/with the girl
VOCATIVE puella girl
PLURAL
NOMINATIVE puellae girls
GENITIVE puellarum of the girls
DATIVE puellis to/for the girls
ACCUSATIVE puellas girls
ABLATIVE puellis by/with the girls
VOCATIVE puellae girls
The stem of the Latin word is clearly visible. It's
"puell-" to which different endings are being attached. The
endings are:
SINGULAR PLURAL
NOMINATIVE -a -ae
GENITIVE -ae -arum
DATIVE -ae -is
ACCUSATIVE -am -as
ABLATIVE -a -is
VOCATIVE -a -ae
There are many other nouns in Latin which follow this same
pattern of case endings when they inflect. This pattern of
endings is called the "first declension" (deh CLEN shion) and you
can see the strong presence of an "-a-". There are four other
declensional patterns in Latin, but a noun will belong to only
one of them. Hence we can say that "puella" is a first
declension noun. The other declensions are called, not
surprisingly, the second, third, fourth and fifth declension, and
are distinguished form one another in part by the thematic, or
characteristic, vowel that appears in its endings.
REVIEW
This is a lot of information to absorb in one sitting. Stop now
for a while, then read through this review statement before
starting on the next section of this chapter.
A language whose nouns show their grammatical function in the
sentence by changes in the noun itself, and not by position, is
called an inflected language. The different grammatical
functions a language recognizes are called cases. In English,
there are three cases. They are the subjective, the possessive,
and the objective. In Latin there are six cases. They are the
nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative and vocative
cases. A Latin noun has two parts which you must note: it has a
stem, which contains the noun's basic meaning and its gender; and
it also has a case ending which tells you the noun's case and its
number. A pattern of endings which are added to the end of a
noun to show its grammatical function is called a declension.
Each noun in Latin belongs to one declension. The declensions
are called the first, second, third, fourth and fifth
declensions.
THE FIRST DECLENSION
Let's have a look at another first declension noun: "pecuni-"
(money).
SINGULAR
STEM + CASE ENDING = INFLECTED FORM
N/V. pecuni + -a = _______________
GEN. pecuni + -ae = _______________
DAT. pecuni + -ae = _______________
ACC. pecuni + -am = _______________
ABL. pecuni + -a = _______________
PLURAL
STEM + CASE ENDING = INFLECTED FORM
N/V. pecuni + -ae = _______________
GEN. pecuni + -arum = _______________
DAT. pecuni + -is = _______________
ACC. pecuni + -as = _______________
ABL. pecuni + -is = _______________
Let's try a few more paradigms. Decline the noun "patri-"
(fatherland) and vit-" (life).
SINGULAR
patri- vit-
N/V. _______________ _______________
GEN. _______________ _______________
DAT. _______________ _______________
ACC. _______________ _______________
ABL. _______________ _______________
PLURAL
N/V. _______________ _______________
GEN. _______________ _______________
DAT. _______________ _______________
ACC. _______________ _______________
ABL. _______________ _______________
GENDER
All Latin nouns possess what is called "gender". That is, a noun
will be masculine, feminine, or neuter. Don't confuse this kind of
grammatical gender with biological gender. There is nothing
biologically feminine about nouns which are grammatically feminine,
nothing biologically masculine about nouns which are grammatically
masculine, and nothing biologically neuter about nouns which are
grammatically neuter. It's just that nouns have a feature which we
call gender by convention. And this is a feature which cannot
change in a noun. A noun may change its case or number, but a noun
will never change its gender. This is a fixed feature, and you
must be told what gender a noun is when you look it up in the
dictionary. This is important to remember, because although the
vast majority of first declensions nouns are feminine, not all of
them are. You must memorize the gender of each noun as you would
learn its meaning.
DICTIONARY CONVENTIONS FOR GENDER AND DECLENSION
The dictionary therefore must tell you many things about a noun
you're looking up -- and you must know how the dictionary tells you
what you need to know. Latin dictionaries follow the following
conventions for listing nouns.
(1) The first entry in the dictionary is the noun in the
nominative case.
(2) The second entry is the genitive singular ending. This
is essential, because many of the declensions have
identical nominative singular endings. There is no way
to be certain, therefore, to which declension a noun
belongs simply by looking at the nominative singular.
But in all declensions, the genitive singular endings are
different. The genitive singular ending of the first
declension is "-ae", that of the second declension is
"-i", that of the third is "-is", that of the fourth is
"-us", and that of the fifth is "-ei" If you know the
genitive singular of a noun you know what declension the
noun follows. Another reason you must have the genitive
singular form given to you is that the stem of the noun
is often not visible in the nominative singular.
Sometimes the stem changes slightly from the nominative
to the other forms. Again, you cannot predict what kind
of stem change will occur simply by looking at the
nominative. But you will be able to see it in the
genitive singular. (This kind of stem change never occurs
in the first declension, but it does in the second and
the third.)
(3) The last entry is the gender of the noun, which cannot be
deduced even if you know everything else about the noun.
You must be given it.
Put all this together, and typical dictionary entries for first
declension noun will look like this:
patria, -ae (f)
pecunia, -ae (f)
poeta, -ae (m)
agricola, -ae (m)
Now look up the following nouns in your dictionary and write out
the grammatical information you are given.
ENGLISH FULL ENTRY DECLENSION STEM
band _________________________ _____ __________
brother _________________________ _____ __________
care _________________________ _____ __________
city _________________________ _____ __________
day _________________________ _____ __________
dread _________________________ _____ __________
TRANSLATION OF THE CASES
What I'm going to give you now is just the bare outline of how
these cases can be translated into English. There will be plenty
of time for further refinement in the future -- and we'll have to
do some refinement -- but for the time being, these guide lines
will get you well on your way.
NOMINATIVE CASE
A noun in the nominative case is often the subject of a verb. For
example, in the English sentence "The tree fell on my car", the
"tree" is in the nominative case because it's the subject of the
verb "fell". If this were a Latin sentence, the word tree would be
in the nominative case form. The rule of thumb for now is that if
you see a noun in the nominative case, try to translate it as the
subject of the verb in its sentence.
GENITIVE CASE
This case shows that one noun belongs to another noun. The noun
which is the owner is put into the genitive case. Like this in
English: "The car's door is open". "Door" is the nominative case
because it's the thing which is open -- it's the subject of the
verb "is" -- and the door belongs to the car, so "car's" is put
into the genitive case. So for now, every time you see the
genitive case, translate the noun with the English preposition "of"
or use the genitive marker "'s". For example, if "portae" is in
the genitive case, translate it either as "the door's" or "of the
door".
DATIVE CASE
The dative case shows that a noun is indirectly affected by the
action of the sentence. Take for example, in the English sentence
"George gave the ball to the girl". George is the subject of "give"
and the thing George is giving is the "ball". So the thing most
directly affected by George's action is the ball. It's the direct
recipient of the action. But George then gave the ball to the
girl, so the girl is also being affected, but only indirectly.
Therefore, the girl is the "indirect object" of the action of the
sentence. English can also indicate the indirect object simply by
position: by putting the indirect object before the direct object.
Like this: George gave the girl the ball. In Latin, the word for
"girl" would be in the dative case, and so would have the dative
case ending of the declension to which the word "girl" belongs. So
the form would be "puellae". Again, a rough rule of thumb: when
you see the dative case, try to translate it with the prepositions
"to" or "for" and see which of the two makes the most sense.
ACCUSATIVE CASE
The noun which is directly affected by the action of a verb is put
into the accusative case. In English we call this case the "direct
object" which is a little more descriptive of its function. It's
the direct object of some action. In the example above, the "ball"
is in the accusative case because it's the direct object of
George's action of giving. In Latin, therefore, the word for ball
would have the characteristic accusative case ending attached to
its stem. The accusative case is also used after some
prepositions, but we'll look at that later.
ABLATIVE CASE
The ablative case is rather complicated. Let's just say for now
that when you see a noun in the ablative case, translate it by
using the prepositions "with" or "by". We'll study the various
meanings of the ablative case separately in later chapters.
VOCATIVE CASE
If you want to call someone or something by name to get some
attention, then you use the vocative case. "Dog, get out of the
house!" "Dog" is in the vocative case. The form of the vocative
case -- that is, the ending you attach to the stem to form the case
-- is almost always identical to the nominative form of the word.
For that reason, the nominative and vocative forms are often listed
together in a declensional pattern, instead of being given separate
listings. The vocative case is very easily distinguished from the
nominative case, though, because a noun in the vocative is always
set off from the rest of the sentence with commas and is often
preceded by in the interjection "O" -- the Latin equivalent of our
"hey": "O puellae, date poetae rosas" (Hey girls, give roses to
the poet.)
So let's put all this together into a chart you can use when you're
translating a Latin sentence. The sooner you've memorized this
guidelines, the easier it'll be for you to work through Latin
sentences:
THE CASES
Nominative the subject of a verb
Genitive use "of" or "-'s" ("-s'") for the plural
Dative use "to" or "for", or put the noun before the
direct object
Accusative the direct object of a verb or object of a
preposition
Ablative use the prepositions "with" or "for"
Vocative use the English "hey" or "Oh"
AGREEMENT OF ADJECTIVES AND NOUNS
An adjective is a word which modifies or qualifies a noun. "A red
leaf:" "leaf" is the noun and "red" is telling you something more
about it. That's pretty simple. To indicate which noun an
adjective is modify we use position in English: i.e., we put the
adjective right next to the noun.
"A red leaf with a brown stem fell off the tall tree onto the
flat ground".
There is no question about which adjectives are modifying which
nouns. No one, except perhaps a deconstructionist, would think the
author is trying to say that the ground is red or that the stem is
flat. Position makes this clear. In Latin, however, where
position is not so important, adjectives have to be put together
with their nouns differently. Instead of using position, Latin
adjectives take on some of the characteristics of the nouns they're
modifying: i.e., they undergo changes to match the noun they're
modifying.
So what properties do nouns have in a Latin sentence. Well,
they have case -- they have to have case to work in the sentence --
and they have number (singular or plural) and they have gender
(masculine, feminine, or neuter). Remember this about gender: a
noun can change its number and case, but it can only have one
gender; it cannot change its gender. So each noun has number,
gender, and case. An adjective has to be able to acquire the
number, gender, and case of the noun it's modifying. So how does
it do that? It does it by declining. And in this respect it
resembles a noun: nouns decline to get different numbers and cases;
so do adjectives. But there is an important difference. Latin
nouns are either masculine, feminine or neuter, and they can never
change their gender. The noun "porta, -ae (f)" is forever
feminine. The noun "poeta, -ae (m)" is forever masculine, etc.
But for adjectives to be useful, they have to be able to become any
one of the three genders; i.e., adjectives have to be able to be
masculine, feminine or neuter to match the gender of the noun
they're modifying. And how do they do that? They accomplish this
by using endings from different declensions (and you'll learn these
other declension in the next couple of chapters). So here are two
critical differences between adjectives and nouns: (1) each
adjective can have any of the three genders, but each noun can have
only one gender; (2) each noun will belong only to one declension,
but adjectives can span declensions. You'll see much more of this
later, but for now you need to know that adjectives use endings of
the first declension to become feminine, and, therefore, to modify
nouns which are feminine in gender. So try this. Decline the
expression "big rose":
magna rosa
N/V. _______________ _______________
GEN. _______________ _______________
DAT. _______________ _______________
ACC. _______________ _______________
ABL. _______________ _______________
N/V. _______________ _______________
GEN. _______________ _______________
DAT. _______________ _______________
ACC. _______________ _______________
ABL. _______________ _______________
Now look at these endings for the adjective and the noun.
They look alike, don't they. But this is dangerously deceptive.
Get this in your head: agreement means same number, gender, and
case, not look-alike endings, even though in this limited example
and in all the examples in this chapter they do look alike.
Consider this problem. The noun for poet is a masculine noun in
the first declension: "poeta, -ae (m)". Now, for an adjective to
agree with it, it must have the same number, gender and case.
Right? But adjectives with first declension endings are masculine.
So, will the endings of an adjective modifying the noun "poeta" be
the same as those as "poeta". I.e., will the pattern for "great
poet" look like this?
SINGULAR
magna poeta
N/V. magna poeta
GEN. magnae poetae
DAT. magnae poetae
ACC. magnam poetam
ABL. magna poeta
PLURAL
N/V. magnae poetae
GEN. magnarum poetarum
DAT. magnis poetis
ACC. magnas poetas
ABL. magnis poetis
The answer is "no", because the forms "magna, magnae" etc. are
feminine in gender because adjectives use first declension endings
to become feminine in gender but the noun "poeta" is masculine.
Therefore the adjective will have to use endings from another
declension and the forms will not look alike. You'll see all this
in the next two chapters. But remember: agreement means having the
same number, gender, and case, not having the same endings. Okay?
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
tua, mea The words "tua", which means "your" and "mea", which
means "my" are the first and second person singular
possessive adjectives, and they consequently must "agree"
in number, gender and case with whatever is being
possessed. "tu-" and "me-" are the stems of the word,
and the "-a" is the adjectival suffix. What causes
students concern is that they can't quite bring
themselves to make the adjectival suffix of the singular
possessive adjectives plural. For example, they balk at
"meae rosae" (my roses), because they assume somehow that
the entire word "me-" must become plural. This isn't
necessary. Think of it this way: the "me-" or "tu-" part
of these words refer you to the person doing the
possessing, the adjectival suffix refers to whatever is
being possessed.
12/31/92
CHAPTER 3
"Second Declension; Masculine Nouns and Adjectives;
Word Order"
THE SECOND DECLENSION
A declension is a pattern of endings for the different cases and
numbers which a noun falls through. Latin has five declension,
though the great majority of nouns fall into the first three. In
this chapter, you'll learn one part of the second declension.
(You'll get the other part of the second declension in Chapter 4.)
Let's look again at a paradigm for the first declension endings and
compare them to endings of the second declension. Decline the noun
"puella, -ae (f)".
puella, -ae (f) amicus, -i (m)
Nom. _______________ amicus
Gen. _______________ amici
Dat. _______________ amico
Acc. _______________ amicum
Abl. _______________ amico
Voc. _______________ amice
N/V. _______________ amici
Gen. _______________ amicorum
Dat. _______________ amicis
Acc. _______________ amicos
Abl. _______________ amicis
As you can plainly see, "-a-" is the dominant vowel of the first
declension. With the exception of the dative and ablative plural,
all the case endings have an "-a-" in them. Now let's compare the
first declension with the second. Although it's a little more
difficult to see in places, the dominant vowel of the second
declension is "-o-". Once you see this difference between the
first and second declension, you can detect some of the
similarities.
(1) the accusative singular of both declensions adds "-m" to
the thematic vowel: "-am" and "-um" (originally "-om").
(2) the ablative singular is just the long thematic vowel:
"-a-" and "-o-".
(3) the genitive plural is the ending "-rum" added to the
thematic vowel: "-arum" and "-orum".
(5) the dative and ablative plural are formed alike:
First Declension: "a-" + "-is" = "-ais" = "-is"
Second Declension: "o-" + "-is" = "-ois" = "-is"
(6) the accusative plural in both declensions is the thematic
vowel + "-s:" "-as" and "-os".
So let's set out the cases endings for the second declension:
SINGULAR PLURAL
Nom. ____________________ ____________________
Gen. ____________________ ____________________
Dat. ____________________ ____________________
Acc. ____________________ ____________________
Abl. ____________________ ____________________
Voc. ____________________ ____________________
2ND DECLENSION NOUNS IN -ER AND -IR; STEM CHANGES
As I said, this is the basic pattern of endings for nouns of the
second declension, and all second declension nouns will basically
use these endings. There are second declension nouns, however,
which do not follow this pattern precisely, but which use slight
variations of it. To begin with, not all second declension nouns
end in "-us" in the nominative singular. Some end in "-er" and one
common noun ends in "-ir". So go back to the blank for the
nominative singular and add the variant nominative endings "-er"
and "-ir".
Let's have a look at a second declension noun that ends in "-er" in
the nominative singular: "puer, -i (m)" (boy). Just to review, how
do you know that this noun belongs to the second declension? The
answer is the genitive singular ending listed as the second entry.
It's "-i", the genitive singular ending of the second declension.
So what will the form of "puer" be in the genitive singular?
That's easy too. It'll be "pueri", (stem + "-i). Now let's decline
"puer" through all its cases in both numbers.
SINGULAR PLURAL
Nom. ____________________ ____________________
Gen. ____________________ ____________________
Dat. ____________________ ____________________
Acc. ____________________ ____________________
Abl. ____________________ ____________________
Voc. ____________________ ____________________
Let's try another second declension noun which ends in "-er"
in the nominative singular: "ager, agri (m)" (field). The
nominative is the "-er" type you saw in "puer", but look at the
genitive singular. Instead of just giving you an abbreviation for
the genitive singular ending -- "-i" -- the dictionary is telling
you something more. Here you have a full form, "agri", for the
genitive entry of the noun. The case ending obviously is "-i", so
the noun belongs to second declension. If you take off the
genitive singular ending "-i" you're left with "agr-", and what's
that?
We need to pause here and refine what we mean by a "stem" of
a noun. As you probably recall, the stem of a noun is the basic
form of the noun to which you then add the case endings. But
despite the attractive notion that the "stem" of a noun is the
nominative singular minus the case ending, a stem of a noun is
really the form which is the root of all cases except the
nominative singular. This is not to say that the nominative
singular will never be the true stem of the word. In some
declensions it is. But not always. Look at "ager" again. The
stem of the word is found not by looking at the nominative entry,
but by dropping the genitive singular ending from "agri", leaving
"agr-". So the true stem of this word is "agr-", not "ager-".
Hence we say that "ager" is a stem changing noun, or that it has a
stem change. This is because the stem is not apparent in the
nominative entry. Let's decline "ager, agri (m)". Remember, the
stem is "agr-":
SINGULAR PLURAL
N/V. ____________________ ____________________
Gen. ____________________ ____________________
Dat. ____________________ ____________________
Acc. ____________________ ____________________
Abl. ____________________ ____________________
Can you see now why it's important that a dictionary begin to
decline the noun for you by giving you the genitive singular? If
you weren't given "agri", after "ager", you wouldn't know the
declension of the noun, nor would you know that "ager-" is not the
true stem. If a noun is not a stem-changing noun, then the
dictionary will simply put the genitive ending in the second entry.
But if it's a stem changing noun, the dictionary must indicate
that. Examine the following nouns and see how the dictionary
conveys the necessary information.
ENTRY STEM MEANING
gener, -i (m) gener- son-in-law
magister, -tri (m) magistr- teacher
socer, -i (m) socer- father-in-law
liber, -bri (m) libr- book
vesper, -i (m) vesper- evening
signifer, -i (m) signifer- standard bearer
The noun "vir, -i (m)" represents another class of second
declension nominative singular endings. Is there a stem change
indicated in the genitive singular? No, there isn't, so it behaves
just like "puer". Decline it.
SINGULAR PLURAL
N/V. ____________________ ____________________
Gen. ____________________ ____________________
Dat. ____________________ ____________________
Acc. ____________________ ____________________
Abl. ____________________ ____________________
NOUNS ENDING IN -IUS
Nouns whose stem ends in an "-i-" need a closer look. "Filius, -ii
(m)" is a second declension noun and the stem is "fili-" ("filius"
minus the "-i" of the genitive singular). But the second entry has
an extra "-i". What's that all about? Don't be disturbed. Often
when a stem ends in an "-i-" the dictionary likes to reassure you
that despite its odd appearance, the genitive singular form really
ends with two "i's": "filii". Similarly, the dative and ablative
plurals: "filiis". It may look odd, but there was a noticeable
difference in the way the two "i's" would have been pronounced.
The first is short, the second is long, so "filii", would have be
pronounced "FEE leh ee". But in fact even the Romans weren't very
comfortable with this arrangement, and often the "i's" were
simplified to one long "-i-" to "fili" or "filis". To be
consistent, Wheelock always uses the double "i".
In the vocative singular, however, the "i" at the end of the
stem does cause a change. "Filius" is an "-us" ending second
declension noun so the vocative singular should be "filie". But
short "i" and short "e" are so similar in sound that some
simplification was inevitable. The final form is not "filie" but
"fili". So also in the name "Virgilius": not "Virgilie", but
"Virgili". Decline "filius, -ii (m)".
SINGULAR PLURAL
Nom. ____________________ ____________________
Gen. ____________________ ____________________
Dat. ____________________ ____________________
Acc. ____________________ ____________________
Abl. ____________________ ____________________
Voc. ____________________
ADJECTIVES
Let's review for a moment. You remember that adjectives are words
which qualify nouns, and that an adjective will "agree" with the
noun it modifies. By "agreeing" we mean that it will have the same
number, gender, and case as the noun it's modifying. You also know
that an adjective must be able to modify nouns of all three
genders, and that to modify a feminine noun an adjective uses the
case endings from the first declension. For example, translate and
decline "great wisdom". "Wisdom" in Latin is "sapientia, -ae (f)",
a feminine noun of the first declension, as you can tell from the
entry. "Great" is the adjective modifying "wisdom" so it must
agree in number, gender and case with "sapientia". The stem of the
adjective is "magn-", and the case endings you must use are those
of the first declension, since "sapientia" is feminine.
SINGULAR
great wisdom
N/V. _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________
PLURAL
N/V. _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________
What happens when an adjective needs to modify a masculine
noun? To modify a masculine noun an adjective uses the case
endings from the second declension. That's fine and good, but we
have a problem. Which of the three singular nominative forms of
the second declension do they use: "-us", "-er", or "-ir?" The
answer is that some adjectives will us "-us" and some will use
"-er". (None use "-ir".) All the adjectives we'll be looking at
for the next two chapters use the "-us" ending and decline after
that pattern. In chapter five you'll get the "-er" type, so I'll
postpone discussion of that kind until then (although there's
nothing really very complicated about it). Let's suppose you want
to modify the noun "poeta, -ae (m) with adjective for "great?"
Look up "great" in the dictionary and write down what you see.
(Make sure you look it up! I'll wait right here.)
great ______________________________
Now what kind of an entry is this? The convention for listing an
adjective is different from that for a noun. The first entry tells
you how an adjective modifies a masculine noun, the second tells
you how it modifies a feminine noun, and the third how it modifies
a neuter noun (and we'll learn about that in the next chapter). So
let's look at the first entry: "magnus" tells you that the
adjective uses the "-us" type endings from the second declension to
modify a masculine noun; the "-a", which stands for the nominative
singular of the first declension, tells you that it uses first
declension endings to modify feminine nouns; the "-um" tells you
which endings to use for neuter nouns. Now, how did you find the
stem of "-us" type nouns of the second declension? Do you
remember? You simply drop off the "-us" ending, and that's the
stem. What's the stem of the adjective "magnus, -a, -um?" I hope
you guessed "magn-". So an entry like this is a short-hand way of
saying this:
MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER
-us -a -um
-i -ae
-o -ae
-um -am
-o -a
-e -a
magn- +
-i -ae
-orum -arum
-is -is
-os -as
-is -is
So decline "great poet". (WARNING: Remember that agreement means
same number, gender, and case; not form which look alike!)
SINGULAR PLURAL
great poet great poets
Nom. ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
Gen. ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
Dat. ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
Acc. ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
Abl. ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
Voc. ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
APPOSITION
Consider this English sentence: "Daniel, my brother, you were older
than me [sic]". You can easily see that "brother" is giving you
more information about "Daniel"; that is, "brother" is modifying or
qualifying "Daniel". In this sense, at least, "brother" is acting
like an adjective. But since "brother" is a noun, not an
adjective, it cannot qualify another noun in quite the same way an
adjective does. We call this modifying relationship between nouns
"apposition". We would say "brother" is in "apposition" to
"Daniel".
In Latin also, nouns can be set in apposition to each other
for modification. So one noun is modifying another noun --
something like an adjective modifying a noun. But, obviously a
noun cannot agree with the noun it's modifying the same way an
adjective does. And why not? Nouns all have gender inherent in
them, so a noun can never change its gender to a agree in gender
with a noun it's modifying. But it can agree with the noun it's
modifying in case, and it will. In Latin, when a noun is in
apposition to another noun, the noun doing the modifying will agree
with the modified noun in case. "Gaium, meum filium, in agris
video". (I see Gaius, my son, in the fields.) "Gaium" is
accusative because it's the direct object of the verb "video".
Therefore the word for "son" must also be in the accusative case,
since it's telling us more about Gaius, and Gaius, as the object of
the verb "to see", is in the accusative case.
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
de + abl.; in + abl. Like English, prepositions in Latin will
take the noun they're governing in a case
other than the nominative. We wouldn't
say in English "with I" or "to she:" we
say "with me" and "to her". But in Latin,
some prepositions will have to be
followed by the accusative case; others
by the ablative case. (And some can be
followed by both, though the meaning
changes slightly.) Therefore, whenever
you learn a preposition, you must also
memorize the case it takes.
pauci, -ae This is an adjective, but unlike others
adjectives, the word for "few" has no
singular forms. (That's logical.) So
the dictionary starts its listing in the
nominative plural. As you can see, the
"-i" and the "-ae" endings are the second
and first declension nominative plural
endings. So this adjective declines like
"magnus, -a, -um" with the exception that
it has no singular forms.
meus, -a, [-um] The adjective means "my", and it agrees
with whatever is being owned. The stem is
"me-". It has an irregular vocative
singular ending. Instead of "mee", you
have "mi". So it's "mi amice" for "Hey,
my friend".
Romanus, -a, [-um] This is an adjective, but it can be used
as a noun. Like "American". It's an
adjective -- like "American Pie" -- but
it can also be used for a person: "she's
an American", or "The Americans are
coming". Hence, "Romani" can mean "the
Romans", and "Romana" can mean a "Roman
woman". On the other hand, we can also
say "Romana patria": "the Roman
fatherland"; or "Romani libri": "Roman
books".
12/31/92
CHAPTER 4
"Neuters of the Second Declension; Summary of Adjectives;
Present Indicative of Sum;
Predicate Nouns and Adjectives"
Despite its lengthy title, you'll find that much of this chapter
only adds incrementally to concepts you've already learned. That's
the way it's going to be for most of these chapters. Now that
you've learned the basics, the details will be much easier for you
to grasp.
NEUTERS OF THE SECOND DECLENSION
The second declension is the pattern of cases ending which has an
"-o-" for its thematic vowel. The nominative singular has three
possible forms -- "-us", "-er", and "-ir". Sometimes nouns which
end in "-er" in the nominative undergo a stem change from the
nominative to the genitive singular. To find the real stem of the
noun, you simply drop off the genitive ending "-i" from the second
entry in the dictionary. Finally, you may remember that the vast
majority of nouns ending in "-us", "-er", and "-ir" in the
nominative singular are masculine.
What you learned in the last chapter was not the whole story
on the second declension. The second declension is divided into
two parts: the part you know, and a set of endings which you're
going to learn now. This second part contains only neuter nouns.
This is important to remember. Unlike the first declension and the
first part of the second, whose nouns could be either feminine or
masculine, all nouns which follow this second part of the second
declension are neuter. Next, the endings of this pattern are
nearly identical to those of the second declension you already
know. The differences are that (1) the nominative singular ending
is always "-um"; (2) the stem is found by dropping off nominative
"-um" ending and there is never a stem change; (3) the neuter
nominative and accusative plural endings are "-a". You don't have
to worry about the vocative singular; it's the same as the
nominative singular. Remember, the only place in Latin where the
vocative differs from the nominative is in the singular of "-us"
ending second declension nouns and adjectives.
A dictionary entry for a noun of this type will look like
this: "x"um, -i (n) (where "x" is the stem). Since there is never
a stem change, the second entry only gives you the genitive
singular ending so that you can see the declension of the noun.
The "-um" of the nominative singular and then the "-i" in the
genitive tell you that the noun is a neuter noun of the second
declension, and that it therefore fits into the subcategory of the
second declension. Here are some examples for you to decline and
a second declension noun of the "us" type for comparison:
numerus, -i (m) periculum, -i (n) consilium, -ii (n)
Nom. ______________ _______________ _______________
Gen. ______________ _______________ _______________
Dat. ______________ _______________ _______________
Acc. ______________ _______________ _______________
Abl. ______________ _______________ _______________
Voc. ______________
N/V. ______________ _______________ _______________
Gen. ______________ _______________ _______________
Dat. ______________ _______________ _______________
Acc. ______________ _______________ _______________
Abl. ______________ _______________ _______________
There are a couple of hard and fast rules pertaining to the
inflection of all neuter nouns, no matter which declension they
belong to, which you may want to commit to memory: (1) the
nominative and accusative forms of neuters nouns are always like
each other, and (2) the nominative plural -- and hence neuter
plural because of rule (1) -- is always a short "-a".
ADJECTIVES
You recall that adjectives are words which modify nouns, and that
in Latin an adjective must agree with the noun it's modifying. By
"agreeing", we mean it must have the same number, gender, and case.
An adjective acquires number and case by declining through a
declension -- just like nouns -- but how does an adjective change
gender? An adjective changes gender by using different
declensional patterns. If an adjective needs to modify a feminine
noun, it uses endings from the first declension; if it has to
modify a masculine noun, it uses the second declension endings
which are used by "-us" and "-er" ending nouns. So how do you
imagine will an adjective modify a neuter noun? Let's look at a
dictionary entry for a typical adjective: "magnus, -a, -um".
The first entry, as you recall, tells you which declension the
adjective uses to modify a masculine noun. It tells you by giving
you the nominative singular ending of the declension it uses. The
second entry is the nominative singular ending of the declension
the adjective uses to modify a feminine noun. The third entry is
the nominative singular of the declension the adjective uses to
modify a neuter noun.
So how does the adjective "magnus, -a, -um" modify a neuter
noun? It uses the "-um" neuter endings of the second declension,
so "magnus", when it's modifying a neuter noun, will follow the
same pattern as a noun like "periculum, -i (n). Write out all the
possible forms of the adjective "great". (Check your work against
Wheelock, p. 18.)
"magnus, -a, -um"
MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER
Nom. _______________ _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________
Voc. _______________
N/V. _______________ _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________
THE VERB "TO BE"
As in most languages, the verb "to be" in Latin is irregular
-- i.e., it doesn't follow the normal pattern of conjugation of
other verbs. Wheelock says it's best just to memorize the forms by
sheer effort and rote. That's a perfectly acceptable suggestion.
But the verb is actually much more regular than it may first
appear. If you wish, you may try to follow my discussion about the
verb to get a glimpse behind its seemingly bizarre appearance. If
not, just memorize the forms outright and skip over the paragraphs
in between the lines of asterisks.
****************************************
For those of you going on with me, let's recall a couple of
things. A verb conjugates by adding personal endings to the stem
of the verb. You find the stem of the verb by dropping of the
"-re" ending of the infinitive, and what you're left with is the
stem. The final vowel of the stem tells you the conjugation of the
verb: "-a-" for a first conjugation, "-e-" for the second
conjugation, etc. So let's have a look at the infinitive of the
verb "to be" to find its stem. The infinitive is "esse". What
kind of an infinitive is this?
We need to back up a little. Although you were told
otherwise, the real infinitive ending of a Latin verb is not "-re"
at all, but "-se". Why does the "-se" become "-re"? It's an
invariable rule of Latin pronunciation that an "-s-" which is
caught between two vowels -- we call it "intervocalic" -- turns
into a "-r-". So the reason "laudare" is not "laudase" is that the
original intervocalic "-s-" became an "-r-". So let's look again
at the infinitive for the verb "to be": "esse". If we drop off
the infinitive ending "-se", we're left with the stem "es-" for the
verb. But the stem has no final vowel. For this reason we call
"esse" an "athematic verb", because its stem ends in a consonant,
not a vowel, as other verbs do. To conjugate the verb, we should
therefore add the personal endings directly to the final "-s" of
the stem. This is what the formula should be (don't fill in the
conjugated form yet).
STEM + PERSONAL ENDING = CONJUGATED FORM
1st es + m = _______________
2nd es + s = _______________
3rd es + t = _______________
1st es + mus = _______________
2nd es + tis = _______________
3rd es + nt = _______________
Try to pronounce the final form for the first person singular
"esm". Do you hear how you're automatically inserting a "u" sound
to make the word pronounceable? It sounds like "esum". Try to
pronounce "esmus". The same thing happens between the "s" and the
"m". You almost have to insert a "u". Now pronounce "esnt". Same
thing, right? This is what happened to these forms. Over time, a
"u" sound became a part of the conjugation of the verb, and the
initial "e-" of the stem of all the forms with this "u" was lost.
(I can't account for that.) Write out the resulting forms. Now
look at the remaining forms. Is there any trouble adding an "s" or
a "t" to the final "s-" of the stem? No. In fact, in the second
person singular, the "s" of the personal ending just gets swallowed
up by the "s" of the stem: "es + s = es". Where there was no
complication in pronouncing the forms, the "e-" of the stem stayed.
Now write out the remaining forms of "to be" in Latin.
****************************************
As with other Latin verbs, the basic form of "to be" is
considered to be the first person singular, and that's how the verb
will be listed in the dictionary, followed by the infinitive: "sum,
esse". So when I want to refer to the Latin verb "to be", I'll say
the verb "sum". You can also see why it's going to be important to
memorize all these forms well. You can't look up "estis" or "es".
You must reduce these conjugated forms to a form that will appear
in the dictionary: you must know that these forms are from "sum".
THE SENTENCE: SUBJECT AND PREDICATE
We divide sentences into two parts: the subject, which is what's
being talked about, and the predicate, what's being said about the
subject. Basically, the subject is the subject of the verb, and
the predicate is the verb and everything after it. For example, in
the sentence "Latin drives me crazy because it has so many forms",
"Latin" is the subject, and everything else is the predicate. Of
course, the full story of subject and predicate is more involved
than this, but this will get us by for now.
PREDICATE NOMINATIVES, TRANSITIVE AND INTRANSITIVE VERBS
In Latin the subject of a verb is in the nominative case. You know
that. So it may seem to follow that, if the subject of the verb is
the subject of the sentence, that the nominative case should be
entirely limited to the subject of the sentence. That is, we
shouldn't expect there ever to be a noun in the nominative case in
the predicate. Nouns in the nominative case should be the subject
of verbs, and the subject of verbs is in the subject clause of the
sentence, not in the predicate. But we do find nouns in the
nominative in the predicate. When we do, we call them, logically
enough, "predicate nominatives". How does it happen that a
nominative case shows up in the predicate, after the verb?
We divided verbs into two broad classes: verbs which transfer
action and energy from the subject to something else (the object),
and verbs in which there is no movement of energy from one place to
another. Consider this sentence: "George kicked the ball". Here
George expended energy -- he kicked -- and this energy was
immediately applied to an object -- the ball -- which was changed
as a result of what George did to it. We call a verb like this a
"transitive" verb and the object affected by it the direct object.
In Latin, the direct object of a transitive verb is put into the
accusative case. Now look at this sentence: "The river is wide".
Is the river doing anything in this sentence to anything else?
Does the verb "is" imply that the subject is acting on something
else? No. There is no movement of activity from the subject to
something else. Verbs like this are called "intransitive" and
don't take direct objects. In Latin that means they are not
followed by an accusative case. Some more examples of this: "The
dog was running away", "We'll all laugh", "The clown didn't seem
very happy".
Sometimes it's hard to tell whether a verb in English is
transitive or intransitive. A rule of thumb is this. Ask
yourself, "Can I 'x' something?" (where "x" is the verb you're
investigating). If the answer is "yes" then the verb is
transitive; if "no" then it's intransitive. "Can I see something?"
Yes; therefore the verb "to see" is transitive. "Can I fall
something?" No; therefore "to fall" is intransitive.
THE COPULATIVE VERB "SUM"
The verb "to be" is obviously an intransitive verb -- there is no
movement of energy from the subject to an object -- but it has an
interesting additional property. What are we actually doing when
we use the verb "to be?" We are in effect modifying the subject
with something in the predicate. In the sentence "The river is
wide", "river" is the subject and "wide" is an adjective in the
predicate that is modifying "river". Even though it's on the other
side of the verb and in the predicate, it's directly tied to the
subject. In Latin, therefore, what case would "wide" be in? Think
of it this way. "Wide" is an adjective, and it's modifying the
"river", even though it's in the predicate. Adjectives in Latin
must agree in number, gender and case with the nouns they modify,
so "wide" has to be in the nominative case. It's modifying
"river", right? What the verb "to be" does is to tie or link the
subject directly to something in the predicate, and for that reason
we call the verb "to be" a "linking" or "copulative" verb. This
principle has a special application in Latin, which has a full case
system. When the verb "sum" links the subject with an adjective in
the predicate, the adjective agrees with the subject.
Donum est magnum. Dona sunt magna.
nominative = nominative nominative=nominative
neuter = neuter neuter = neuter
singular = singular plural = plural
When "sum" links the subject with a noun in the predicate,
however, we have a bit of a problem. Nouns have fixed gender, so
the noun in the predicate can't agree with the subject noun in
quite the same way an adjective can. A noun in the predicate has
its own gender which it cannot change. But a noun in the predicate
which is tied to the subject by "sum", will agree with the subject
in case. Think of the verb "sum" as an equal sign, with the same
case on both sides.
Mea vita est bellum (war).
nominative =nominative
feminine ~ neuter
singular = singular
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
Look at these two dictionary listings:
1. bellum, -i (n) "war"
2. bellus, -a, -um "beautiful"
The first is an entry for a noun, the second an entry for an
adjective. What are the differences? An entry for a noun starts
with the nominative singular form, then it gives you the genitive
singular. It actually starts to decline the noun for you so that
you can tell the noun's declension and whether the noun has any
stem changes you should be worried about. The final entry is the
gender, since nouns have fixed gender which you must be given. For
a noun, therefore you must be given (1) the nominative form, (2)
the stem, (3) the declension, and (4) the gender.
An entry for an adjective, by contrast, has different
information to convey. For an adjective, you must know which
declension it'll use to modify nouns of different gender, and
that's what the "-us, -a, -um" is telling you. But there is an
important omission from the adjective listing. There is no gender
specified, and how could there be, adjectives change their gender.
As you'll see later, this is the one sure sign that a word you're
looking at is an adjective: if it has declension endings listed but
no gender.
You may also be concerned that, given the similar appearance
of these two words, you may mix them up in your sentences.
Certainly there will be some overlap of the two forms. For
example, "bella" is a possible form of the noun "bellum" and the
adjective "bellus, -a, -um". But there are also many forms which
"bellus, -a, -um" can have which "bellum, -i (n)" can never have.
For example, "bellarum" can't possibly come from a second
declension neuter noun. Neither can "bellae", "bellas", "bellos",
"bella", and some others. If you see "bell- something" in your
text, first ask yourself whether the case ending is a possible form
from the neuter noun for war. If not, then it's from the adjective
for "pretty". In the instances where the forms do overlap, you'll
have to let context and your good judgment tell you which it is.
12/31/92
CHAPTER 5
"First and Second Conjugations: Future Indicative Active;
Adjectives of the First and Second Declension in -er"
FUTURE TENSE OF FIRST AND SECOND CONJUGATION VERBS
When you want to put an English verb into the future tense, you
use the stem of the verb and put "will" in front of it: "I see"
becomes "I will see"; "They have" becomes "They will have"; etc.
We call the additional word "will" a "helping verb", or, more
learnedly, an "auxiliary verb". No matter what you call it, the
"will" is modifying the way the listener will understand the
action of the verb "to see" and "to have". In Latin, the future
tense is formed differently, but it still involves the addition
of something to the stem of the verb. The formula for forming
the future tense of first and second conjugation verbs in Latin
is this: "stem + be + personal endings". The stem of the verb,
you remember, is what's left after you've dropped off the "-re"
of the infinitive (the stem includes the stem vowel). The "-be-"
is the sign of the future and is attached directly to the stem.
Then you add the normal personal endings you used in the present
tense directly to the tense sign "be". So let's start to
conjugate the future tense of a first and second conjugation
verb. Here are the tables. (Don't fill in the conjugated form
just yet.)
I. FUTURE OF THE FIRST CONJUGATION: laudo, laudare
STEM + TENSE SIGN + PERS. END. = CONJUGATED
FORM
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
_______________
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
_______________
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
_______________
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
_______________
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
_______________
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
_______________
II. FUTURE OF THE SECOND CONJUGATION: moneo, monere
STEM + TENSE SIGN + PERS. END. = CONJUGATED
FORM
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
_______________
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
_______________
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
_______________
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
_______________
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
_______________
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
_______________
All this seems quite logical and straight-forward. But
these is one glitch: the short "-e-" of the tense sign "-be-"
undergoes some radical changes when you start attaching the
personal endings.
(1) Before the "-o" of the first person singular, the short
"-e-" disappears completely, leaving "-bo".
(2) Before the "-nt" of the third person plural, it becomes
a "-u-", leaving the form "-bunt".
(3) And before all the other endings, it becomes an "-i-",
for "-bis", "-bit", "-bimus", and "-bitis".
As you can see, the short "-e-" in fact never stays what it is in
any of these forms. And you may very well be wondering to
yourself why I'm showing you all this. Why can't you simply
memorize the future endings as "-bo", "-bis", "-bit", "-bimus",
"-bitis", and "-bunt", without having to look any farther back
into its history. The answer is you can certainly remember just
the final forms if you wish, but this problem of the short "-e-"
changing to other vowels occurs repeatedly in Latin, and instead
of memorizing by rote each time you come across it, it just seems
easier to learn the rule governing the changes, rather than
encountering the changes each time as unique phenomena. It's
hard to believe now, but knowing the deeper rules will make your
lives simpler in the future. Now that you know the rules, go
back and fill in the conjugated forms of the future tense.
FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSION ADJECTIVES IN -ER
Look at this adjective: "stultus, -a, -um". Do you remember what
this entry is telling you? An adjective spans the first and
second declensions to get the endings it needs to modify nouns of
different genders. This entry is telling you that the adjective
for "stupid" (stem: "stult-") uses second declension "-us" type
endings when it modifies masculine nouns, first declension
endings when it modifies feminine nouns, and the "-um" category
of neuter endings of the second declension to modify neuter
nouns.
Now let's look a little more closely at the second
declension. It has two parts, you may remember: the section
reserved entirely for neuter nouns -- those ending in "-um" in
the nominative singular -- and the section used by masculine and
feminine nouns (the vast majority are masculine). There is a
variety of nominative singular endings in this second group:
"-us", "-er", and "-ir". The nouns which followed the "-us" type
second declension presented two problems: to find the stem, you
simply dropped off the "-us" ending of the nominative case. But
for the second declension nouns which ended in "-er" in the
nominative singular, you had to be more careful. For some of
them, the stem was the form of the nominative singular, but for
others the "-e-" of the "-er" dropped out from the stem. Then
you used the reduced form for all the other cases. The
dictionary has to tell you which "-er" ending nouns had stem
changes, and it does so in the in second entry for the noun.
puer, -i (m)
liber, -bri (m)
ager, agri (m)
The stem of "puer" is "puer-", the stem of "liber" is "libr-",
the stem of "ager" is "agr-". Okay, so much by way of review.
Now look at this word as it appears in the dictionary:
"liber, -a, -um". What is this? Is it a noun or an adjective?
You can tell it's an adjective because there is no gender listed
for it. (Remember, an adjective has to be able to change its
gender, so it has no fixed gender, as a noun does.) An entry for
an adjective has to tell you how it will acquire different
genders -- which declensional pattern it will use to become
masculine, feminine and neuter -- and, you may recall, the first
entry shows you the masculine nominative, the second the feminine
nominative, and the third the neuter nominative.
So have a look again at this adjective. The second entry
looks familiar -- it's the nominative singular ending of the
first declension. This tells you that the adjective "liber"
become feminine by using first declension endings. The "-um"
should look familiar, too. That's its neuter ending, telling you
it uses the "-um" endings of the second declension to modify
neuter nouns. But what's the first entry? You know that this is
telling you how the adjective becomes masculine, but what about
the "-er".
You've probably already figured out by now that the
adjective is going to use the second declension endings to modify
masculine nouns, and that it's going to use the "-er" ending in
the nominative singular. So for "free soul", you would write
"liber animus". But what is the stem of the adjective? Remember
that "-er" ending nouns of the second declension often change
their stems when they move out of the nominative singular. The
dictionary tells you about that in the second entry for the
adjective in the genitive singular. That is, the dictionary
actually starts declining it for you. But how will it tell you
whether an adjective in "-er" has a stem change?
The rule is this. An adjective in "-er" which changes its
stem (i.e., drops the "-e") will use the changed stem in all
genders and numbers and cases except for the nominative masculine
singular. So all you need to see to know whether the adjective
is going to change its stem is the next entry -- the feminine
nominative singular -- to know about the stem. Look at this
entry.
M F N
pulcher, -chra, -chrum
There, do you see it? The second entry shows you not only how
the adjective becomes feminine, but also that the stem for all
other cases except the masculine nominative singular is
"pulchr-". Look as this adjective: "noster, nostra, nostrum".
Stem change, right? Now look at this again: "liber, -a, -um".
There is no stem change since it is not indicated in the second
entry. So the stem is "liber-" throughout its inflection. Let's
do a few exercises. Translate and decline the following.
beautiful fatherland our son
Nom. ______________ ______________ ______________
______________
Gen. ______________ ______________ ______________
______________
Dat. ______________ ______________ ______________
______________
Acc. ______________ ______________ ______________
______________
Abl. ______________ ______________ ______________
______________
Voc. ______________
______________
N/V. ______________ ______________ ______________
______________
Gen. ______________ ______________ ______________
______________
Dat. ______________ ______________ ______________
______________
Acc. ______________ ______________ ______________
______________
Abl. ______________ ______________ ______________
______________
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
animus, -i (m) In the singular the word means "soul,
spirit", the vapory seat of
self-awareness. But in the plural it
often takes on another meaning. It may
mean "courage", like our expression
"high spirits", "spirited", as in "The
losing team put up a spirited struggle".
It happens often in Latin that a word
will acquire new meanings in the plural.
C.p., the meaning of the English word
"manner" in the singular with its
meaning in the plural: "manners".
noster, -tra, -trum This is an adjective which means "our".
That is, the adjective agrees with the
thing that is "ours". Therefore, it has
a plural form only if the noun it's
agreeing with is plural. Students are
often lured into thinking that "noster"
will have only plural case endings
because "our" is first person plural.
Remember, "noster" will have plural
cases endings only if it's agreeing with
a plural noun: "noster filius" (our son)
or "nostri filii" (our sons).
igitur Wheelock tells you it's post-positive:
it never is the first word in a Latin
sentence (and it's usually the second
word.) Despite our tendency to put the
English "therefore" at the beginning of
the sentence, "igitur" is never first.
Remember.
-ne We form questions in English by juggling
word order around, and by using
auxiliary verbs. But Latin doesn't have
that option since word order doesn't
work in the same way. To ask a question
in Latin, put "-ne" at the end of the
first word of the sentence. The word to
which it is attached becomes the point
of inquiry of the question: "Amasne
me?" (Do you love me?), "Mene amas?" (Is
it me you love (and not someone else)?)
propter + acc. As you know, prepositions in Latin take
certain cases. "Propter" takes the
accusative case -- always -- and we
translate it, "because of". Don't be
thrown off by our English translation.
"Propter" does not take the genitive
case in Latin. It takes the accusative.
satis When we say "I have enough money", we
use "enough" as an adjective modifying
"money". In Latin the word for "enough"
is a noun, not an adjective. Latin
follows "satis" with the genitive case,
and says in effect "I have enough of
money" (Habeo satis pecuniae.) You'll be
pleased to know that "satis" does not
decline -- it is always "satis".
12/31/92
CHAPTER 6
"Sum: Future and Imperfect Indicative; Possum: Present,
Future, and Imperfect Indicative; Complementary Infinitive"
The two verbs which are the subject of this chapter are closely
related -- "possum" ("to be able") uses the forms of the verb
"sum" ("to be") -- so you don't have to learn two separate
irregular verbs outright. You can tie them together.
SUM, ESSE: FUTURE TENSE
You have already learned the present tense of the irregular verb
"sum". And those of you who followed my expanded notes on these
forms know the whole truth about the present tense. Those of you
who skipped them, I recommend you go back to that section and
read them now. They will help you with this discussion.
Do you remember how you formed the future tense of the first
and second conjugation verbs? It was something like this:
stem + tense sign + personal endings = conjugated forms
The verb "sum" follows this formula exactly, but it has a tense
sign for the future you haven't seen before. Let's start at the
beginning.
(1) The stem of the verb "to be" is "es-".
(2) The tense sign for the future is short "-e-". For the
first and second conjugations, the tense sign of the
future was "be-", and the short "-e-" of the tense sign
underwent changes when the personal endings were added
to it. Do you remember what they were? The short
"-e-" future tense sign will undergo the same changes.
(3) The personal endings are the same you've been using all
along: "-o" or "-m", "-s", "-t" etc.
So let's set up a construction table for the future of "sum". For
now, fill in all the information except the conjugated form.
FUTURE TENSE: "sum, esse"
STEM + TENSE SIGN + PERS. END. = CONJUGATED
FORMS
1st _____ _________ ___________
_______________
2nd _____ _________ ___________
_______________
3rd _____ _________ ___________
_______________
1st _____ _________ ___________
_______________
2nd _____ _________ ___________
_______________
3rd _____ _________ ___________
_______________
There is one more thing you need to know before you can
finish this off. It's a rule of Latin pronunciation that
whenever an "-s-" is between two vowels (when it's
"intervocalic", as the professionals say), it changes from "-s-"
to "-r-". Now look at the stem of "sum". "Es-" plus the tense
sign "-e-" will put the "-s-" between two vowels, so the "-s-" of
the stem will become an "-r-": "ese-" = "ere-". That, then,
will be the base to which you add the personal endings. Now fill
out the conjugated forms -- and remember the changes the short
"-e-" is going to go through. (Check Wheelock, p. 27.)
SUM, ESSE: IMPERFECT TENSE
The imperfect tense is a new tense for you, and we're not going
to look very deeply into it here. For now, just remember that
the imperfect tense of "sum" is our "was" and "were". At least
don't call this the past tense; call it the imperfect tense. The
imperfect tense is formed along the same lines as the future
tense:
stem + tense sign + personal endings = conjugated forms
Obviously, since this is a different tense, the tense sign is not
going to be the same as the future tense sign. The tense sign of
the imperfect is "-a-". One other slight difference is that the
imperfect tense uses the alternate first person singular ending:
"-m" instead of the expected "-o". And don't forget the rule of
"-s-": when it's intervocalic, it changes to "-r-". Fill out the
following table:
IMPERFECT TENSE: "sum, esse"
STEM + TENSE SIGN + PERS. END. = CONJUGATED
FORMS
1st ______ _________ _____________
______________
2nd ______ _________ _____________
_______________
3rd ______ _________ _____________
_______________
1st ______ _________ _____________
_______________
2nd ______ _________ _____________
_______________
3rd ______ _________ _____________
_______________
POSSUM, POSSE: PRESENT, FUTURE, IMPERFECT TENSES
In Latin, the verb "to be able" is a combination of the adjective
base "pot-" ("able") plus the forms of the verb "sum". To say "I
am able", Latin took the adjective "pot-" and combined it with
the present tense of "sum". To say "I will be able", Latin used
"pot-" plus the future of "sum". To say "I was able", Latin used
"pot-" plus the imperfect of "sum". For the verb "possum", then,
it is the verb "sum" provides the person, number, and the tense.
In the present tense, there is one glitch: wherever the verb
"sum" starts with an "s-", the "-t-" of "pot-" becomes an "-s-"
also. So you see "possum" instead of "potsum" (from "pot +
sum"), and so on. (When a consonant turns into the consonant
which it is next to, we call this "assimilation". So we would
say "t" assimilates to "s".)
The one real oddity of the verb is its infinitive. We might
expect "potesse" ("pot + esse") according to the rules, but the
form "posse" is just one of those unexpected moments in life
where things get out of control. You might want to remember it
this way: the English word "posse" is a group of citizens who
have been granted power to make arrests: that is, they have
"ableness". Fill out the following charts for the verb "possum,
posse".
PRESENT TENSE: possum, posse
ADJECTIVE + CONJUGATED FORM OF SUM = CONJUGATED FORM
1st pot ____________________ _______________
2nd _________ ____________________ _______________
3rd _________ ____________________ _______________
1st _________ ____________________ _______________
2nd _________ ____________________ _______________
3rd _________ ____________________ _______________
FUTURE TENSE: possum, posse
ADJECTIVE + CONJUGATED FORM OF SUM = CONJUGATED FORM
1st _________ ____________________ _______________
2nd _________ ____________________ _______________
3rd _________ ____________________ _______________
1st _________ ____________________ _______________
2nd _________ ____________________ _______________
3rd _________ ____________________ _______________
IMPERFECT TENSE: possum, posse
ADJECTIVE + CONJUGATED FORM OF SUM = CONJUGATED FORM
1st _________ ____________________ _______________
2nd _________ ____________________ _______________
3rd _________ ____________________ _______________
1st _________ ____________________ _______________
2nd _________ ____________________ _______________
3rd _________ ____________________ _______________
The only real difficulty with "possum" is the English
translations for it. If you stick with "to be able", "will be
able", and "was/were able", you'll get through just fine. But
you can also translate "possum" with the English verb "can". But
"can", although it is popular in English, is loaded with
oddities. For one, it has no future tense -- "I will can??" --
and secondly, the imperfect tense is "could", which is also a
conditional of some kind or another in English: "Do you think I
could have a dollar?" Try to stay with "to be able" for now, but
be aware of the possibilities of "can".
THE COMPLEMENTARY INFINITIVE
If you were to walk up to a stranger and, out of the blue, say "I
am able", you'd be answered by a pause. The stranger would be
expecting you to complete your thought: "Yes, you're able to do
what?" That's because "to be able" requires another verb to
complete its sense, and the form the completing verb will have is
the infinitive. It needs a completing infinitive (or
"complementary infinitive"). This is true in Latin as well.
"Possum" in all its forms will be followed by another verb in the
infinitive form: "Poterunt videre nostros filios". (They will be
able to see our sons.)
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
liber, -bri (m) How are you going to keep the noun for "book"
distinct in your mind from the adjective for
"free": "liber, -a, -um". For one, the "-i-"
in "liber, -bri (m)" is short, but it's long in
"liber, -a, -um". Next, there is a stem change
in "liber, -bri (m)" but not in "liber, -a,
-um". So if you see an inflected form "libr-
something", then you know the word means
"book(s)". Remember this by recalling their
English derivatives: library is from the
stem-changing "liber, -bri (m)", and "liberty"
is from "liber" in which there is no stem
change. For the most part, derived words come
from the stem of the nouns, not the nominative
singular.
vitium, -ii (n) Please don't confuse this with the word for
life "vita, -ae, (f)". Keep them straight this
way: "vicious", which comes from "vitium", has
an "-i-" after the "-t", but "vital", which
comes from "vita", does not. "Vitia" means
"vices" or "crimes"; "vita" means "life".
Graecus, -a, -um Like "Romanus, -a, -um", this adjective can be
used as a noun: "Graecus" can be translated as
"a Greek man", and "Graeca" as "a Greek woman",
or as an adjective: "Graecus liber" = "a Greek
book".
-que As Wheelock tells you, this word (called and
enclitic because it "leans on" another word and
never stands alone in a sentence) is attached
to the end of the second word of two that are
to be linked. Think of it this way: "x yque"
= "x et y".
ubi If "ubi" comes first in a sentence which is a
question, always translate it as "Where". "Ubi
es?" (Where are you?) But when it is in the
middle of a sentence, it can be translated as
either "where" or "when", and does not mean
that a question is being asked. You must try
them both out to see which of the two
possibilities makes the most sense.
insidiae, -arum (f) We translate this word, although it is always
plural in Latin, as the singular "plot", or
"treachery". It's going to happen often that
ideas which are conceived of as plural in
Latin are thought of as singular in English.
12/31/92
CHAPTER 7
"Third Declension: Nouns"
The third declension is generally considered to be a "pons
asinorum" of Latin grammar. But I disagree. The third
declension, aside for presenting you a new list of case endings
to memorize, really involves no new grammatical principles you've
haven't already been working with. I'll take you through it
slowly, but most of this guide is actually going to be review.
CASE ENDINGS
The third declension has nouns of all three genders in it.
Unlike the first and second declensions, where the majority of
nouns are either feminine or masculine, the genders of the third
declension are equally divided. So you really must pay attention
to the gender markings in the dictionary entries for third
declension nouns. The case endings for masculine and feminine
nouns are identical. The case endings for neuter nouns are also
of the same type as the feminine and masculine nouns, except for
where neuter nouns follow their peculiar rules:
(1) the nominative and the accusative forms are always the
same, and
(2) the nominative and accusative plural case endings are
short "-a-".
You may remember that the second declension neuter nouns have
forms that are almost the same as the masculine nouns -- except
for these two rules. In other words, there is really only one
pattern of endings for third declension nouns, whether the nouns
are masculine, feminine, or neuter. It's just that neuter nouns
have a peculiarity about them. So here are the third declension
case endings. Notice that the separate column for neuter nouns
is not really necessary, if you remember the rules of neuter
nouns.
Masculine/Feminine Neuter
N/V. ---------- ----------
Gen. -is -is
Dat. -i -i
Acc. -em (same as nom.)
Abl. -e -e
N\V. -es -a
Gen. -um -um
Dat. -ibus -ibus
Acc. -es -a
Abl. -ibus -ibus
Now let's go over some of the "hot spots" on this list. The
nominative singular is left blank because there are so many
different possible nominative forms for third declension nouns
that it would take half a page to list them all. You needn't
fret over this though, because the dictionary's first entry for a
noun is the nominative singular. You'll have to do a little more
memorization with third declension nouns because you simply can't
assume that it'll have a certain form in the nominative just
because it's third declension -- as you could with first
declension nouns, where they all end in "-a" in the nominative.
The same is true for neuter nouns in the nominative singular
-- although the possible forms for neuter nominative singulars is
much more limited. It's just not worth the effort to memorize
them. And remember, the accusative form of neuter nouns will be
exactly the form of the nominative, so there's a blank in the
accusative slot for neuter nouns. It'll be whatever the
nominative is.
STEMS OF THIRD DECLENSION NOUNS
One very distinctive characteristic of nouns of the third
declension is that nearly all of them are stem-changing nouns.
But the concept of stem-changing nouns is not new for you.
You've already worked with it in the second declension with nouns
ending in "-er" in the nominative. Look at this entry for a
second declension noun: "ager, agri (m)". The first entry for a
noun is the nominative singular, the second is the genitive where
you learn two things: (1) the declension of the noun (by looking
at the genitive ending), and (2) whether there is a stem change
from the nominative to the other cases. In this instance we
learn that "ager" is a second declension noun -- because the
genitive ending is "-i" -- and that there is a stem change. The
stem of noun is "agr-", so it'll decline like this:
N/V. ager N/V. agri
Gen. agri Gen. agrorum
Dat. agro Dat. agris
Acc. agrum Acc. agros
Abl. agro Abl. agris
Now look at an example entry for a third declension noun: "rex,
regis (m)". Use your experience with second declension "-er"
type masculine nouns to draw out all the important information
you need about this noun. What's its stem? Now decline it.
N/V. rex + -- = rex
Gen. __________ __________ ____________________
Dat. __________ __________ ____________________
Acc. __________ __________ ____________________
Abl. __________ __________ ____________________
N/V. __________ __________ ____________________
Gen. __________ __________ ____________________
Dat. __________ __________ ____________________
Acc. __________ __________ ____________________
Abl. __________ __________ ____________________
How did you do? Check your answers against page 31 in Wheelock.
The nominative form is just what's listed in the dictionary --
there is no ending in the nominative singular to add. Next, the
stem of "rex" is "reg-", which you get by dropping off the "-is"
genitive ending of the third declension from the form "regis"
which the dictionary gives. Now decline this noun: "corpus,
corporis (n)".
N/V. __________ + __________ = ____________________
Gen. __________ __________ ____________________
Dat. __________ __________ ____________________
Acc. __________ __________ ____________________
Abl. __________ __________ ____________________
N/V. __________ __________ ____________________
Gen. __________ __________ ____________________
Dat. __________ __________ ____________________
Acc. __________ __________ ____________________
Abl. __________ __________ ____________________
Did you remember the two rules of neuter nouns? Check your
answers on page 31. How are you doing? Try to decline a couple
more for some more practice.
pax, pacis (f) virtus, virtutis (f) labor, laboris (m)
N/V. __________ _______________ _______________
Gen. __________ _______________ _______________
Dat. __________ _______________ _______________
Acc. __________ _______________ _______________
Abl. __________ _______________ _______________
N/V. __________ _______________ _______________
Gen. __________ _______________ _______________
Dat. __________ _______________ _______________
Acc. __________ _______________ _______________
Abl. __________ _______________ _______________
One of the difficulties beginning students have with third
declension nouns is that dictionaries only abbreviate the second
entry, where you're given the stem of the noun, and it's often
puzzling to see just what the stem is. Look over this list of
typical abbreviations. After a very short time, they'll cause
you no problem.
ENTRY STEM ENTRY STEM
veritas, -tatis (f) veritat- oratio, -onis (f) oration-
homo, -inis (m) homin- finis, -is (f) fin-
labor, -oris (m) labor- libertas, -tatis (f)
libertat-
tempus, -oris (n) tempor- senectus, -tutis (f)
senectut-
virgo, -inis (m) virgin- amor, -oris (m) amor-
ENTRY STEM
corpus, -oris (n) ____________________
honor, -oris (m) ____________________
humanitas, -tatis (f)____________________
frater, -tris (m) ____________________
mutatio, -onis (f) ____________________
pater, -tris (m) ____________________
pestis, -is (f) ____________________
scriptor, -oris (m)____________________
valetudo, -inis (f)____________________
cupiditas, -tatis (f)____________________
MODIFYING THIRD DECLENSION NOUNS
Modifying a third declension noun is nothing to cause any alarm.
It's done the same way you modify first and second declension
nouns: put the adjective in the same number, gender, and case as
the target noun, and away you go. What causes beginners in Latin
some discomfort is that they can't quite bring themselves around
to modifying a third declension noun with an adjective which uses
first and second declension endings.
Let's go through this step by step. Suppose you want to
modify the noun "virtus, -tutis (f)" with the adjective "verus,
-a, -um". You want to say "true virtue". You know that "virtus"
is nominative, feminine and singular, so for the adjective
"verus, -a, -um" to agree with it, it must also be feminine,
nominative and singular. So look at the adjective's listing
closely: how does "verus, -a, -um" become feminine? From the
second entry, you see that it uses endings from the first
declension to modify a feminine noun. Since "virtus" is
feminine, verus" will use first declension endings. You now
select the nominative singular ending from the first declension
-- "-a" -- and add it to the stem of the adjective. The result:
"vera virtus". Try some more. Decline the following
expressions.
evil time small city
N/V. ______________ _____________ ____________________________
Gen. ______________ _____________ ____________________________
Dat. ______________ _____________ ____________________________
Acc. ______________ _____________ ____________________________
Abl. ______________ _____________ ____________________________
N/V. ______________ _____________ ____________________________
Gen. ______________ _____________ ____________________________
Dat. ______________ _____________ ____________________________
Acc. ______________ _____________ ____________________________
Abl. ______________ _____________ ____________________________
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
mos, moris (m) In the plural, "mos" takes on a new meaning: in
the singular in means "habit", in the plural
"character". This isn't hard to understand. What
a person does regularly to the point of being a
habit eventually becomes what he is: it becomes
his character.
littera, -ae (f) Like "mos, moris", in the plural "littera"
takes on an extended meaning. In the
singular it means "a letter of the alphabet";
in the plural it means either "a letter
(something you mail to someone)" or
"literature". To say "letters", -- as in,
"He used to send her many letters" -- Latin
used another word. "Litterae" is one letter.
post + acc. Means "after", but it is only a preposition in
Latin, and cannot be used as a conjunction. For
the English "after" in this sentence, "post" is
not a correct translation: "After I went to the
zoo, I went to the movies".
sub + acc./abl. This preposition, like a few others you'll
see, can be followed by the accusative or the
ablative case. When it takes the accusative
it means motion to and under something; when
it takes the ablative it means "position
under". "She walked under the tree" -- in the
sense that she was not beneath the tree at
first but then walked there -- would be "sub"
+ accusative in Latin; "She sat under the
tree" would be "sub" + ablative. Similarly,
if you say "She walked under the tree" in the
sense that she was walking around under the
tree, that would be "sub" + ablative because
no motion toward was involved.
12/31/92
CHAPTER 8
"Third Conjugation (duco): Present Infinitive, Present and
Future Indicative, Present Imperative Active"
PRESENT INFINITIVE AND PRESENT TENSE
You remember that Latin verbs are divided into groups called
"conjugations", and the conjugations are distinguished from one
another by their thematic vowels. The thematic vowel of the
first conjugation is "-a-"; the thematic vowel of the second is
"-e-". You can tell what the stem vowel (its thematic vowel) of
a verb is -- and thereby its conjugation -- by dropping the "-re"
ending from the infinitive, which is given to you in the
dictionary.
laudo laudare stem: lauda- 1st conjugation
moneo monere stem: mone- 2nd conjugation
Now look at the dictionary entry for the verb "to lead" in Latin:
"duco, ducere". Simply by looking at the first entry, you might
think that this verb is going to be a first conjugation verb --
it looks like "laudo". But the next entry looks something like a
second. Find the stem: it's duce-. You have to look closely,
but the "-e-" of the stem is short. This is the characteristic
vowel of the third conjugation: short "-e-".
Even if you're not watching the long marks, you can still
tell a second conjugation verb in the dictionary from a third.
The first entry for a second conjugation verb will always end in
"-eo", and then the second entry will end "-ere". The first
dictionary entry of a third conjugation ends simply with "-o" and
then the second entry is "-ere". So if the first entry of a verb
looks like a first conjugation verb in the first person singular
and if the infinitive looks like a second conjugation verb, then
you have a third conjugation verb. Identify the conjugations of
the following verbs:
ENTRY CONJUGATION ENTRY
CONJUGATION
doceo, docere __________ audeo, audere __________
amo, amare __________ tolero, tolerare __________
duco, ducere __________ valeo, valere __________
scribo, scribere __________ ago, agere __________
We'll use "duco" as our example (paradigm) of third conjugation
verbs. Now let's see about conjugating a third conjugation verb
in the present tense. You remember the formula for all verbs in
Latin in the present tense: it's just the stem plus the personal
endings "-o", "-s", "-t", etc. Fill out the following table,
except for the conjugated form.
PRESENT TENSE OF "duco, ducere"
STEM + PERSONAL ENDINGS = CONJUGATED FORM
1st _________ __________
____________________
2nd _________ __________
____________________
3rd _________ __________
____________________
1st _________ __________
____________________
2nd _________ __________
____________________
3rd _________ __________
____________________
What we need to know is what happens to the stem vowel when you
start attaching the personal endings. In the first and second
declensions this presented no problem, because the stem vowels
are long and strongly pronounced. But short vowels always cause
difficulties in languages and are subject to changes. You
already have experience with what happens to the short "-e-"
before personal endings. Do you remember how you form the future
tense of first and second conjugation verbs? You insert the
tense sign "-b-" in between the stem and the personal endings.
And then the short "-e-" changes:
laudabo - laudabo ("-e-" disappears)
laudabs - laudabis
laudabt - laudabit
laudabmus - laudabimus
laudabtis - laudabitis
laudabnt - laudabunt
This is what happens to short "-e-" before the personal endings.
In third conjugation verb, then, what is going to happen to the
short "-e-" of its stem? Right. It's going to undergo precisely
the same changes. Now go back to the table and fill out the
conjugated forms of "duco". (Check the answers in Wheelock, p.
35.)
FUTURE TENSE
Third conjugation verbs form the future tense in a way entirely
different from that of the first and second conjugation. First
and second conjugation verbs insert a tense sign -- "-be-"
between the stem and the personal endings. Third conjugation
verbs do two things:
(1) For the first person singular, they replace the stem
vowel with an "-a-" and use the alternate personal
ending "-m" -- instead of the more regular "-o".
(2) For all the other forms, they lengthen the short "-e-"
of the stem to long "-e-". Since the "-e-" is now
long, it no longer goes through any of the changes it
went through in the present tense. It simply stays
"-e-". (Except of course where long vowels normally
become short: before "-t", and "-nt".)
Fill out the future tense of the verb "duco".
STEM + TENSE SIGN + PERS. END. = CONJUGATED FORMS
1st duc __________ __________ _______________
2nd _____ __________ __________ _______________
3rd _____ __________ __________ _______________
1st _____ __________ __________ _______________
2nd _____ __________ __________ _______________
3rd _____ __________ __________ _______________
FUTURE OF THIRD CONJUGATION VS. PRESENT OF SECOND CONJUGATION
The way a third conjugation verb forms its future presents an
interesting problem. Write out the present tense of the second
conjugation verb "moneo, monere", and next to it write out the
future of the third conjugation verb "mitto, mittere" (to send).
moneo mitto
PRESENT FUTURE
1st __________ __________
2nd __________ __________
3rd __________ __________
1st __________ __________
2nd __________ __________
3rd __________ __________
As you can see, except for the first person singular, the endings
of both these verbs look the same: the personal endings in both
these verbs are preceded by an "-e-". The present tense of a
second conjugation verb almost always looks like the future tense
of a third conjugation verb, and this could cause you some
problems when you're reading and translating. But not if you
keep your wits about you.
Suppose that you see a form like this in a text you're
reading: "legent". What do you do with it? First you recognize
the "-nt" as an ending that's attached to verbs, so the word
you're looking at is a verb. You want to look this verb up in
the dictionary, so you must simplify it to its basic form, which
is the first person singular. You remember that a verb is
conjugated by adding personal ending, so to reduce this form, you
drop of the "-nt". This leaves you with "lege-".
Now the next thing you have to consider is the "-e-": is it
the stem vowel of a second conjugation verb, or is it the
lengthened "-e-" of a third conjugation verb as the tense sign
for the future? That is, is this a present tense form of a
second conjugation verb (stem + personal endings), or is it a
future of a third (stem + lengthened "-e-" + personal endings).
What do you do next to find out? You've gone as far as you can
with you preliminary analysis of the form. Now you have to
proceed provisionally.
Suppose that the verb is a second conjugation, what will the
dictionary entry look like? The first entry is the first person
singular, the second is the infinitive, so, if this is a second
conjugation verb, the entry will be "legeo, legere". Right?
Because all second conjugation verbs end in "-eo" in the first
person singular. So you've reduced the conjugated form "legent"
to a form you can look up.
The next step is to look it up -- but look for exactly what
you've supposed the form to be. Look for both "legeo", and
"legere". Look it up. You didn't find it, did you? But if your
analysis was correct, "legeo" must be there. But it's not. What
does that tell you? It tells you that "legent" is not a form of
a second conjugation verb. (If it were, you would have found
"legeo" in the dictionary, but you didn't.) Go back to the other
possibility: "legent" could be the future of a third conjugation
verb, where the "-e-" is the sign of the future. So if this is
correct, what will the dictionary entry be? It'll be "lego,
legere". Check it out. This time you found what you were
looking for: "lego" means "to read". So how do you translate
"legent?"
leg- -e- -nt
read will they
Or "they will read".
The moral of this is that your lives used to be fairly
simple. An "-e-" before the personal endings always used to
indicate a present tense of a second conjugation verb. Now it
could mean a future of a third conjugation verb as well. You
have to proceed cautiously now, and make sure you have thoroughly
mastered your grammar before you start reading. You'll also have
to use the dictionary more deliberately and intelligently than
you had to before. And that means thinking your forms through
before you turn to the dictionary.
IMPERATIVE
Do you remember the formulae you followed for forming the
imperative of first and second conjugation verbs? It was this:
Singular: stem + 0
Plural: stem + te
And so you came up with forms like this: "lauda", "laudate",
"mone", "monete", etc. Third conjugation verbs follow the same
formulae, but don't forget that pesky short "-e-" stem vowel. If
there is something added to it, it changes to an "-i-" (or "-u-"
before the ending "-nt"); if there is nothing added to it, it
stays short "-e-". So how are you going to form the imperative
of the verb "mitto?" Think.
Singular mitte + 0 = __________
Plural mitte + te = __________
This is how all third conjugation verbs will form their
imperatives -- except for four very common verbs. The verbs
"duco", and three other verbs you'll get later, form their
singular imperatives by dropping the stem vowel altogether: "duc"
not "duce". But the plural imperatives are quite regular:
"ducite".
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
scribo, -ere One way to memorize the conjugation of verbs
is to learn them with the proper
accentuation. A second conjugation verb is
accented on the stem vowel in the infinitive,
so say "MOH neh o, moh HEH reh" for the
second conjugation verb "moneo, monere". The
stress accent on a third conjugation falls on
the syllable before the stem vowel. So say,
"SREE boh, SCREE beh reh" for the third
conjugation verb "scribo, scribere".
Similarly "DOO keh re" for "ducere", "MIT teh
re" for "mittere" and so on.
copia, -ae (f) Another one of those words which have a
different meaning in the plural. In the
singular "copia" means "abundance"; in the
plural -- copiae, -arum (f) -- it means
"supplies, troops, forces".
ad + acc Means "to" and "toward", always with a sense
of "movement to. Students often "ad + acc".
with the dative case of indirect object,
which we often translate into English with
the preposition "to". Contrast these two
examples: "I am giving you a dollar ("you"
would be dative case) and "I am running to
you" ("you" would be in the accusative case
governed by "ad").
ex, e + abl. Students sometimes get hung up on when to use
"ex" or "e". Use "ex" before any word you
like, but use "e" only before words which
start with a consonant. If you wish, use
"ex" only. That way, you'll always be right.
ago, agere An idiom with this verb which Wheelock is
going use a lot is "ago vitam", which means
"to live" (to lead a life). Another is "ago
gratias" + dative, which means "to thank".
The person being thanked is in the dative
case: "Populus hominibus gratias agent".
duco, ducere Means "to lead", but can also mean "to
think". This extension is logical: we want
our leaders to be thinkers too, don't we?
12/31/92
CHAPTER 9
"Demonstrative Pronouns: Hic, Ille, Iste"
ENGLISH: THIS, THESE; THAT, THOSE
Consider the following expressions:
this car that car
these cars those cars
The words "this", "these", "that", and "those" are obviously
telling you a little something more about "car" or "cars". They
are indicating the relative spacial location "car" or "cars" have
to the speaker. When we say "this car" or the plural "these
cars", we are referring to the car or cars which are nearby:
"this car right here"; "these cars right here". For the most
part, when we say "that car" or "those cars", we mean cars which
are some distance from us: "that car over there", or "those cars
over there". It would sound odd for someone to say "that car
right here" or "these cars way over there". So the words "this",
"these", "that", and "those", are telling us more about the words
they're attached to; that is, they qualify or modify their nouns.
And we call words which modify other nouns "adjectives".
As you know, in English adjectives hardly ever change their
form to "agree" with the thing they're modifying.
"tall tree" and "tall trees"
"bad boys" and "bad girls"
This is different from Latin adjectives, which must change
endings to show the different numbers, genders, and cases of the
nouns they modify. But look again at the adjectives "this" and
"that". When the nouns they modify become plural, the adjective
itself changes form: from "this" to "these"; from "that" to
"those". These two are the only adjectives in English which
actually change their forms to match a grammatical feature of the
nouns they're modifying. They have slightly different forms to
indicate a change in number of the nouns they modify.
So, these words are adjectives, since they qualify nouns,
and since their main purpose is to "point out" the nouns, we call
them "demonstrative adjectives" because they "point out" or
"point to" (Latin "demonstrare"). This is very important to
remember: these words are "demonstrative adjectives".
THE LATIN DEMONSTRATIVE ADJECTIVES: ILLE, HIC, ISTE
Latin also has demonstrative adjectives roughly equivalent to our
"this" and "that". Now remember, since these words are
adjectives in Latin, they must be able to agree with the nouns
they're modifying. Therefore, these demonstrative adjectives
must be able to decline to agree with all three different
genders. For the most part, the Latin demonstrative adjectives
decline just like the adjectives you've see so far. That is,
they add the first and second declension endings to their stems.
But there are some unexpected irregularities which you simply
must memorize:
(1) The nominative singulars are irregular.
(2) The genitive singular for all genders is "-ius".
(3) The dative singular for all genders is "-i".
Keep these irregularities in mind and decline the demonstrative
adjective "that". Its dictionary listing includes all the
nominatives -- just as an adjective like "magnus, -a, -um" does
-- so that you can see its declension pattern. The adjective for
"that" is "ille, illa, illud". (You can check your work in
Wheelock, p. 39.)
STEM: ill-
MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER
N/V. _______________ _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________
N/V. _______________ _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________
As you can see, the inflection of the demonstrative adjective
"ille" is quite recognizable after the nominative, genitive and
dative singulars. With some more time, however, you'll become
well-acquainted with the irregulars forms "-ius" and "-i" of
genitive and dative singulars. All the demonstrative adjectives
and pronouns in Latin use these alternative genitive and dative
singular endings, as do some adjectives. In fact, we call this
declensional pattern the "heteroclite" declension, because it
seems to be borrowing the genitive and dative singular forms from
somewhere else.
Let's turn now to the demonstrative adjective for "this".
The stem is "h-", and it follows the pattern set by "ille":
unusual nominatives, alternative endings for the genitive and
dative singulars. But there are four additional things to note
about its declension:
(1) In the genitive and dative singulars, the stem
lengthens to "hu-" from "h-".
(2) In all the singular cases and genders, and in the
neuter plural nominative and accusative, the particle
"-c" is added to the end of case endings for a little
extra emphasis: like "this here" in English. We call
the "-c" an "epideictic" (eh peh DAY tick) particle.
(3) When the epideictic particle "-c" is added to a case
ending which ends in an "-m", the "-m" becomes an "-n".
(4) The neuter nominative and accusative plural endings are
"-ae", not "-a", as you might expect from the second
declension.
This is quite a list of oddities, and students have some
difficulty mastering this demonstrative adjective. Keep you
finger on this list of irregularities and try to decline the
Latin demonstrative "this": "hic, haec, hoc".
STEM: h- (or hu-)
MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER
N/V. _______________ _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________
N/V. _______________ _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________
Finally, there exists in Latin a demonstrative adjective
that has no real translation into English, though we can readily
recognize its meaning. It can only be rendered into English by
an inflection of the voice, one implying contempt, disdain, or
outrage. Read this exchange:
X: "Did you see the movie I was telling you about?"
Y: "What movie?"
X: "You know, the one about mass killing, torture, moral
outrages and general profligacy. The one you said no
one in his right mind ought to see?"
Y: "Oh, that movie".
The final "that" in this dialogue corresponds to the Latin
demonstrative adjective "iste, ista, istud". There is nothing
complicated about the declension of "iste"; It uses the
alternative genitive and dative singular endings "-ius" and "-i",
and the neuter nominative and accusative singular is "-ud" (like
"illud"). Aside from that, it uses the standard first and second
declension endings.
STEM: ist-
MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER
N/V. _______________ _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________
N/V. _______________ _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________
USING THE HETEROCLITE DECLENSION
As irritating as it may to have to memorize more endings, the
heteroclite declension has a nice advantage. It can often help you
establish the case of a noun. You know that the declensions have
forms which overlap. For example, the form "consilio" from the
noun "consilium, -ii (n) can be either the dative or ablative case
singular. But if it's modified by a demonstrative adjective, you
can tell immediately which of the two it is:
huic consilio (dative)
hoc consilio (ablative)
Write out the number, gender and case the following nouns are in:
NUMBER GENDER CASE
1. illae civitates __________ __________ __________
2. illas civitates __________ __________ __________
3. isti puero __________ __________ __________
4. isto puero __________ __________ __________
5. illi amores __________ __________ __________
6. illos amores __________ __________ __________
ADJECTIVES USING THE HETEROCLITE ENDINGS: -IUS AND -I
As I mentioned, there are some adjectives in Latin which use the
alternative genitive and dative endings. Aside from that, however,
these adjectives follow the normal declensional patterns. There
are very few of them, but they are important adjectives which get
a lot of use. You've got to know them:
alius, -a, -ud "other"
alter, -a, -um "the other"
nullus, -a, -um "no, none"
solus, -a, -um "sole, alone"
totus, -a, -um "whole; entire"
ullus, -a, -um "any"
unus, -a, -um "one"
Judged by their dictionary entries alone, these adjective look
deceptively normal. They appear to be the standard variety
adjectives of the first and second declensions. But their genitive
and dative singulars are not the standard kind. Watch this
declension of the expression "the other man alone":
Nom. alter vir solus
Gen. alterius viri solius
Dat. alteri viro soli
Acc. alterum virum solum
Abl. altero viro solo
ALIUS AND ALTER
"Alius, alia, aliud" is the adjective which means "other", and it's
one of those adjectives which follow the heteroclite declension:
"-ius" and "-i" for the genitive and dative singulars. For a
totally mysterious reason, Latin tends to replace the genitive
singular of "alius" with the genitive singular of "alter". Hence
we find "alterius" in place of the expected "aliius" in the
declension of "alius". After that oddity, the declension of
"alius" regains its sanity:
Masculine Feminine Neuter
N/V. alius alia aliud
Gen. alterius alterius alterius
Dat. alii alii alii
Acc. alium aliam aliud
Abl. alio alia alio
etc.
THE DEMONSTRATIVE ADJECTIVES USED AS DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS
So far, so good. The demonstrative adjectives "hic", "ille", and
"iste" modify nouns and point them out. Essentially this is their
nature. They are demonstrative adjectives. But they have a very
common extended use. They are frequently used as "demonstrative
pronouns". Because these words can be used either as adjectives or
as pronouns, we often call them just "demonstratives". We'll say
"hic" is a demonstrative, instead of calling it a demonstrative
adjective or pronoun. So what does this mean -- demonstrative
pronoun? The demonstrative part of it you understand: it means
something which points out or gives emphasis. But what is a
pronoun? Without getting overly ambitious about setting down an
eternally unassailable definition, let's just say for now that a
pronoun is a word which takes the place of another word in a
sentence. Here are some examples of pronouns in English:
"It just missed her".
"She has a most interesting way of speaking".
"Does he have it"?
As you can see, the underlined words are referring you to something
or someone which has already been mentioned sometime before, so to
recall them we only have to use a sign marker or abbreviation. The
word or idea which the pronoun is replacing is called the
"antecedent" (an te CEE dent). In additional to replacing their
antecedents, pronouns also tell you a little something about the
nature of the antecedent. For example, in the first sentence, you
can tell that the antecedent of "it" is singular and inanimate; the
antecedent of "her" is singular and feminine and animate. This is
an important rule to remember about pronouns: "Pronouns get their
number and gender from their antecedents".
Let's look at the English third person pronouns. We divide
the third person pronoun into two groups -- those which refer to
animate objects (mainly humans) and those which refer to inanimate
objects. Our third person pronoun observes the distinction
between the genders masculine and feminine of animate things in the
singular; in the plural, however, they make no distinctions among
gender or animate and inanimate.
Singular
Masculine Feminine Neuter
Nom. he she it
Pos. his her its
Obj. him her it
Plural
Nom. they
Pos. their
Obj. them
Latin pronouns are much more observant of the gender of their
antecedents -- as they would likely be, because of the importance
of grammatical gender in Latin. Consequently by looking at the
forms of the demonstrative pronouns "hic", "ille", or "iste", you
can tell much more about their antecedents. This makes
constructions in Latin much more flexible. Look at this sentence.
"Non poteram haec videre". How would you translate the "haec?"
You can tell that it is neuter, accusative plural from its form and
from the way it's being used in the sentence. (It's the direct
object of the verb "videre".) So its antecedent is neuter in
gender, and plural. So what's our plural, accusative third person
pronoun? It's "them". So this sentence would be translated "I was
not able to see them". In English, you see, this sentence could
mean that I am looking at men, women, or rocks, since the pronoun
only tells us that the antecedent is plural. But Latin also tells
us the gender of the antecedent, so it can be much more specific.
Now let's look at a pronoun with a little more context.
"Civitas est magna, sed non possum hanc videre". (The city is
large, but I can't see it.)
Remember that a pronoun gets its number and gender from its
antecedent, but it gets its case from the way it's being used
grammatically in the sentence. The antecedent of "hanc" is
"civitas"; they are both singular and feminine. But "hanc" is
accusative because of the way it's being used: it's the direct
object of the verb "videre". We would translate this into English:
"The city is large, but I don't see it". Notice that even though
the pronoun in Latin is feminine in gender -- "hanc" -- we don't
translate it "her", because we use "she", "her", and "her" only for
things which are biologically female. Unlike Latin, our nouns
don't have grammatical gender. Now try this: "Est bona femina, et
hanc amamus". (She is a good woman, and we love her.) This time,
since the antecedent is biologically feminine, we would translate
"hanc" with our feminine pronoun: "She is a kind woman and we love
her". You'll have to take a little care when you translate the
pronouns into English: you'll use our pronouns "he" and "she", and
so on, only when the antecedent of the Latin pronouns are
biologically masculine or feminine. Otherwise you'll use our
neuter "it", "its", "it", and "them".
One final thing to remember about the demonstratives "hic",
"ille", and "iste". They all three show much more emphasis than
does our simple "he, she, it", but we have no way to translate that
extra bit over into English. Latin has a weaker third person
demonstrative which is equivalent to our "he, she, it" -- you'll
learn it later -- but for now you'll be translating "hic", "ille",
and "iste", as if they were equivalent to "he, she, it". It's just
something we can't get over into English very easily. Try a few
short exercises. Translate into Latin.
1. Your (sing.) books are good, and we love them [use a form of
"hic".]
____________________________________________________________
2. Your (sing.) book is good, and we love it [use "ille".]
____________________________________________________________
3. The danger is great, and I fear ["timeo"] it [use "iste".]
____________________________________________________________
4. The dangers are great, and I fear them [use "iste".]
____________________________________________________________
5. She is your [pl.] daughter, and we are giving her [use "hic"]
the money.
____________________________________________________________
6. They are your [pl.] daughters, and we are giving them [use
"ille"] the money.
____________________________________________________________
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
locus, -i (m) Something a little unusual happens to "locus"
in the plural. In the singular, "locus" means
either a physical place or a place in a book
(a passage in literature). As "loci, -orum
(m)" it means only passages in literature. To
say "places" as in physical places (regions),
Latin use a neuter derivative from "locus":
"loca, -orum (n)". So "locus" actually has
two different forms in the plural, each with
different meanings: "loci" means "passages";
"loca" means "regions".
enim Like "igitur", "enim" is postpositive.
in + acc./abl. Like "sub" + accusative or ablative, "in" will
take its noun either in the accusative or the
ablative case. When it takes the accusative
in means motion into; with the ablative it
shows only position, with no motion into
involved. You can keep these two straight by
translating "in" + accusative always as
"into". Say "in" for "in" + ablative.
nunc It's the temporal "now", not the logical
"now". "Nunc" would be a translation for "Now
it's raining", not for "Now it's time to end
this chapter".
12/31/92
CHAPTER 10
"Fourth Conjugation and -io Verbs of the Third:
Present and Future Indicative, Present Imperative
and Active Infinitive"
REVIEW OF VERBS
Despite its epic-sized title, you'll find that there is really
not so much to learn in this chapter after all. You already know
the present and future tenses of the first three conjugations,
and you know how to form their imperatives and infinitive. Let's
have a look at what you know so far about these verbs.
1. The Present Tense
To form the present tense of verbs of all conjugations, you
simply take the stem of the verb (which includes its stem
vowel) and add the personal endings.
2. The Future Tense
To form the future tense of all conjugations, you take the
stem of the verb, then you add on a tense sign for the
future, and then you add the personal endings. For first
and second conjugation verbs, the tense sign of the future
is "-be-"; for the third conjugation, the tense sign is
"-a-/-e-".
3. The Imperative Mood
To form the imperative mood in the singular, you use just
the stem (without any additional ending); for the plural you
add the ending "-te" to the stem. (The exceptions to this
rule are the third conjugation verbs "duc" and three others
you haven't seen yet which lose their stem vowel short "-e"
in the singular. Their plural imperatives, however,
resurrect the stem vowel and are entirely regular:
"ducite".)
4. The Infinitive
The infinitive is just the stem plus the ending "-re" for
all conjugations.
I. First Conjugation: amo, -are
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERATIVE INFINITIVE
1 _____________ _____________
2 _____________ _____________ _____________
3 _____________ _____________
_____________
1 _____________ _____________
2 _____________ _____________ _____________
3 _____________ _____________
II. Second Conjugation: moneo, -ere
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERATIVE INFINITIVE
1 _____________ _____________
2 _____________ _____________ _____________
3 _____________ _____________
_____________
1 _____________ _____________
2 _____________ _____________ _____________
3 _____________ _____________
III. Third Conjugation: mitto, -ere
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERATIVE INFINITIVE
1 _____________ _____________
2 _____________ _____________ _____________
3 _____________ _____________
_____________
1 _____________ _____________
2 _____________ _____________ _____________
3 _____________ _____________
FOURTH CONJUGATION: PRESENT, FUTURE, IMPERATIVE, AND INFINITIVE
This is going to be easy. Look at the entry for the Latin verb
"to hear": "audio, -ire". Take a close look. What's the stem
vowel, and what, therefore, is the stem of the verb? Remember,
you discover the stem of a verb by dropping the "-re" infinitive
ending. What's left is the stem (including the stem vowel). So
the stem of the verb "to hear" is "audi-". And it's to this stem
that you add the various tense signs, personal endings, and so on
to conjugate the verb. Four conjugation verbs are verbs whose
stem ends in a long "-i-". So how are you going to form the
present tense of this verb? The formula of the present tense --
as you know already -- is: stem plus personal endings. (There is
no intervening tense sign for the present tense). In other
words, fourth conjugation verbs are verbs having an "-i-" for its
stem vowel, and it follows precisely the same rules as the other
conjugations for forming the present tense, with the one
exception that in the third person plural, an extra "-u-" is
inserted between the stem vowel "-i-" and the "-nt" personal
ending. How about the future tense? The fourth conjugation uses
the same tense sign as the third conjugation for the future
tense, inserting the letters "-a/e-" between the stem and the
personal endings. Because the "-i-" is long it "survives" the
addition of endings. How about the present imperative? It's just
like the other conjugations: the stem alone in the singular, and
the stem plus "-te" for the plural. And finally the present
infinitive? The stem plus "-re".
So you can see that the principal difference between the
fourth conjugation and the others you've seen so far is the
quality of the stem vowel. Conjugate the fourth conjugation verb
"to come".
IV. Fourth Conjugation venio, -ire:
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERATIVE INFINITIVE
1 _____________ _____________
2 _____________ _____________ _____________
3 _____________ _____________
___________
1 _____________ _____________
2 _____________ _____________ _____________
3 _____________ _____________
THIRD CONJUGATION i-STEM: PRESENT, FUTURE, IMPERATIVE AND
INFINITIVE
The third conjugation contains a subset of verbs, called
"i-stems", that seem to imitate the fourth conjugation. The
third conjugation, as you know, contains verbs whose stem vowel
is short "-e-". The short "-e-" is almost entirely hidden in the
conjugation of the verbs because it changes to a short "-i-" or
short "-u-" before the personal endings in the present tense.
Still it follows all the same rules as the other verbs when
deriving its different forms. Both the i-stem and non i-stem
third conjugation verbs have the stem vowel short "-e-" -- that's
why they're both third conjugation verbs. But the "i-stem" third
conjugation verbs insert an extra "-i-" in some places in their
conjugation. These places are really quite easy to remember, if
you know fourth conjugation verbs: a third conjugation "i-stem"
verb inserts an extra "i" everywhere a fourth conjugation verb
has an "-i-". In fact, you might want to think of a third
conjugation "i-stem" verb as a failed fourth conjugation verb --
as a verb which "wants" to be fourth. Here's the dictionary
entry form many 3rd conjugation i-stem verbs. Notice the extra
"-i-" in the first entry, and the short "-e-" of the infinitive
in the second:
capio, -ere
rapio, -ere
cupio, -ere
facio, -ere
fugio, -ere
Let's have a closer look at all this. Write out the present
tense of the following verbs. Remember, a third i-stem verb has
an extra "-i-" every where there's an "-i-" in the fourth
conjugation.
THIRD (non i-stem) FOURTH THIRD i-STEM
mitto, -ere venio, -ire capio, -ere
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
As you can see, the fourth and third i-stem verbs look identical.
But there is a difference. Go back and put in the long marks
over the stem vowel long "-i-" of "venio". The "-i-" is long in
the second person singular and plural, and in the first person
plural. Now compare the forms of "venio" with those of "capio"
-- you can see the differences. The "-i-" of a fourth
conjugation verb is long by nature and "wants" to stay long
wherever it can. The stem vowel of a third conjugation verb is
short "-e-" which turns into short "-i-" or "-u-". But it will
never become long "-i-" regardless of what ending is added to it.
Now, the difference between a short and long vowel may seem
rather subtle to us, but look again. In Latin pronunciation, the
accent of a word falls on to the second to the last syllable if
the vowel in the syllable is long. If it is short, then the
accent goes back to the third to the last syllable. So, what's
the difference in the way these forms would have been pronounced?
capmus is pronounced CAH peh muhs
audimus is pronounced owh DEE muhs
Similarly
captis is pronounced CAH peh tis
auditis is pronounced owh DEE tis
So the difference for a Roman between these verbs in some the
forms would have been quite striking.
What about the future tense of the third conjugation i-stem
verbs? They look just like the fourth conjugation verbs: stem(i)
+ "a/e" + personal endings.
THIRD (non i-stem) FOURTH THIRD i-STEM
mitto, -ere venio, -ire capio, -ere
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
Now let's consider the imperative mood. In this case, there
is no difference at all between the third i-stem verbs and the
third non i-stems. And why should there be? They both have the
same stem vowel: short "-e-".
THIRD (non i-stem) FOURTH THIRD i-STEM
mitto, -ere venio, -ire capio, -ere
SINGULAR __________ __________ __________
PLURAL __________ __________ __________
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
You must be more alert now when you're looking in the dictionary
for a form. The third i-stem verbs and fourth conjugation verbs
look the same in the first person singular. You mustn't decide
-- even unconsciously -- which conjugation a verb is before
you've checked with the second entry. The second entry, as you
know, tells you the stem vowel -- and the stem vowel tells you
the conjugation. Pay attention.
-ficio, -cipio The short "-a-" of the verbs "facio" and
"capio" change (or "grade") to short "-i-" in
compound forms of the verb -- i.e., when a
prefix is attached. It will save you a lot
of time if you learn to recognize the root
"facio" in the verbs "perficio", "conficio",
"interficio", etc. instead of having to treat
every derived form as an entirely new
vocabulary item.
01/05/93
CHAPTER 11
"Personal Pronouns Ego and Tu; Pronouns Is
and Idem"
THE ENGLISH PERSONAL PRONOUNS
You know what a pronoun is. It's a word which takes the place of
a noun in a sentence. The word it's replacing is called the
antecedent. So we can ask, "What is the antecedent of this
pronoun", whenever we see a pronoun in a sentence. That is, we
are asking, "To what noun is this pronoun pointing?" Read the
following paragraph and pick out the pronouns; ask yourself what
the antecedent is for each pronoun.
"George asked Larry to go pick up the apple. He wanted
an apple so he told him to get it. But Larry couldn't
find it, so he couldn't give it to him. Larry told
him, 'If I had found it, I would have given it to you,
but I couldn't find it.' He turned to Sue sitting
nearby and said to her, 'He's a failure. Can you find
it for me?' Sue said she didn't know where it was
either. 'I guess you're just out of luck", she told
him".
Alright, that's enough of that. You see how useful these
pronouns are. If it weren't for pronouns, you'd have to repeat
every noun and every name each time you wanted to refer to them,
no matter how obvious the reference was. If you don't believe
me, try reading the paragraph again substituting the antecedent
for each of the pronouns. Pronouns are useful, and in this
paragraph you saw all kinds of pronouns in all kinds of shapes
and varieties, referring to different antecedents and performing
different grammatical task in their sentences. This variety in
form is not merely random. The differences among "he, she, it",
among "his, her, its", and "him, her, it" are critical; they tell
you (1) what the likely antecedent is, and (2) how the pronoun is
being used in the sentence of which it's a part.
If the speaker is referring to him/herself, or to a group of
people of which he/she considers himself to be a part, in a
sentence, he/she uses the first person pronoun. In English, the
first person pronoun has three forms to indicate different cases
(grammatical function).
Case Singular Plural
Nominative I we
Possessive my our
Objective me us
If the speaker is referring to the person or people to whom
he/she is directly talking, he/she uses the second person
pronoun. (Notice that the cases are not so clearly visible in
the morphology of this pronoun; notice also that English makes no
distinction between second person pronoun in the singular and
plural.)
Case Singular Plural
Nominative you you
Possessive your your
Objective you you
Now take a close look at these pronouns. What don't they tell
you about their antecedents? You can see the difference in
number in the first person pronoun, but you can't in the second.
What else don't you know about the antecedents? Do you know
their genders? Do you know simply by looking at the form of,
say, "me" whether the person referred to is male, female, or
neuter? No. In English (as well as in Latin), the first and
second pronouns make no distinction in the forms among the
possible genders of their antecedents. Think about this for a
moment. Why should the languages have evolved this way? Why is
it not important for a speaker to be able to indicate differences
in gender in he first and second persons? Try to figure it out.
Well, let's take a step backwards for a moment: what is the first
person? It's the speaker or speakers of the sentence, right?
And what is the second person? It's the person or people whom
the speaker(s) is (are) directly addressing. So should it be
necessary for someone who's speaking to indicate his or her own
gender to the listener(s)? Look, I surely know what gender I am,
so there's no reason to indicate in the grammar of my sentence
what gender I am. Furthermore, the psychology of language is
such that there is an assumed (or real) audience to whom I am
directing my thoughts. There is always an implied second person
in everything written. So, if I'm standing directly in front of
you, talking to you, you should have no doubt about my gender,
because you can see me. Therefore it would be superfluous for me
to add special gender markings to my first person pronouns to
tell you what gender I am. That is plainly visible. For this
reason, then, the first person pronouns make no distinctions
among the genders of their antecedents.
Can you guess now why the second person makes no
distinctions among the genders, either? Right, because if I (the
first person) am directly addressing you (the second person),
then I should be able to tell your gender too. You know my
gender, and I know your gender, because we're standing in front
of each other. As the first person in our conversation, I don't
need to remind you, my audience, of your own gender, do I?
Now let's look at the first and second pronouns in Latin.
They'll make distinctions in number. And, to be useful in Latin,
they'll have to decline through all the cases just like Latin
nouns. Here they are:
1st Person 2nd Person
N/V. ego tu
[Gen. mei tui]
Dat. mihi tibi
Acc. me te
Abl. me te
N/V. nos vos
[Gen. nostrum/nostri vestrum/vestri]
Dat. nobis vobis
Acc. nos vos
Abl. nobis vobis
Look at the following examples. You'll see how useful these
pronouns are.
1. Mittam ad vos filium meum. (I will send my son to you.)
2. Ego scribo has litteras. (I write this letter.)
3. Ego vos video, atque vos me videtis. (I see you, and
you see me.)
4. Cum vobis in terram illam veniam. (I will come into
that land with you.)
5. Cum te in terram illam veniam. (I will come into that
land with you.)
THE "WEAK" DEMONSTRATIVE ADJECTIVE IS, EA, ID
So what about the third person pronouns? Here there's a problem,
one which plagued, and continues to plague, the Romance languages
derived from Latin. First off, the third person pronoun is going
to have to tell you more about their antecedents than the first
and second person pronouns did. If I (the first person) am
talking to you (the second person) directly, I certainly know
what gender you are. But if I am talking to you about something
else (which is the third person) or if I am talking to you about
several things, it would be nice if I could refer the gender of
these topics of conversations. Look at the following passage.
"I've got to tell you a story. Yesterday I saw Betty and
Steve. He asked her for an apple. She told him that she
didn't have any. When he asked her again, she told him to
go buy his own apples".
Let's look at this little narrative more closely. The first
"He" -- how do you know that it's referring to Steve and not to
Betty. That's easy; it's because "he" is masculine and not
feminine. If the antecedent had been Betty, then you would have
had "She" in place of "He". Another thing "He" tells you about
the antecedent is that the antecedent is singular. If the
antecedent had been plural, then "He" would have been "They".
Right? One last thing. Look at the antecedent for "He". What
case is it in? It's in the objective (or accusative) case
because it's the direct object of the verb "saw". Now look at
the pronoun "He". What case is it in? It's in the nominative
case. Why? Because in its sentence it's the subject of the verb
"asked". Now look at the pronoun "his" in the last line. What
case is it in? This time the pronoun is in the possessive (or
genitive) case, again because the grammar of the sentence it's in
requires it to be in the genitive case. Even though all the
pronouns are pointing to the same antecedent, they are all in
different cases in their own sentences. Here is a rule you must
remember:
"A pronoun gets its number and gender from its
antecedent, but it gets its case from the way it's
being used grammatically in its own sentence".
Remember that; you'll need it very soon. Now let's get on
with the Latin third person pronoun. Here's what the Latin third
person pronoun must do: it must be able to show the number and
gender of its antecedent, and it must be able to inflect through
the entire case system.
Let's look once more at the English third person pronoun, so
that you can see how unbelievably flaccid and corrupted it is in
comparison to the majestic power of the Latin 3rd person pronoun.
Singular
Masculine Feminine Neuter
Nom. he she it
Gen. his her its
Acc. him her it
Plural
Masculine-Feminine-Neuter
Nom. they
Gen. their
Acc. them
As you can see the English third person pronoun is so feeble it's
hardly worth learning. In the singular, some of the case forms
are identical, and in the plural it makes no distinction among
the genders: "They" can refer to a group of men, women, or rocks.
So it's not very useful.
But look at the Latin third person pronoun. The third
person pronoun starts its life as a weak demonstrative adjective.
It means something like "the" and it agrees with the noun to
which it's attached: "the book". Then, like the other
demonstratives you've seen -- "ille", "hic", and "iste" -- it can
be used independently as a pronoun. Let's see how it works.
First the morphology. The stem is "e-" and basically it's
declined just like the other demonstratives you've seen before.
You remember the heteroclite declension which has the irregular
"-ius", and "-i" for the genitive and dative singulars? The
nominative singular of the third person demonstrative is a little
odd, and the genitive and dative singular use these alternative
endings Try to fill in the declension. Don't forget, now, the
stem of the demonstrative is "e-" to which the case endings are
going to be added. Except for the genitive and dative singular,
it will use the standard first and second declension endings
which all standard adjectives use.
MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER
N/V. is ea id
Gen. _____________ _____________
_____________
Dat. _____________ _____________
_____________
Acc. _____________ _____________
_____________
Abl. _____________ _____________
_____________
N/V. ii, or ei _____________
_____________
Gen. _____________ _____________
_____________
Dat. _____________ _____________
_____________
Acc. _____________ _____________
_____________
Abl. _____________ _____________
_____________
First let's see how the weak demonstrative "is, ea, id"
works as an adjective. Don't forget that as with the
demonstratives "ille", "hic", and "iste", "is" can be used both
as an adjective and as a pronoun. When used as a demonstrative
adjective, "is" has about the same force as our article "the",
although as you'll see Latin doesn't use "is, ea, id" in some
places where we would use our "the". Briefly, we may say this:
Latin uses "is, ea, id" as a demonstrative adjective to give a
little emphasis to something which has already been talked about.
Like this:
"I have a book".
"Well, then, give me the book".
"The book is on the table".
"Okay, thanks. I'll get the book myself".
The underscored "the's" are candidates for the Latin "is, ea,
id", because the book the two are talking about has already been
identified, and the speakers are calling just a little attention
to it. Can you see also how "is, ea, id" differs from the strong
demonstrative adjectives "ille" and "hic?" Can you feel the
difference between saying "Give me the book" and "Give me that
book" or "Give me this book?" In English we have a weak "this"
that corresponds nicely to the Latin "is, ea, id" used as an
adjective. We can say for example "I like this book", without
placing much emphasis on the "this". That is, we're not saying
"I like this book [and not that one over there]".
Here are some examples of "is, ea, id" used as weak
demonstrative adjectives. Of course, without a context it may be
a little difficult to see precisely the shades of feeling, but at
least you can see the grammar involved.
1. Eos libros vobis dabimus. (We will give the [or these]
books to you.)
2. Eas litteras ad me mittet. (He will send the [or this]
letter to me.)
3. Ei libri sunt boni. (The [or these] books are good.)
4. Animi earum feminarum valent. (The courage of the [or
of these] women is strong.)
5. Nulla civitas ea bella tolerare poterat. (No city was
able to endure the [or these] wars.)
Now translate these into Latin, using "is, ea id" for "the".
1. They will send you the [this] money.
_________________________________________________________________
2. I will give you the money of the [these] men.
_________________________________________________________________
3. The [these] boys are not thinking.
_________________________________________________________________
4. I will come with the [this] tyrant.
_________________________________________________________________
5. That man will discover the [this] plot.
_________________________________________________________________
IS, EA, ID AS PRONOUN
Now, how does a mild-mannered weak demonstrative adjective become
the redoubtable third person pronoun, the glory of the Latin
language? Let's think back. Remember the demonstrative
adjectives "ille", "hic", and "iste?" You remember that they can
be used as adjectives, to add emphasis to the noun they're
modifying.
"Ille liber est bonus." (That book is good.)
"Hic vir est malus." (This man is evil.)
"Cicero videt istas insidias."
(Cicero see this plot.)
"Possum superare vitia illa." (I can overcome those faults.)
"Habeo pecuniam illarum feminarum." (I have the money of those
women.)
That's all fine and good. But you also remember that the
demonstrative adjective can be used, just like all other
adjectives, without a noun explicitly stated, but only implied.
In order to supply the correct noun, you must do two things: (1)
you must examine the form of the demonstrative, and (2) you must
examine the context. Watch:
"Illae feminae sunt ibi, sed illas videre non possum".
How do you translate the "illas?" Well, "illas" is feminine,
accusative plural, right? It's in the accusative because it's
the direct object of the verb "videre". But why is it feminine
and plural? Because the noun which has been left out -- that is,
the things to which "illas" is referring -- is feminine and
plural. And what is that? Look at the context. "Feminae" is
feminine and plural.
"Those women are there, but I can't see those women" (or,
more idiomatically in English, "but I can't see them").
When the demonstratives are used without a noun, they are taking
the place of a noun. And words which take the place of a noun
are called pronouns. Hence the metamorphosis from demonstrative
adjective to demonstrative pronoun is complete.
Now let's take a look at the weak demonstrative adjective
"is, ea, id". It will undergo the same process from adjective to
pronoun. Because there is only a weak demonstrative force
attached to "is, ea, id", we can translate it into English simply
as our third person pronoun: "he", "she", "it", etc.
"Videstisne meos amicos?"
"Video eos".
"Do you see my friends?"
"I see them".
All you have to do when you see the weak demonstrative adjective
in a sentence without a noun is to treat it just like third
person pronoun: check the antecedent and find the appropriate
English equivalent. Read these sentences (go very, very slowly
and be reasonable):
"Cicero amat Romam, et in ea beatam vitam agit. Atque ego
civitatem eius amo. Toti amici eius sunt Romani. Vitae
eorum sunt beatae. Et eas magna cum sapientia agunt. Ei
igitur sunt beati. Cicero eos amat, et ei eum amant. Olim
civitas eorum in periculis magnis erat, sed ea superare
poterat, quoniam viros multos bonorum morum invenire
poterat".
(Cicero loves Rome, and he is leading a happy life in it. I
also love his city. All his friends are Romans. Their
lives are happy, and they are leading them [they are leading
their lives] with great wisdom. They are therefore happy.
Cicero loves them, and they love him. Formerly their city
was in great danger, but it was able to overcome them [the
dangers], since it was able to find many men of good
character.)
THE DEMONSTRATIVE idem, eadem, idem
This is simple. Latin adds an undeclinable suffix to the end of
the inflected forms of the demonstrative "is, ea, id" and comes
out with "the same". Like the demonstrative "is, ea, id", the
resulting form can be used either an adjective -- "eadem femina"
(the same woman), or as a full-blown pronoun -- "video easdem" (I
see the same (feminine) things). Remember, the syntactically
important information comes before the "dem" suffix: "eisdem",
"eaedem", etc.
The addition of the suffix cause some distortion of the
spelling of "is, ea, id". First, in the nominative singular
masculine, the "s" of "is" collides with the "d" of "-dem" and
disappears, but the "i" of "is" becomes long as a result. In the
nominative singular neuter instead of "iddem" we get "idem". No
big surprise here. Finally, and this isn't much of a surprise
either, wherever the case ending of "is, ea, id" ends in an "m",
the addition of "dem" changes the "m" to an "n". Decline "idem,
eadem, idem".
MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER
N/V. _____________ _____________ _____________
Gen. _____________ _____________ _____________
Dat. _____________ _____________ _____________
Acc. _____________ _____________ _____________
Abl. _____________ _____________ _____________
N/V. _____________ _____________ _____________
Gen. _____________ _____________ _____________
Dat. _____________ _____________ _____________
Acc. _____________ _____________ _____________
Abl. _____________ _____________ _____________
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
nemo the pronoun for "nobody" has more than its share of
oddities:
(1) the stem of the word is nemin-;
(2) it uses the third declension endings;
(3) it's potentially masculine or feminine -- "no man" or
"no woman";
(4) like English "nobody", it's only singular;
(5) it uses the genitive singular of the adjective "nullus,
-a, -um" instead of its expected form of "neminis";
(6) in the ablative singular it uses "nullo" (m. and n.) or
"nulla" (f.) instead of the expected "nemine".
(Consequently, the only place "nobody" in Latin
distinguishes among the genders is in the ablative.
Why that should be I haven't the foggiest idea.)
Nom. nemo
Gen. nullius
Dat. nemini
Acc. neminem
Abl. nullo, nulla
01/05/93
CHAPTER 12
"Perfect System Active of All Verbs; Principal Parts"
VERBS: PRINCIPAL PARTS
Let's pretend you're native French speakers learning English and
you want to look up the English equivalent of the French verbs
"voir", "avoir", "prendre", and "regarder". Turn to your
French-English dictionary and you find this:
voir: "to see", pret. "saw", pt. "seen"
avoir: "to have", pret. "had", pt. "had"
prendre: "to take", pret. "took", pt. "taken"
regarder: "to look"
What's all this about? Why are there three entries for the first
three verbs? Wouldn't it have been enough for the dictionary
just to have listed the infinitive "to see" for "voir", "to have"
for "avoir", etc.? Of course not; and why not? Consider our
verb "to see"? What tenses of the verb are formed from the stem
indicated in the infinitive "to see?" Let's list a few.
Present Simple: "I see"
Present Progressive: "I am seeing"
Present Emphatic: "I do see"
Imperative: "See"
Future Simple: "I will see"
Future Progressive: "I will be seeing"
Imperfect: "I was seeing"
Present Conditional: "I may see"
You can see that if you know a few basic tricks, you can use the
infinitive form "to see" as the basis for several tenses and
moods in English. "To see" provides the raw material. But there
are tenses English uses that are not formed from the infinitive
"to see". How about the preterit (the simple past tense)? Can
you form the simple past from "to see"? No, English uses another
form of the verb to form this tense, and unless you know what
that form is, you can't use the verb "to see" in the preterit
tense. Therefore, the dictionary must give you the form English
uses: "saw". So the second entry in the dictionary for the
English verb "to see" is the preterit form. Look at the second
entries for "to have" and "to take". Their preterits are "had"
and "took". Do we get any other tenses from this form of the
verb? No, just one: the preterit tense.
Look at the third entry, "seen". For what tenses, voices
and moods does English use this form? A lot of them. Here are
some:
Present Passive: "I am seen"
Perfect Active: "I have seen"
Pluperfect Active: "I had seen"
Perfect Passive: "I have been seen"
Future Perfect Active: "I will have seen"
Future Perfect Passive: "I will have been seen"
Past Conditional: "I might have seen"
With the three forms given in the dictionary, you have all the
raw material from which you can build every possible tense, mood,
voice and number of the verb "to see". Therefore, to know an
English verb thoroughly, and to be able to use it in all its
possible applications, you must know all three of its basic
forms. Once you know them, you simply apply the rules for the
formation of the different tenses, voices, and moods. We call
these three forms the principal parts of the verb. English verbs
have three principal parts: the infinitive, the preterit, and the
perfect participle.
Fine, now look at the verb "to look". Why aren't there two
more principal parts listed after the infinitive? Well, what are
the next two principal parts? The verb goes: "to look",
"looked", and "looked". As you can see, the second and third
principal parts are derivable from the first principal part: you
simply add "-ed" to the "look". There are hundreds of verbs in
English that work this way. Their second and third principal
parts are simply the first principal part with the suffix "-ed".
Verbs which operate like this are called "regular" (or weak). If
a verb is regular, you don't need to be given the second and
third entries separately. That is, once you know the first
principal part, you know the next two, and thus have all the
basic material you need to form all the possible tenses, moods
and voices of the verb. On the other hand, verbs whose principal
parts are not readily derivable from the first principal part are
called "irregular" (or strong) verbs.
So what have I convinced you of so far? All possible
tenses, voices and moods of an English verb are reducible to
three different principal parts. If a verb is irregular
(strong), you must learn the principal parts by memory, but if it
is regular (weak), you can easily derive the second two principal
parts from the first.
I'll go even further. The verb systems of all languages
operate this way. To work with the verb, to know it completely,
you must know its principal parts. Then you have to know what to
do with them; you have to know the rules and the laws of the
grammar of the language. But first you have to have the basic
materials laid out in front of you, and that means knowing the
principal parts of the verb you're working with.
LATIN VERBS: PRINCIPAL PARTS
Latin verbs have three principal parts (three different stems),
but by convention we say that they have four. Up to this
chapter, I've been misleading you slightly by calling the basic
verb form of the present and future tenses the "stem". That was
justifiable when, so far as you knew, there was only one stem for
verbs. But now you must realize that the word "stem" is no
longer limited to just one possible part of the verb. The stem
with which you are so familiar is really only the first principal
part. Let's look again at the first principal part.
What tenses do we get from the first principal part? You
know two of them already. The first principal part is the stem
from which Latin forms the present, future, and the imperfect
tenses (you haven't had the imperfect tense yet, except in the
verb "sum" and "possum"). And remember, you use the infinitive
-- the second principal part -- to tell you what the stem of the
first principal part is. Here are the formulae for the present
and future tenses.
PRESENT: first principal part + no tense sign+
personal endings
FUTURE: first principal part + tense sign+personal
endings
Take a couple of minutes to review these forms. Write out the
present and future tenses, and then the imperative mood, of the
paradigms of the four conjugations (including the third i-stem
verb):
I II III III i IV
laudo, -are moneo, -ere duco, -ere capio, -ere audio, -ire
PRESENT TENSE
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
FUTURE TENSE
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
IMPERATIVES
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
This, then, is the big picture of the sum total of your
knowledge of Latin verbs. All the tenses and moods you know are
based on the first principal part of the verb -- the first entry
you see in the dictionary. As I said before, there is one other
tense based on this stem, the imperfect, and you'll be getting it
soon enough. For reasons which you needn't worry about yet, we
call all the tenses derived from the first principal part of the
verb the tenses of the "present system". So we say that the
first principal part is the root of the present system of the
Latin verbs. Now on to some new territory.
THE PERFECT SYSTEM OF LATIN VERBS
As you saw, English verbs have three roots from which different
voices, moods and tenses are derived. A Latin verb uses its
first principal part to form the present system: the present,
future, and imperfect tenses. And this would have suited the
Romans just fine, if their language had had only three tenses,
but it has six (one less than English). We divide the tenses
into two major systems: the present system (which you know), and
the perfect system (which you are about to learn). The perfect
system uses the remaining two principal parts -- the third and
the fourth -- as its base. For this chapter, we're going to be
concerned only with the tenses formed off the third principal
part.
I. The perfect system is composed of three tenses: the perfect;
the pluperfect, and the future perfect.
A. The perfect tense is used in Latin just as we use our
preterit and our perfect tenses: "I saw" or "I have
seen".
B. The pluperfect tense is used to talk about an action
which has taken place before another action in the
past. In English, we use the preterit of the auxiliary
verb "to have" with the past participle (the third
principal part) of the verb: "I had seen". E.g.,
"Before you came to the door, I had already seen your
face through the window."
C. The future perfect tense is used to talk about an
action which will have taken place before another event
in the future. In English we use the future of the
auxiliary verb "to have" with the past participle of
the verb: "I will have seen".
The perfect, pluperfect, and future perfect tenses in the
active voice only are formed from the third principal part. The
perfect system passive, as you will see in a few chapters, uses
the fourth principal part, not the third. Let's look first at
the perfect tense active.
The perfect tense is formed exactly according to the formula
for the formation of the tenses you already know. It's made up
of personal endings which are then added to a stem. The
differences are (1) that the perfect tense uses the third
principal part in place of the first and (2) that the perfect
tense uses a different set of personal endings. The personal
endings the perfect tense uses are:
1st -i I
2nd -isti you
3rd -it he, she, it
1st -imus we
2nd -istis you
3rd -erunt they
You can see how some of these endings resemble the endings used
in the present system, but they all must be memorized as entirely
discrete items. They're actually very handy. For example, if
you see a conjugated verb which ends in "-isti", "istis", or "-
erunt", you'll know right away that you've got a perfect tense
and that the stem which the ending is attached to is the third,
not the first, principal part.
Okay, so where are we now? To form the perfect tense, Latin
uses these perfect personal endings and puts them onto the third
principal part of the verb. So let's have a look third principal
parts of verbs.
This may sound like small consolation, but in the perfect
system, the distinctions between the different conjugations melt
away. You undoubtedly remember all the differences between the
conjugations in the present system: each conjugation has a
different stem vowel and, what's even worse, the first and second
conjugations form their futures entirely differently from the
third and fourth conjugations. But in the perfect system, once
you get to the verb's third and fourth principal parts, you
needn't worry any longer whether the verb is a first, second,
third, third-i, or fourth conjugation. The fourth conjugation
will not form, say, its future perfect differently from the first
or second conjugations. All the conjugations obey exactly the
same rules in the perfect system. But getting to the third
principal part is the first thing you've got to think about.
THE FIRST CONJUGATION
Remember the verb "to look" in English? "To look" is a regular
verb in English, which means that its second and third principal
parts are formed by adding "-ed" to the first principal part: "to
look", "looked", and "looked". Because it's regular, the French
dictionary didn't list the second and third principal parts
separately. Anybody with any business looking up English verbs
in the first place should at least know how regular verbs work.
It's only when the second and third principal parts aren't
regularly formed that they need to be listed. The first
conjugation in Latin forms its principal parts by predictable and
regular modification of the first principal part. Like this:
I II III
laudo laudare laudavi
Let's go slowly. First off, the dictionary lists the first
principal part in the first person singular. (There is a good
reason for this, as you'll see next semester.) So you see
"laudo" instead of "lauda-". To see the stem vowel, and hence to
see the conjugation, you must look to the second principal part,
where the stem vowel is revealed by dropping off the infinitive
ending "-re". In the same way, the third principal is listed in
the dictionary in the first person singular perfect tense; that
is, with the "-i" of the first person singular. To see the stem,
you must drop of the "-i". So the true stem of the third
principal part is "laudav-". As you can see from this example,
the third principal part of the verb "laudo" is just the stem of
the first principal part -- "lauda-" plus "v". And all first
conjugation verbs form the third principal part in just this way.
First conjugation verbs are therefore "regular" in the system of
principal parts. If you recognize a verb is first conjugation
from its first two dictionary entries, you now can derive the
third principal part on your own without having to be given it by
the dictionary. Write out the second and third principal parts
of some of the first conjugation verbs you already know:
I II III
amo ____________________ ____________________
cogito ____________________ ____________________
tolero ____________________ ____________________
supero ____________________ ____________________
As you can see, there's really nothing to this. Once you know
that a verb is first conjugation, you can easily derive its
principal parts. For this reason, a dictionary need tell you
only a verb is first conjugation, and from there you'll be able
to derive the other parts on your own. It's the same as with
regular English verbs. Given the first part, you know the other
two (provided that you remember your grammar!). A Latin
dictionary tells you that a verb is first conjugation by simply
putting a (1) (or (I)) directly after the first entry. For
example, "certo (1)". This tells the verb is first conjugation,
and with that knowledge alone you know the rest of the principal
parts: "certare, certavi".
Now let's put the third principal part to work. And
remember, these are the rules which will govern the use of the
third principal parts of all the conjugations, first through
fourth. Use the first conjugation verb "laudo (1)" as your
paradigm.
PERFECT TENSE
Remember that to form the perfect tense of a verb you use the
stem of the third principal part (what's left after you drop the
"-i") to which you add the perfect personal endings.
3RD P.P. + PERS. END. = CONJUGATED FORM
1st __________ + __________ = ____________________
2nd __________ + __________ = ____________________
3rd __________ + __________ = ____________________
1st __________ + __________ = ____________________
2nd __________ + __________ = ____________________
3rd __________ + __________ = ____________________
PLUPERFECT TENSE
Another tense of the perfect system of tenses (tenses which use
the third and fourth principal parts of the verb) is the
pluperfect tense. To form the pluperfect tense, you use the
imperfect tense of the verb "sum" for the personal endings which
then attach to the third principal part.
3RD P.P. + PERS. END. = CONJUGATED FORM
1st __________ + __________ = ____________________
2nd __________ + __________ = ____________________
3rd __________ + __________ = ____________________
1st __________ + __________ = ____________________
2nd __________ + __________ = ____________________
3rd __________ + __________ = ____________________
FUTURE PERFECT TENSE
The future perfect uses the future of the verb "sum" as the
personal endings (with the exception of the third person plural
where it is "-erint" instead of the normal future form "-erunt".
3RD P. P. + PERS. END. = CONJUGATED FORM
1st __________ + __________ = ____________________
2nd __________ + __________ = ____________________
3rd __________ + __________ = ____________________
1st __________ + __________ = ____________________
2nd __________ + __________ = ____________________
3rd __________ + __________ = ____________________
Simple. And fairly logical, too. The third principal part
already contains within it the notion of past tense. To make it
even more past, you add the inflected forms of the imperfect of
the verb "sum" as the personal endings. Thus the name: "plu"
(more) "perfect" (completed). For the future perfect, you throw
the idea of a completed action into the future by adding the
inflected forms of the future of the verb "sum" as the personal
endings. The exception in the third person plural is actually
fairly easy to account for. You remember the future third person
plural of "sum" is "erunt". But if Latin had used this form, and
not "erint", the third person plural future perfect would have
been dangerously close to the third person plural perfect:
"laudaverunt".
Now you have it. You know all the rules for forming the
entire perfect system active of any Latin verb. Once you know
the third principal part, you simply apply these formulae and
away you go. Let's trudge on now to the second conjugation
verbs. There's a lot of regularity there too as far as the
formation of the third principal part goes. But the ugly specter
of irregularity (and hence the need for rote memorization) starts
creeping in.
THE SECOND CONJUGATION
Many, very many, second conjugation verbs form their third
principal part regularly off the first principal part. Like
this:
I II III
moneo monere monui
doceo docere docui
timeo timere timui
terreo terrere terrui
If we look into this more closely, we can see that the third
principal of these verbs is formed simply by adding "-v-" to the
stem of the first principal part, just as it's done for first
conjugation verbs. But when the "-v-" of the third principal
part comes up against the "-e-" of the stem of a second
conjugation verb, the result is one, solitary "-u-". So for ther
verb "moneo", the third principal is "monevi" which becomes
"monui". So also with many second conjugation verbs. The third
principal part is formed regularly.
Now, as I said, many second conjugation verbs form their
principal parts just this way, and if you remember this, you
won't be confronted with such a daunting list of forms to
memorize. There is some order to it. But there are enough verbs
differing from this regular pattern that you can't take for
granted that you can deduce the principals parts from the first
for every second conjugation verb. The dictionary can't simply
put a (2) next to the first entry and leave it up to you to
derive the rest of the parts. The dictionary must give you the
parts as separate entries. Here are the second conjugation verbs
you've had so far. You can see that the rules work fairly well,
but there are deviations.
I II III
debeo debere debui
doceo docere docui
habeo habere habui
valeo valere valui
video videre vidi
remaneo remanere remansi
Let's consolidate our ground now by doing a few exercises.
Produce the following forms, and try to do it from memory at
first.
1. They will have had. ______________________________
2. I had seen. ______________________________
3. You (pl.) remained. ______________________________
4. We will have called. ______________________________
5. She will be strong. ______________________________
6. You (s.) have tolerated. ______________________________
7. They had taught. ______________________________
8. You (pl.) had had. ______________________________
9. We have loved. ______________________________
10. They thought. ______________________________
THE THIRD CONJUGATION (including the i-stems)
Now you have to batten down the hatches; all hell is about to
break loose. The third conjugation is where irregularity is the
norm. You must simply learn the principal parts of third
conjugation verbs outright, but, as I will try to show you,
reason isn't completely banished from the third conjugation. Our
minds can get a toe-hold in here, too, and impose some order.
Some classifiable things happen to third conjugation verbs as
they form their principal parts.
A. Reduplication of Initial Consonant
Often the third principal part of a third conjugation will
begin by doubling the initial consonant of the first
principal part and putting an "-e-" or "-i-" in between the
two of them:
pello pellere pepuli
disco discere didici
do dare dedi
B. The Aoristic (or Sigmatic) Perfect
Many verbs add an "-s-" to the end of the first principal
part to produce the third principal part. Often the "-s-"
is hidden in an "-x-" or another consonant which comes about
from the collision between the "-s-" and the consonant at
the end of the verb.
mitto mittere misi
dico dicere dixi
scribo scribere scripsi
vivo vivere vixi
C. Change in the Medial Vowel and Loss of Stem Nasal
Very often a vowel in the first principal part which is near
the end of the verb will change in the third principal part:
it will lengthen from a short to a long vowel; or it will
grade, often from an original "-a-" to a long "-e-".
Nasals, "-m-" or "-n-", in the first principal part may also
be dropped in the third principal part.
ago agere egi
facio facere feci
fugio fugere fugi
vinco vincere vici
By now you must be wondering why I'm troubling you will all
these patterns. Isn't it enough to have to memorize the
principal parts without being burdened with all this? Well, yes,
you are going to have to memorize the principal parts of the
verbs you're given in the vocabulary, that's true. But, there
are more words out there in Latin than you can easily memorize
before you begin to read Latin. For much of your reading, you're
going to have to rely not on pre-memorized vocabulary items, but
on your powers of deduction. Suppose you see this form in your
text: "receperant".
Okay, you recognize the "-erant" ending as the third person
plural pluperfect. From this realization you can make another
deduction. If you're in the perfect system, then the "-erant"
was attached to the third principal part of the verb, and you
know that the first entry in a dictionary is the first principal
part, not the third. This could be a problem. Can you look up
"been" in the dictionary in English? No, of course not. That's
because "been" is a principal part of "to be" and it'll be listed
under "to be". So how are you going to look up "recep-"?
You'll never find it just like that in a dictionary. You must
recreate the first principal part of the verb to look it up.
What are you going to do?
Think a little. What else can you deduce about this verb?
For one, it's not a first conjugation verb. They all look like
"-av-" in the third principal part. So you won't find it under
"recepo, -are". It could be a second conjugation verb, even
though most of those have third principal parts ending in "-u-":
like "habui" and "docui" from "habeo" and "doceo". Still, it
might be worth a shot; so you look up "recepeo", expecting to see
"recepere" and "recepi" listed as its principal parts after it.
(Don't forget, what you're looking for is a verb whose third
principal part is "recepi".) But there is no "recepeo, -ere,
-cepi". Then in bitter frustration you forget my stern warning
not to go browsing in the dictionary, and you look at all the
entries beginning with "recep-" hoping to find that third
principal part "recepi". But you fail.
Now you start thinking to yourself. "Suppose this is a
third conjugation verb? Sometimes strange things happen to
verbs as they go from the first to the third principal part. Is
there any evidence of reduplication? No. Any hidden -s- sound
at the end that throwing off my search? No. Whats left? Grote
once said something about the medial vowel changing, so Ill try
that. I look up r-e-c-?-p-. Because that -e- could have been
something else in the first principal part, Ill stay flexible on
it: the verb could be recap- or recip-."
Leave yourself some intelligently limited flexibility. Now
you find it, "recipio, -ere, -cepi". You see, this works
sometimes. That's why I showed you the major patterns of
variations.
FOURTH CONJUGATION
The formation of the third and fourth principal parts of a fourth
conjugation verb is quite straight forward. There are enough
irregular forms to warrant separate listing in the dictionary --
they aren't all regular derivatives from the first principal part
as in the first conjugation -- but many verbs do have regular
principal parts. Here are a few fourth conjugation verbs.
sentio sentire sensi
venio venire veni
invenio invenire inveni
audio audire audivi
MORE DRILLS
Try to memorize the third principal parts of the verbs in the
list Wheelock gives you on pages 55-6. Here they are again in a
little more manageable form. Fill in the blanks using the
vocabulary list on pp. 56-7, but try to do as much from memory as
possible. Then you can use this list as a study sheet. Cover up
the Latin, and try write out the complete entry for each verb. A
complete entry now is all four principal parts. You'll have to
do it several times for these forms to stick, but these verbs are
absolutely essential for the rest of your study, and a little
effort now will greatly simplify your work in the future. You
must know these words and form from English to Latin. (You don't
have to memorize the fourth principal parts yet. You should just
know that they are out there.)
I II III
to love _______________ _______________ _________________
to think _______________ _______________ _________________
to wander _______________ _______________ _________________
to save _______________ _______________ _________________
to overcome _______________ _______________ _________________
to endure _______________ _______________ _________________
to call _______________ _______________ _________________
ought _______________ _______________ _________________
to teach _______________ _______________ _________________
to have _______________ _______________ _________________
to give _______________ _______________ _________________
be strong _______________ _______________ _________________
to see _______________ _______________ _________________
to remain _______________ _______________ _________________
to drive _______________ _______________ _________________
to send _______________ _______________ _________________
to write _______________ _______________ _________________
to live _______________ _______________ _________________
to feel _______________ _______________ _________________
to come _______________ _______________ _________________
to do _______________ _______________ _________________
to conquer _______________ _______________ _________________
to flee _______________ _______________ _________________
to take _______________ _______________ _________________
to lead _______________ _______________ _________________
to be _______________ _______________ _________________
to be able _______________ _______________ _________________
TRANSLATE INTO LATIN
1. "I came, I saw, I conquered (don't use supero (1))".
__________________________________________
2. I will have begun. ___________________________________
3. She had taught. ___________________________________
4. They lived. ___________________________________
5. We had. ___________________________________
6. You (pl.) have written. ___________________________________
7. They sent. ___________________________________
8. They have been. ___________________________________
9. We have found. ___________________________________
10. He had fled. ___________________________________
11. You couldn't see us. ___________________________________
12. You (s.) had seen. ___________________________________
13. They came. ___________________________________
14. She remained. ___________________________________
15. We felt. ___________________________________
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
deus, -i (m) The short "-e-" of the stem causes the word some
grief in the plural:
Nom. di (instead of dei)
Gen. deorum
Dat. dis (instead of deis)
Acc. deos
Abl. dis (instead of deis)
01/05/93
CHAPTER 13
"Reflexive Pronouns and Possessives; the Intensive 'Ipse'"
FIRST AND SECOND PERSON REFLEXIVE PRONOUNS
In Chapter 11 you studied the first, second and third person
pronouns. Here's what you should remember about them. The first
and second person pronouns don't show any gender; there aren't
three forms, for example, for "I": one that's feminine, one
that's masculine, and another that's neuter. The first and
second person don't have to indicate different gender for reasons
which are grounded psychologically in the nature of language
itself. Another thing is that Latin uses the weak demonstrative
adjective "is, ea, id" as its third person pronoun. Here making
distinctions among the three genders is very important, so the
third person pronoun has thirty possible forms: five cases in
three genders in both the singular and the plural. Remember all
that? Let's go on. Look at these English sentences.
"We saw you there".
"You saw me there".
"You saw us there".
"We are coming with you".
"You are giving it to us".
And so on. If you had to, you could put each of these sentences
into Latin, using the appropriate number and case of the first
and second person pronouns. But I have something else in mind.
As you can see in each of these sentences the person of the
pronoun of the subject is different from the pronoun that appears
in the predicate. In the sentence "We saw you there", the
subject pronoun is first and the pronoun in the predicate is
second. And similarly for the rest of the sentences. This is
because in each of these sentences some one is doing something to
or with someone else.
Now look at these sentences. They're not in standard
English, but I'm going to make a point.
"You saw you".
"I saw me".
"I bought me an apple".
"We like us".
In these sentences, unlike the first batch, the person of the
subject pronouns is the same as the pronouns in the predicate.
In "You saw you", both the subject and the predicate pronouns are
second person. And so on with the other three. Now, I warned
you, these sentences are not in standard English, but suppose a
foreigner who's just learning English wrote them out. Is there
any question in these sentences about who's doing what to whom?
No. In "I saw me", the speaker is obviously trying to say that
he saw himself. He's trying to say that the subject of the verb
is performing an action on itself, not on something or someone
else. So even though they don't qualify as good English, these
sentence can be understood. The subject of the verb is
performing an action that affect the subject itself; and because
the person of the pronouns in the subject and the predicate is
the same, you can see that.
When the subject of a sentence performs an action which
affects itself, then the pronouns in the predicate are called
"reflexive", because they send you "back" through the verb to the
subject. A reflexive pronoun is a pronoun in the predicate of
the sentence that refers you to the subject. And in the first
and second persons, this task could be easily accomplished by
using pronouns that have the same person. It's really not
necessary to have separate forms in the first and second person
for non-reflexive pronouns on the one hand and reflexive pronouns
on the other. One set of forms can do double duty. English,
however, does have separate forms. Rephrase the sentences above
using the English reflexive pronouns. As you can tell, we use a
form of the pronoun with the suffix "-self" attached to them:
FIRST PERSON SECOND PERSON
Singular: myself yourself
Plural: ourselves yourselves
Latin, however, being the wise and economical language it is, has
no separate forms for reflexive and non-reflexive pronouns in the
first and second persons. It simply uses the personal pronouns
you've already seen.
Video me. (I see myself.)
Videmus nos. (We see ourselves.)
Videtis vos. (You see yourselves.)
Vides te. (You see yourself.)
And so on, and so on. In the first and second persons, if the
pronoun in the predicate is the same number as the subject
pronoun, the pronoun in the predicate is referring to the subject
and is therefore de facto reflexive.
There is one interesting feature worth of comment. Will a
reflexive pronoun ever be in the nominative case? Think about
it. When a pronoun is nominative, it is the subject of the
sentence. But a reflexive pronoun by definition is in the
predicate and is receiving in some way the action which the
subject of the sentence is performing. So a reflexive pronoun
will never be in the nominative case. That's why you see
Wheelock listing the reflexive pronouns like this:
FIRST PERSON SECOND PERSON
Nom. ------- -------
Gen. [mei] [tui]
Dat. mihi tibi
Acc. me te
Abl. me te
Nom. ------- -------
Gen. [nostri/nostrum] [vestri/vestrum]
Dat. nobis vobis
Acc. nos vos
Abl. nobis vobis
No nominatives. Actually, a better way to say this would be to
say that Latin has no separate forms for the reflexive pronoun in
the first and second persons at all; it simply uses the existing
pronouns reflexively.
THIRD PERSON REFLEXIVE PRONOUNS
In the third person things are a little more complicated. You
remember that the third person pronoun needs to show gender,
because, unlike the first and second persons, the gender of the
topic of conversation may not be obvious. The same kind
ambiguity is possible in the third person with regard to
reflexive and non-reflexive pronouns. It may be possible that the
third person subject is performing an action which is affect
another third person. Consider this:
"He saw him".
"They saw them".
"She saw her".
Here the person of the pronouns is the same in each of these
sentences, and in the first and second persons you need to know
that the subject is acting on itself. But that's not going to
work in the third person. You can't tell whether the "her", for
example, in the predicate of the third sentence is the same
female which is the subject of the sentence. "She" could be
seeing another female. The third person must have one form for
the reflexive pronoun and another for the non-reflexive pronoun,
since the possibility of ambiguity is real if the forms were the
same. In English, we use the old stand-by: the suffix "-self"
for the reflexive: "He saw himself"; "They saw themselves"; "She
saw herself".
In Latin as well the standard third person pronoun "is, ea
id" won't do; different forms are required for the third person
reflexive pronoun -- that is, for a pronoun which will refer you
to the subject of the sentence and not to some other third
person. Latin does indeed have separate forms, but unlike the
barbarous prolixity of English, Latin keeps its forms to a bare
minimum.
Look at it this way. All the third person reflexive pronoun
has to do is to refer you to the subject of the sentence. The
pronoun itself does not have to tell you the gender or the number
of the subject of the sentence. The subject itself can tell you
that. The reflexive pronoun only has to point you back to the
subject, and if you remember the subject of the sentence you're
reading or listening to, you can mentally bring forward the
number and gender.
Try it this way. Suppose in English the sign "*" is the
reflexive third person pronoun. It tells you to go back to the
subject of the sentence, so every time you see it, you plug in
the words "the subject"
"He saw *". = "He saw [the subject]".
"They saw *". = "They saw [the subject]".
"She bought it for *". = "She bought it for [the
subject]".
Do you see. In all three sentence you get a full
understanding of what's going on without having to be told by the
reflexive pronoun what the gender and number of the subject is.
But in English we'd have to say:
"He saw himself".
"They saw themselves".
"She bought it for herself".
But really, in sentence #1, we don't need to be told again
by the reflexive pronoun that the subject is masculine and
singular. Yet this is precisely what English does. Similarly
for the other two. Does the speaker of the English sentence
really think our attention spans are so short that we have to be
reminded after a second or two what the subject of the sentence
is? Evidently.
In Latin, no such stupidity is impugned to us. The Latin
third person reflexive pronoun is simply a sign which directs us
back to the subject of the sentence. It declines, of course,
because it may be used in the different cases (not the
nominative), but it tells us nothing about the number or gender
of the subject. It just tells us, 'no matter what the subject of
this sentence was, think of again.' Here's the reflexive third
person pronoun.
SINGULAR AND PLURAL
Nom. ----------
Gen. [sui]
Dat. sibi
Acc. se
Abl. se
How do we translate this into English? Remember that the
English third person reflexive pronoun indicates number and
gender, so when we bring a Latin third person reflexive pronoun
over into English, we have to reinsert the number and gender of
the subject. Like this: "Ea se videt". To a Roman ear it means,
"she sees [the subject] For us, we have to repeat the gender and
number in the reflexive pronoun. We would say, "she sees
herself". Let's try a few more.
"Ei homines se viderunt". (The men saw themselves.)
"Eae se vident". (The women see themselves.)
"Vir se videt". (The man sees himself.)
"Eae litteras ad se mittent". (They (the women) will send a
letter to themselves.)
Of course, in the sentences Wheelock gives you it may be
impossible to say precisely what the gender of the third person
subject is if it isn't explicitly stated, as in the examples
above. For example, "Se videt" could be translated as "he sees
himself", "she sees herself", or "it sees itself Without a
context, it's impossible to decide. Choose whichever you prefer.
DRILLS
Translate into Latin.
1. I see you (pl.). _________________________
2. They see us. _________________________
3. They will send us the letter. _________________________
4. She sees herself. _________________________
5. The tyrant loves himself. _________________________
6. The tyrants love themselves. _________________________
7. Give yourself to philosophy! _________________________
8. He gives himself to philosophy. _________________________
9. She will not see them. _________________________
10. He will not see him. _________________________
11. The farmers can't see them. _________________________
12. The farmers can't see themselves. _________________________
So let's collect ourselves. Here's what we've covered so
far. (1) In the first and second persons in Latin there are no
new forms for the reflexive pronouns. If a pronoun in the
predicate is the same person as the subject, then the pronoun is
reflexive. This is because the pronoun in the predicate must be
referring to the same person as the subject of the sentence.
Additionally, for this reason, the reflexive pronoun will never
be in the nominative case. If it were in the nominative case it
would be the subject of the verb and hence not in the predicate;
and all reflexive pronouns must be in the predicate. Despite
this inherent simplicity of reflexive pronouns in the first and
second persons, English nevertheless adds "-self" or "-selves" to
the end of the non-reflexive pronouns to form the reflexive
pronouns. Strictly speaking, it's not necessary to distinguish
formally the non-reflexive from the reflexive pronouns in the
first and second persons; context could do that for you. The
third person reflexive pronoun must differ in form from the third
person non-reflexive pronouns. But all the third person
reflexive pronoun need do is to point you back to the subject of
the sentence. Because you remember the subject of the sentence,
it's not really necessary for the reflexive pronoun itself to
remind you of the gender and the number of the subject. The
Latin third person reflexive pronoun therefore does not in itself
make any distinctions in number and gender. It simply works as a
sign pointing you back to the subject. To translate the Latin
reflexive pronoun properly in English, however, you must resupply
the gender and number to the pronoun.
REFLEXIVE AND NON-REFLEXIVE POSSESSIVES
On to new business. Read this English sentence: "I see my
daughter". Now is there any question whose daughter this is?
It's the daughter of the subject of the sentence. And how do you
know that? Because the possessive "my" is first person and the
subject of the sentence is first person. So the subject of the
sentence is being recalled in the predicate, because the subject
owns the direct object of the verb. We can call this
relationship between "I" and "my" reflexive possession. The
subject of the verb is possessing something in the predicate.
You can see that to show reflexive possession no new form of
the possessive pronoun is needed. "My" does just fine. Only a
dolt would need more information about whose daughter this is.
But English has plans for the dolt. The speaker can underline
this reflexive possession by inserting "own" after "my".
Speaker: "I see my daughter".
Dolt: "Whose daughter"?
Speaker: "I see my own daughter, you dolt".
More examples:
"Do you have your money?" (reflexive possession)
"Do you have my money?" (non-reflexive)
"Have you seen our friend?" (non-reflexive)
"Hey, we can see our car from here". (reflexive possession)
"I haven't found my book yet". (reflexive possession)
Latin has no different forms for reflexive and non-reflexive
possession in the first and second persons. There's no need.
Latin simply uses the existing possessive adjectives:
FIRST PERSON SECOND PERSON
meus, -a, -um tuus, -a, -um
noster, -tra, -trum vester, -tra, -trum
If the person of the possessive adjective in the predicate is the
same as the person of the subject, then the possessive is
reflexive. Simple.
"Videtis amicos vestros". (reflexive possession)
"Videtis amicos meos". (non-reflexive possession)
Let's look just a little more closely at these possessive
adjectives. They consists of two parts. There's the stem and
the adjectival ending. The stems tell you about the possessor,
not about what the possessor is possessing. The stem "me-" of
the adjective "meus, -a, -um" tells you that the possessor is
singular and in the first person. It doesn't, however, tell you
what gender the possessor is. The adjectival ending agrees in
number, gender, and case with the object possessed. Got that?
You can think of the possessive adjectives of the first and
second persons as having two parts: the stem which tells you
about the possessor, and the adjectival ending which tells you
about what is being possessed.
Now let's get on with the third person. The simple rule
that worked so well in the first and second persons isn't going
to work here. Look at this sentence: "She had her ticket". The
possessive pronoun "her" is the same person as the subject --
third person -- but can you tell from this sentence whether "she"
has her own ticket or the ticket of some other female? No, you
can't. There is a real ambiguity here, and often in English we
have to ask for further information. "Whose ticket?" If the
speaker hasn't made it clear, an additional "own" can be used to
help out: "She has her own ticket". Now normally we rely on
context to clear up any possible ambiguities, but sometimes it's
really not clear who's owning what: "They have their books"
(Their own or some other peoples' books?). The only thing the
possessive pronoun "their" tells you about the possessors is that
there is more than one of them. But you can't tell whether these
people are the same folks indicated by "they".
In Latin, the same possibility for ambiguity exists; so some
solution to the problem is in order. First off, how does Latin
show non-reflexive possession in the third person? It uses the
genitive of the third person pronoun "is, ea, id". Watch:
"Eius librum habuit". (He/she had his/her book (not his/her
own).)
"Eius gladium invenit". (He/she found his/her sword (not
his/her own).)
"Servavit patriam eius". (He/she saved his/her fatherland
(someone else's).)
"Servaverunt patriam eorum". (The saved their (other
peoples') fatherland.)
A couple of things to notice. First, unlike the first and
second person possessive adjectives, the possessive in the third
person is not an adjective. It does not agree with the thing
being possessed. Look at the three sentences above. "Liber" is
masculine, "gladium" is neuter, and "patriam" is feminine, yet
"eius" didn't change. Similarly, in the last sentence, "eorum"
tells you that the owners are plural and masculine, but it has
nothing whatsoever to do grammatically with "patriam". In the
third person, the possessive pronoun only tells you about who's
doing the possessing; it tells you absolutely nothing about the
object possessed.
Secondly, the genitive of "is, ea, id" is used to show only
non-reflexive possession. "Eius librum habuit" could not
possibly mean "he had his own book". It can only mean "he has
his [another person's] book". In English, by contrast, the
possessive "his" can be used to show reflexive or non-reflexive
possession; but the Latin "eius" and "eorum, earum" can only be
used non-reflexively. So what does Latin use to show reflexive
possession in the third person? How does it say "his own", "her
own", "its own" and "their own?"
To show reflexive possession in the third person, Latin uses
the "reflexive possessive adjective": "suus, -a, -um". This
adjective has a couple of interesting features. First, it's an
adjective, so it must agree with the object which is being
possessed. You've seen that already in the possessive adjectives
of the first and second persons. Second, unlike the first and
second persons, the third person reflexive possessive adjective
has no different form for the plural number.
Like this. The "-us, -a, -um" part of the adjective agrees
with the object possessed. The "su-" part tells you to go back
to the subject of the sentence. And that's all it tells you.
Like the reflexive pronoun "sui, sibi, se, se", the possessive
adjective only tells you that the subject of the sentence is now
involved in the predicate, and you shouldn't have to be reminded
of the gender and number of the subject.
"Habuerunt suos libros". (They had [the subjects'] books.)
"Habuit suos libros". (He had [the subject's] books.)
"Puella habuit suos libros". (The girl had [the subject's]
books.)
But to translate this into English, we have to reinstate the
number and gender of the subject in the predicate.
"Habuerunt suos libros". (They had their own books.)
"Habuit suos libros". (He had his own books.)
"Puella habuit suos libros". (The girl had her own books.)
Do you see? The Latin adjective "suus, -a, -um" isn't
changing, but our English rendition, because in English we
clumsily repeat the gender and number of the subject of the
sentence in the reflexive possessive pronoun. Latin doesn't, and
there's really no reason it should. The "su-" part of the
possessive says, "Go back to the subject". And that's all it has
to say to get the message across.
DRILL
Translate (as many as you need to reassure yourself.)
1. I saw you. ______________________________
2. They saw her. ______________________________
3. They saw us. ______________________________
4. I saw myself. ______________________________
5. You saw me. ______________________________
6. You saw yourself. ______________________________
7. You (pl.) saw yourselves. ______________________________
8. We saw ourselves. ______________________________
9. I gave it to him. ______________________________
10. We came with you (pl.). ______________________________
11. We gave it to ourselves. ______________________________
12. They gave it to her. ______________________________
13. Vidimus nos. ______________________________
14. Id mihi dedi. ______________________________
15. Vidistis vos. ______________________________
16. Venimus cum vobis. ______________________________
17. Id ei dedi. ______________________________
18. Id vobis dedistis. ______________________________
19. Vidit eum. ______________________________
20. Venerunt cum eis. ______________________________
21. Id eis dederunt. ______________________________
22. Se vidit. ______________________________
23. Se amant. ______________________________
24. Id sibi dederunt. ______________________________
25. Amo meum canem (dog). ______________________________
26. Vidimus amicos nostros. ______________________________
27. Vides tuos amicos. ______________________________
28. Video tuos amicos. ______________________________
29. Videmus vestros amicos. ______________________________
30. Videbitis eius amicos. ______________________________
31. Vidit eius amicos. ______________________________
32. Vidit suos amicos. ______________________________
33. Viderunt eorum amicos. ______________________________
34. Viderunt suos amicos. ______________________________
35. Dederunt id eorum amicis. ______________________________
36. Dederunt id suis amicis. ______________________________
37. He saw himself. ______________________________
38. They saw our friends. ______________________________
39. We saw you. ______________________________
40. They saw themselves. ______________________________
41. I saw your friends. ______________________________
42. They saw your friend. ______________________________
43. I saw my friends. ______________________________
44. We saw our friend. ______________________________
45. They saw themselves. ______________________________
46. They saw their friends. ______________________________
47. I gave it to my friends. ______________________________
48. They gave it to them. ______________________________
49. She came with her friend. ______________________________
50. Venistis cum amicis vestris.
_______________________________________________________
51. You (pl.) gave it to yourselves.
_______________________________________________________
52. They gave it to their own friends.
_______________________________________________________
53. They gave it to themselves.
_______________________________________________________
54. He came with their friends.
_______________________________________________________
55. He came with his [own] friends.
_______________________________________________________
56. He came with his [not his own] friends.
_______________________________________________________
57. They gave it to our friends.
_______________________________________________________
58. They saw their [own] friends.
________________________________________________________
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
ipse, ipsa, ipsum This pronoun always causes some confusion
because of its English translation. It's an
emphatic adjective or pronoun, and we
translate it with our "him-, her-, it- or
them- self (selves)". Because it is the same
form we use for our reflexive pronoun,
students often mistranslate it. "Ipse"
underlines or emphasizes the noun it's
modifying or the noun it's replacing. "Ipse
id fecit" would mean "He himself did it", not
"He did it himself" which means he did it all
by himself, or "He did it to himself". "Ipsa
id fecit" would mean "She herself did it".
"Vidi ipsos viros:" would mean "I saw the
very men themselves". You'll have to
practice with this demonstrative some.
ante + acc. or adv. The preposition means "before" as in "ante
bellum" (before the war). It can also be used
as an adverb, but you won't see it in this
book. Wheelock warns you not to confuse it
with "anti", which is a Greek word which
means "against" or "instead of".
01/05/93
CHAPTER 14
"I-Stem Nouns of the Third Declension; Ablative
of Means, Manner, and Accompaniment"
THIRD DECLENSION NOUNS
As you learned in Chapter 7, the thematic vowel of the third
conjugation case endings tends to be a short "-e-". You also saw
that the short "-e-" has a habit of turning into an "-i-". Let's
take a look at the third declension endings again. Remember,
part of the problem of nouns which belong to the third declension
is that their stem -- that is, the root to which the case endings
are added -- may be a substantially different form from the
nominative singular. You must look at the dictionary listing for
the genitive singular to get the true stem of the noun. (And
don't forget the laws of the neuter nouns: (1) the accusative is
always the same as the nominative; and (2) the nominative plural
ending is a short "-a-".) Decline the following nouns:
homo, -inis (m) virtus, -tutis (f) tempus,
-oris (n)
N/V. _______________ _______________
_______________
Gen. _______________ _______________
_______________
Dat. _______________ _______________
_______________
Acc. _______________ _______________
_______________
Abl. _______________ _______________
_______________
N/V. _______________ _______________
_______________
Gen. _______________ _______________
_______________
Dat. _______________ _______________
_______________
Acc. _______________ _______________
_______________
Abl. _______________ _______________
_______________
As you can see, masculine, feminine and neuter nouns of the
third declension use the same case endings. The only exceptions
are the accusative singular and the nominative and accusative
plural of neuter nouns. But this is what neuter nouns do, no
matter what declension they belong to: they obey the laws of the
neuter. So really, the neuter nouns of the third declension use
the same endings as third declension masculine and feminine
nouns. The only differences are where neuter nouns are obeying
their own peculiar laws.
THIRD DECLENSION I-STEM NOUNS
There is a class of nouns in the third declension which does not
maintain this regularity. We call this class of third declension
nouns the "i-stems" because an "-i-" turns up in some unexpected
places in the case endings. Basically, i-stem nouns use the same
endings as the normal, non-i-stem third declension nouns. But in
a couple of places, i-stem nouns differ. What is more, i-stem
masculine and feminine nouns don't behave the same way neuter
i-stem nouns behave. So you're going to have to learn three
things in this chapter:
(1) how to recognize whether a third declension noun is an
i-stem noun;
(2) how to decline masculine and feminine i-stem nouns;
(3) how to decline neuter i-stem nouns.
First off: how can you tell whether a noun is an i-stem noun
of the third declension? The dictionary doesn't tell you
explicitly whether a noun is i-stem or not because there are ways
to tell simply by looking at the normal dictionary entries for a
noun: the nominative case, the genitive case (including the
stem), and the gender.
NEUTER I-STEMS
Let's start with the easiest.
I. Rule for Detecting Neuter i-stem Nouns
(a) If a third declension noun is neuter, and
(b) if its nominative case ends in "-al", "-ar", or "-e",
THEN the noun is a neuter i-stem.
This is fairly easy. You look up a noun and the dictionary tells
you this: "animal, -is (n)". "Animal" is the nominative case.
The next entry tells you the genitive, from which you spot any
stem changes and learn the declension of the noun. The "-is"
entry tells you there are no stem changes and that the noun is
third declension (since "-is" is the genitive ending in the third
declension). The final entry is, of course, the gender, and for
"animal" it's neuter. Therefore, you have a neuter noun of the
third declension whose nominative ends in "-al". So the noun is
an i-stem. Simple, isn't it. So if you remember this rule,
you'll be able to spot, from the dictionary entry alone, all
neuter i-stem nouns of the third declension: if it's a neuter
noun which ends in "-al", "-ar", or "-e", then it's an i-stem.
And how do neuter i-stems decline? They differ from non-i-stem
nouns in four cases:
(1) the ablative singular is a long "-i" instead of the
normal short "-e";
(2,3) the nominative (and therefore the accusative) plural
is "-ia" instead of just plain "-a";
(4) the genitive plural is "-ium" instead of "-um".
Let's have a look. Decline the following neuter i-stem nouns,
and compare them to a regular neuter noun of the third declension
"corpus, -oris (n)":
corpus, -oris animal, -is mare, -is exemplar,
-is
N/V. ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
Gen. ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
Dat. ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
Acc. ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
Abl. ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
N/V. ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
Gen. ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
Dat. ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
Acc. ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
Abl. ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
MASCULINE AND FEMININE I-STEMS
Masculine and feminine i-stems are both easier and more
complicated at the same time. On the one hand, there is only one
case where the masculine and feminine i-stems differ from the
regular non-i-stems. On the other hand, the detection process is
more exquisite. First the detection.
There are two different rules for establishing whether a
masculine or feminine third declension noun is an i-stem. But
you can get all the information you need by looking at the
standard dictionary entry. Here are the two rules.
I. The Parisyllabic Rule (the Equal Syllable Rule)
(a) If a masculine or feminine noun ends in an "-is" or an
"-es" in the nominative singular, and
(b) if the nominative singular and the genitive singular
have the same number of syllables,
THEN the noun is an i-stem of the masculine and feminine
type.
Let's go right along to the second rule; after that I'll show you
some examples.
II. The Double Consonant Rule
(a) If a masculine or feminine noun ends in an "-s" or an
"-x", and
(b) if its stem ends with two consonants,
THEN the noun is an i-stem of the masculine and feminine
type.
Let's look at an example of both these rules. You see this
noun in the dictionary: "civis, civis (m)". Is it an i-stem?
Well, it's a masculine noun of the third declension. It's not
neuter, so you don't have to worry about whether the nominative
ends in an "-al", "-ar", or "-e". But you do have to run it
through the two rules for masculine and feminine nouns. (The
Parisyllabic and the Double Consonant rules apply ONLY to
masculine and feminine nouns.) The nominative ends in an "-s",
so you have to pursue the double consonant rule a little farther.
Look at the stem: it's "civ-". Does its stem end with two
consonants? No, so "civis" fails the second provision of the
Double Consonant rule.
Now try to run it through the Parisyllabic rule. The
nominative ends in "-is", which is the first provision of the
rule, so you have to go on. Provision (b) of the Parisyllabic
rule also applies to "civis", since the nominative and the
genitive cases have the same number of syllables. So, according
to the Parisyllabic rule, "civis" is an i-stem noun of the
masculine an feminine type.
Another noun: "ars, artis (m)". Follow the steps
carefully. Is this an i-stem? Why or why not? Of course it is.
It ends in "-s" or "-x" in the nominative (provision (a) of the
Double Consonant rule), and its stem, "art-", ends in a double
consonant. It fulfills both provision of the Double Consonant
rule, so it is an i-stem.
So how do masculine and feminine i-stem nouns decline? The
only case where they differ from the non-i-stem nouns is in the
genitive plural, where the i-stems insert an "-i-" before the
normal "-um" ending of the third declension. And that's it.
Decline the following nouns.
homo, -inis (m) ars, artis (m) civis, civis
(m)
N/V. ________________ ________________
________________
Gen. ________________ ________________
________________
Dat. ________________ ________________
________________
Acc. ________________ ________________
________________
Abl. ________________ ________________
________________
N/V. ________________ ________________
________________
Gen. ________________ ________________
________________
Dat. ________________ ________________
________________
Acc. ________________ ________________
________________
Abl. ________________ ________________
________________
This may seem like a lot to remember (and it probably is),
but try to work slowly through these drills; be deliberate and
logical. You'll be surprised at how quickly these rules stick.
Which of these nouns are i-stems? If any is an i-stems, indicate
which rule applies to it.
I-STEM (YES/NO) RELEVANT RULE
ignis, ignis (f) __________
_________________________
dens, dentis (m) __________
_________________________
civitas, -tatis (f) __________
_________________________
rex, regis (m) __________
_________________________
opus, operis (n) __________
_________________________
tempus, -oris (n) __________
_________________________
nox, noctis (f) __________
_________________________
moles, molis (f) __________
_________________________
urbs, urbis (f) __________
_________________________
sol, solis (m) __________
_________________________
hostis, hostis (m) __________
_________________________
dux, ducis (m) __________
_________________________
orator, -toris (m) __________
_________________________
finis, finis (m) __________
_________________________
gens, gentis (f) __________
_________________________
laus, laudis (f) __________
_________________________
genus, generis (n) __________
_________________________
veritas, -tatis (f) __________
_________________________
aetas, -tatis (f) __________
_________________________
USES OF THE ABLATIVE: MANNER, ACCOMPANIMENT, MEANS
Way back when I promised you that we'd someday have to start
cleaning up the ablative case. Today is that day; but this is
going to be just a start, and just a review. The ablative case
can be used either with a governing preposition or without one.
If the ablative case completes the meaning of a preposition, then
the ablative itself poses no real problem as far as the
translation goes. You simply translate the preposition and then
the noun:
de veritate = about truth
e civitate = from the city
sub mari = under the sea
in Graecia = in Greece
cum meo filio = with my son
In other words, the fact that the noun itself is in the ablative
case presents no difficulties. It's in the ablative case because
that is the case required by the preposition which is governing
it.
A noun can be in the ablative case, however, without a
preposition; when it is, the noun takes on a special meaning that
is derived from the ablative case itself. As the weeks go by
you'll be collecting a list of the uses of the prepositionless
ablative case. Up to this point, you have only one use of the
ablative case without a preposition: it's the Instrumental
Ablative (also called the "Ablative of Means"). Do you remember
this one:
"Veritatem oculis animi videre possumus".
Here you have the noun "oculis" in the ablative plural without a
preposition, so, as far as you know, this must be an Instrumental
Ablative (or Ablative of Means). An Instrumental Ablative shows
with what thing the action of the verb is performed, and there as
many ways we can translate it into English. We can say,
"We can see truth with the eyes of the soul".
"We can see truth by the eyes of the soul".
"We can see truth by means of the eyes of the soul".
"We can see truth through the eyes of the soul".
Although each of these translations in English have their own
feel and association of meanings, they are all legitimate
translations of the Latin Instrumental Ablative. Use your own
native English sense to tell you which translation to use, but
remember the essential meaning of the Latin Instrumental
Ablative: it shows with what thing the action of the verb is
performed.
CUM + ABLATIVE = ABLATIVE OF MANNER OR ACCOMPANIMENT
One use of the ablative with a preposition needs a little further
examination. You probably remember that the preposition "cum" +
ablative" means "with" in the sense of accompaniment. This use
of the ablative is fairly straight forward, because it works like
English.
Veniam cum amicis meis ad nostram patriam.
Invenietis eum cum nostro filio.
Tyrannus erit ibi cum ducibus.
But "cum" + ablative can also mean something that boarders on our
adverbs. Well call it the "Ablative of Manner", because it gives
you some information about how or in what manner the action was
completed. And words which tell you how the action was performed
are adverbs.
Now let's pause a second. Don't get this confused with the
Ablative of Means. The Ablative of Means will answer the
question "With what" the action is performed; the Ablative of
Manner tells you "In what manner" the action is being performed.
Study these examples. Where would the English be representing a
Latin Ablative of Manner, where an Ablative of Means, where an
Ablative of Accompaniment?
"She saw the fire with her binoculars".
"Dogs run with their legs".
"He drove the nail in with his hammer".
"He drove the nail in with great haste".
"He drove the nail in with indifference".
"They put the wall up with great speed".
So how does the Ablative of Manner approach the adverb?
What is another way to say "with great haste"? We could say
"very hastily", and "hastily" is an adverb. How about "with
indifference"? "Indifferently". But some of the Ablative of
Manner have no nice one-word adverbial equivalent. For example,
what would the adverb for "with great speed" be? The Ablative of
Manner affords the writer the opportunity to elaborate on the
manner in which the action is being performed in a way a simple
adverb does not. Now let's look at some examples in Latin.
Remember, translate them into idiomatic English.
1. Cum celeritate id fecit.
_______________________________________________________
2. Cum civibus istis nos non iungemus.
_______________________________________________________
3. Cum cura cucurrimus.
_______________________________________________________
4. Gessimus civitatem cum sapientia.
_______________________________________________________
5. Tyrannus civitatem pecunia cepit.
_______________________________________________________
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
vis, vis (f) In the singular it means "power"; in the plural it
means "strength". A very strange noun, with a
very strange declension. As you can tell it's
third declension and it should be an i-stem noun.
(The Parisyllabic rule.) In the singular it's odd
but somewhat predictable; but in the plural it
changes stems: from "v-" to "vir-". Pay
attention, though; it's easy to mix up the plural
of "vis" with the 2nd declension noun "vir, -i,
(m)". Look it over; and write down the plural of
"vir" next to it in the plural. Even though, as
you can see, none of the forms of the two words
are identical, still students always confuse them.
Believe me: you must work a little to keep the two
straight.
SINGULAR PLURAL PLURAL OF vir,
-i
N/V. vis vires viri
Gen. vis virium virorum
Dat. --- viribus viris
Acc. vim vires viros
Abl. vi viribus viris
01/05/93
CHAPTER 15
"The Imperfect Indicative Active; Ablative of Time"
FORMING THE IMPERFECT TENSE
Up to this chapter, you have learned five of the six tenses of
Latin verbs. You've seen that the tenses fall into two main
classes: the present system -- the tenses formed off the first
principal part; and the perfect system -- the tenses which use
the third and fourth principal parts. The perfect system tenses
are the perfect, pluperfect, and future perfect. The present
system tenses are the present, future, and, as you'll see now,
the imperfect. You remember that the present system works like
this:
FIRST PRINCIPAL PART + TENSE SIGN + PERSONAL ENDINGS
In the present tense, there is no tense sign, so the personal
endings are added directly to the first principal part. The tense
sign for the future tense is "-be-" for the first and second
conjugations, but "-a-" or "-e-" for the third and fourth. The
imperfect tense also is formed precisely according to this
pattern: stem + tense sign + personal endings. So to form the
imperfect tense you need to know its tense sign and the personal
endings it uses.
The tense sign for the imperfect tense is "-ba-", which is
added to the lengthened stem of the first principal part. So
what do we mean by lengthened? It means that the stem vowel, if
it is not already long, is made long. This obviously applies
only to the third conjugation, where the stem vowel is a short
"-e-". It becomes long "-e-". The stem vowel of the first and
second conjugations are already long -- "-a-" and "-e-" -- so
they aren't affected by lengthening. But something odd happens
to the stem vowels of the third conjugation i-stem and the fourth
conjugation. Their stems vowels lengthen to "-ie-" before the
tense sign "-ba-". Finally, the imperfect tense uses the
alternative ending "-m" in place of "-o" for the first person
singular ending. This makes some sense. Suppose the imperfect
were to use "-o" for the first person singular. What would
happen? Well, think back: what happens in the first person
singular of first conjugation verbs, whose stem vowel is long
"-a-"? The "-a-" is elides with the "-o-" and is lost: "lauda +
o = laudo". Now if the imperfect were to use "-o" instead of
"-m", the same thing would happen and the ending of the verb
would be "-bo", which is the same as the future. So, perhaps to
avoid confusion, the imperfect tense uses the "-m". Enough on
that. So here, then, is the formula for forming the imperfect
tense, with notes on the things to remember.
FIRST PRINCIPAL PART + ba + PERSONAL ENDINGS
(1) the stem vowel lengthens;
(2) the stem vowel for third i-stem and fourth conjugation verbs
is "-ie-";
(3) the first person singular ending is "-m".
Now conjugate the imperfect tense for the four conjugations.
(Check your work on page 70 of Wheelock.)
1 2 3 3i 4
laudo moneo duco capio audio
_____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
_____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
_____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
_____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
_____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
_____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
____________
THE MEANING OF THE IMPERFECT TENSE
I told you back in Chapter 12 that there is a good reason the
present, future, and imperfect are all collected together under one
system -- the present system. Now I'll show you why. All three
tenses have an aspect of incompleteness about them; a sense that
the action they're describing is in a state of going-on. With the
simple future, obviously, the action can't be thought of as having
been already finished. Then it wouldn't be in the future. The
present, too, is used to talk about something that is going on
right as we're talking about it. There's something about the stem
of these tenses that infects them with this notion of
unfulfillment, of continuation, rather than perfection or
completeness.
The imperfect tense, too, although it refers to a past action
which, presumably, has already been completed by the time the
speaker is talking about it -- the imperfect tense, too, indicates
an action that was going on in the past over a length time, or that
occurred again and again in the past, and hence is not viewed by
the speaker of ever having reached a definite point of completion.
Let's look at some examples of the English imperfect tense; you'll
have an instinctive sense for the imperfective idea in the verbs,
but try to develop some consciousness about it.
A. Even though the game still was going on, I left the stadium.
B. David always used to like to go to the zoo.
C. She would always come on Tuesdays.
In example A, contrast the imperfect tense "was going on",
with the preterit "left". The fact that "I left" is viewed by the
speaker as an action that had a definite end; it's something he did
in a finite amount of time and something he completed. The fact
that the game was still going on, however, is viewed as the general
context in which he performed the action of leaving. The game was
going on before he left, and, presumably, it continued to go on
after he left. The game is viewed as an action with no explicitly
conceived beginning and no definite end. Now, of course, the game
did start at some definite time in the past, and it's probably over
by now, but the way the speaker chose to represent it for his own
needs was as an action that extended over an indefinite period of
time. In another context he might say, "The game started at 3:30
and ended at 7:00". The point is, there's nothing "inherently"
imperfective about the game; the speaker's portrayal of it will
make it either perfect or imperfect.
In examples B and C, we have something slightly different.
Here English expressions "used to like" and "would come" are
indicating things which occurred repeatedly in the past. The Latin
imperfect has this sense as well. Because a repeated or habitual
action also has the sense of incompleteness -- he or she never
stopped doing whatever he or she used to do -- the imperfect tense
is also used to express this meaning: repeated or habitual action.
Another use of the Latin imperfect is to show a "state of
being" something was in the past: "He was six feet tall" or "I was
able to see". Here the sense of continuity is almost a part of the
meaning of the verbs. When you say "He was", you're generally
talking about something that had some duration in the past: "He was
six feet tall". This is why the imperfect tense of the Latin verbs
"sum" and "possum" are used much more frequently than the perfects
"fui" and "potui". Still, in actual practice, the differences
between "eram" and "fui", "poteram" and "potui" are often
imperceptible. So let's gather our wits about the imperfect in
Latin.
(1) It's formed from the lengthened stem of the first
principal part. The tense sign is "-ba-", and it uses
the "-m" ending for the first person singular.
(2) It's used to talk about an action in the past which the
writer perceives as going on for sometime when another
action occurred. Here our English equivalent might be
the preterit of "to be" plus the present participle: "was
looking", "were flying", etc. E.g., "It was raining hard
in Frisco."
(3) It's also used to talk about a repeated or habitual
action in the past. Our English translations might be
"used" plus the present infinitive, or "would". E.gg.,
"George used to go to the park on Tuesdays"; "George
would go to the park on Tuesdays".
(4) It's also used to talk about a state of being in the
past. For this reason the verbs which tell you the
condition of someone or something in the past are usually
in the imperfect tense. E.gg., "Magister discipulos
docere non poterat" (The teacher couldn't teach his
students). "Meae filiae pulchrae erant" (My daughters
were beautiful).
English has a variety of ways of expressing the Latin
imperfect tense, as you can see in these three examples. The
different ways are not identical, and you'll have to decide which
is best by looking at the context of the Latin imperfect.
DRILLS
Translate the following short sentences.
1. Patres suos filios amabant.
____________________________________________________________
2. Eram stultus.
____________________________________________________________
3. Tyrannus mortem timebat.
____________________________________________________________
4. Rex ista pericula vicit.
____________________________________________________________
5. Rex ista pericula vincebat.
____________________________________________________________
6. You (pl.) were not with me.
____________________________________________________________
7. We could not see him.
____________________________________________________________
8. The king was speaking for a long time.
____________________________________________________________
9. The gods used to give men freedom.
____________________________________________________________
10. Caesar himself would always run in these roads.
____________________________________________________________
ABLATIVE OF TIME: WHEN AND WITHIN WHICH
As you saw in the last chapter, the ablative case can either be
used with a governing preposition or by itself. When there is a
preposition, the ablative poses no special problems per se. You
simply translate the preposition and then the noun. The meaning of
the preposition overrides any special senses attached to the
ablative case. (The one preposition, however, you need to watch
out for is "cum", which can either mean "with" in the sense of
accompaniment or "with" in the sense of manner.) The only use of
the ablative case without a preposition you know so far is the
instrumental ablative or ablative of means.
Another prepositionless use of the ablative case is called the
Ablative of Time. You can easily spot such a use in Latin. If you
see a noun in the ablative case which is not governed by a
preposition, and if the noun is some unit of time, then you have an
Ablative of Time. But what makes this use of the ablative beastly
difficulty for English speaking students is not the Latin, but the
variety of English translations we can use to represent the Latin
expression of time.
You see, Latin has one construction -- a noun expressing a
unit of time in the ablative case -- and English has two ways of
translating it, and they both mean something quite different. We
call the construction in Latin the Ablative of Time When or Time
Within Which, not because Latin has two different construction, but
because English does, and when we translate the Latin construction
into English, we have to choose which of the two English
construction best fits the context. Let's start by looking at some
English expressions of time which use prepositions.
1. "They'll be here in an hour".
2. "They came on Tuesday".
3. "In less than five minutes they were all gone".
4. "Snow never falls in the summer".
5. "It'll be snowing in a couple of months".
6. "At that time in human history, there were no alarm
clocks".
7. "Within a couple of hours, Caesar had conquered all of
Asia".
8. "In the Middle Ages, things were different".
I don't doubt that you had no trouble understanding these
sentences and recognizing, in particular, the meaning of the
expressions of time. You don't have to scratch your heads and
puzzle over them because their exact meanings are embedded
unconsciously in your linguistic repertoire. But to translate the
Latin Ablative of Time, you must force yourself to understand
consciously what these different expressions of time are telling
you.
Despite the variety of lexical forms, these expressions of
time above fall into only two classes. Let's try something.
Before I try to explain the different expressions to you, read
these sentences carefully and try to divide them into two groups
based on their expressions of time. Trust your instincts. Hints:
(1) don't rely solely on the prepositions to tell you the
differences (some prepositions can be used in both expressions of
time); (2) there are an equal number of sentences in each group.
Give it a shot (but you'd probably better use pencil). Put all the
sentences that have temporal expressions like that of sentence #1
into Class A; all those like that of sentence #2 into Class B
CLASS A
1. "They'll be here in an hour".
2.
3.
4.
CLASS B
1. "They came on Tuesday".
2.
3.
4.
How did you do? The answer is that the odd numbered sentences
comprise one category of expressions of time, and the even numbered
another. You undoubtedly did fairly well at this exercise, again,
because your native feel for English helped you "sense" the
differences and similarities, even though you might not be able to
explain your reasons to a non-native speaker of English. If you
made errors, correct them now.
Now let's do the tough work. Precisely what is the difference
between the temporal expressions in Classes A and B? Well, imagine
that a foreign student of English is asking you this question. How
would you answer it? Try. It's hard, isn't it? Let's give it a
try.
The expressions of time in Class A involve a duration of time
but with a definite beginning or end to the action clearly in mind.
Sentence #1 tells you that it'll will be another hour (the duration
of time) before they start being here (start of something).
Sentence #2 tells you that it took an hour (duration of time), but
they finally did leave (end of something). And so on with the rest
in Class A.
Now notice that the prepositions "in" or "within" can both be
used in this kind of expression. That would present no problem, if
it weren't for the fact that "in" can be used in the other kind of
temporal expression, too. Look at the examples under Class B;
you'll see "in" used there, too. The way to tell whether "in" is
being used in the sense of Class A is to try to replace it with the
preposition "within". If the sentence still makes good English
idiom, then "in" means time in the sense explained above. This is
why we call this expression of time "Time Within Which", because
the English preposition "within" always connotes the proper sense.
WORKS: "I'll see you in two days" = "I'll see you within
two days".
DOESN'T WORK: "It rains in the summer" ~ "It rains within the
summer".
How about Class B; how would you explain the meaning of the
expressions of time here? These expression tell you the time at
which something is, was or will be taking place. There is no
implied sense of the duration of the action with an emphasis on it
beginning or its end. This is why we call it "Time When". "I
teach Latin on Monday" simply identifies the time I teach as if it
were a single point on a time line. Again, English has a variety
of prepositions it uses to express this kind of time, as you can
see: "See me on Monday at five o'clock in the afternoon".
Okay, so much for English. Remember, the reason we looked at
all this was that these two different expression of time in English
can both be used for one expression of time in Latin: the
prepositionless ablative case. What you have to do when you're
translating from Latin to English is decide which English
expression is the more appropriate. So let's look at the Latin.
Consider the following Latin sentences. Try to decide how
best to translate the expression of time into English: "Paucis
horis Caesar in Asiam venit". Which would be best: "within a few
hours" or "at, on, or in a few hours"? Undoubtedly "within (or
in) a few hours" is the better here. Not "At a few hours, Caesar
went into Asia", but "In (or within) a few hours, Caesar went into
Asia". Next: "Aetate pueri ludebant" ("ludo" = to play). "Within
the summer" or "in the summer"? The last, obviously, since it can
be thought to answer the question "time when", not "time within
which". One last example: "Una hora Asiam totam vici". Is this
telling time "within which" or "time when"? Certainly "time within
which" because there's a sense of duration of time with a terminus
of the action in mind: "I conquered all Asia within (or in) one
hour".
I know that some of these distinctions can be rather hair
splitting. You just have to work with them a lot and keep you mind
in high gear at all times. Here is one last test you can use to
decide whether an expression of time is a Time When or Time Within
Which construction. Try to rephrase the sentence in question in
the following way:
"It takes (or took or will take) X Y Z"
[Where X is the subject of the original sentence; Y is the
expression of time, and Z is the infinitive of the original
conjugated verb.]
If the resulting sentence preserves the meaning of the original
sentence, then the expression of time is Time Within Which. "In
three years I'll be out of this place" = "It will take me three
years to be out of this place". The rewritten sentence means the
same thing as the original sentence, so "in three years" is an
expression of Time Within Which. "In the cenozoic era, dinosaurs
walked on the earth" ~ "It took dinosaurs the cenozoic era to walk
on the earth". The rewritten sentence does not mean the same thing
as the original sentence, therefore, "in the cenozoic era" is not
an expression of Time Within Which, but Time When.
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
miser, -a, -um You haven't seen an adjective like this for a
while. It uses the case endings of the first
and second declensions, but in place of the
"-us" ending for the masculine nominative
singular, it uses the other ending "-er". Is
the "-e-" of "-er" part of the stem?
iacio There is nothing terribly unusual about this
verb. It's a normal third conjugation i-stem.
The tricky part comes in recognizing it in a
compound verb (when a prefix is attached to
it). The first principal part loses the vowel
"-a-" altogether: "e + iacio = eicio", which
is pronounced "eh YI ki oh". In the third
principal part, the vowel returns, but this
time as the long "-e-", which is the normal
vowel for the third principal part: "e + ieci
= eieci", which is pronounced "eh YEAH kee.
inter + acc. It means either "among or between", so we need
to fret over which is the best English
translation. Do you remember when standard
English calls for "among" and when "between"?
Use "between" with two objects; "among" for
three or more. "This is a secret just between
you and me". "This is a secret we keep among
the family members only".
1/08/93
CHAPTER 16
"Adjectives of the Third Declension"
Wheelock assures you that there isn't much new material to learn in
this chapter, and in a way he's right. You know what adjectives
are, and you know the case endings of the third declension. In
this chapter, you going to see that a class of adjectives uses the
third declension endings to form the different numbers, genders,
and cases. Even though these adjectives use the third declension
endings, they may modify nouns of all the declension; i.e., third
declension adjectives are not restricted to modifying only third
declension nouns. But that's nothing conceptually new: you've seen
adjectives of the first and second declensions modifying nouns of
the third declension. So, as you can see, Wheelock is right to say
that this chapter doesn't really confront you will a mass of new
material to memorize.
On the other hand, people tend to confuse things which are
similar more often than things which are quite distinct from one
another. Third declension adjectives work like adjectives of the
first and second declensions, but there are some important
differences which you must keep straight. Additionally, the
endings used by these adjectives are almost identical to the
endings which nouns of the third declension use, but only almost.
I'm trying to warn you that this isn't going to be an easy chapter.
You're going to have grip the book firmly and keep a sharpened
pencil nearby. Let's start.
ADJECTIVES
First let's take stock of what you know. You know that adjectives
are words which modify nouns, and that they "agree" in number,
gender, and case with they are modifying. To agree with nouns,
which may be in all the possible cases, numbers and genders,
adjectives must be able to decline. The adjectives you're familiar
with decline in the first and second declensions: they use first
declension case endings to modify nouns which are feminine, second
declension endings to modify nouns which are masculine and neuter.
The dictionary entry for such adjectives look like this:
magnus, -a, -um miser, -a, -um
bonus, -a, -um pulcher, -chra, -chrum
bellus, -a, -um noster, -tra, -trum
Things to notice are:
(1) adjectives have no inherent gender fixed in the stem, so
the dictionary doesn't list a gender for adjectives;
(2) sometimes the true stem of the adjective is not identical
with the masculine, nominative singular, so you must scan
the other listings for stem changes (e.g. the "-e-" of
"pulcher" and "noster" is not a part of the true stem);
(3) first and second adjectives can modify nouns of any of
the other declensions, not just those of the first and
second declensions.
ADJECTIVES OF THE THIRD DECLENSION
The name speaks for itself. Some adjectives get their case endings
from the third declension. So you have two things to consider:
(1) what are the case endings;
(2) how does the dictionary distinguish between a third
declension adjective from one of the first and second
declension: i.e., how can you tell where the adjective is
going to get its case endings simply by looking at the
dictionary entries.
Let's take up the first point by reviewing the third declension
endings for nouns. Decline the following third declension nouns,
and don't forget to check whether the nouns are i-stems: "homo,
-inis (m)"; "tempus, -oris (n)"; "virtus, -tutis (f)"; "mare, -ris
(n)". (If you're unsure of the third declension endings, you should
stop right now and review them.)
man time virtue sea
N/V. __________ __________ __________ __________
Gen. __________ __________ __________ __________
Dat. __________ __________ __________ __________
Acc. __________ __________ __________ __________
Abl. __________ __________ __________ __________
N/V. __________ __________ __________ __________
Gen. __________ __________ __________ __________
Dat. __________ __________ __________ __________
Acc. __________ __________ __________ __________
Abl. __________ __________ __________ __________
Here are the things to remember about the third declension case
endings:
(1) the third declension endings are divided into two groups:
the non-i-stem endings and the i-stem endings;
(2) the nominative singular has many different appearances;
(3) basically the case endings are the same for non-i-stem
nouns of all three genders. The apparent exception is
with the neuter nouns, where the neuter nouns are
following their own peculiar set of laws: nominative and
accusative cases are always the same, and the nominative
(hence accusative also) plural ending is short "-a"
(4) With i-stem nouns, however, the endings used by masculine
and feminine nouns are slightly different from those used
by neuter nouns.
So what endings does a third declension adjectives use? An
adjective is going to have to able to modify nouns of all three
genders, so a third declension adjective will have to be able to
masculine, feminine, and neuter. To do this, a third declension
adjective uses the pattern of the i-stem endings, with one further
refinement: the ablative singular of the masculine and feminine is
long "-i", not short "-e". Cover up the two columns of endings on
the right and try to write down the endings third declension
adjectives are going to use. Check your work against the answers
given in the two right columns.
CASE ENDINGS FOR THIRD DECLENSION ADJECTIVES
MASC./FEM. NEUTER MASC./FEM. NEUTER
N/V. ---------- ---------- ------- -------
Gen. __________ __________ -is -is
Dat. __________ __________ -i -i
Acc. __________ __________ -em -------
Abl. __________ __________ -i -i
N/V. __________ __________ -es -ia
Gen. __________ __________ -ium -ium
Dat. __________ __________ -ibus -ibus
Acc. __________ __________ -es -ia
Abl. __________ __________ -ibus -ibus
So these are the variable case endings which are going to be
attached to the stem of third declension adjectives. The endings
are almost identical to those of the third declension nouns; so, as
Wheelock puts it, there's nothing much new to be learned.
STEMS OF THIRD DECLENSION ADJECTIVES
So you've seen that adjectives of the third declension follow the
analogy of first and second declension adjectives: stem + case
endings. And you've studied their case endings. Now let's look at
the stems of these adjectives and see how they're going to be
listed in the dictionary.
First, here's a last look at a good old fashioned adjective of
the first and second declensions:
bellus, -a, -um
vester, -tra, -trum
The entry tells you (1) which case endings the adjective uses for
the different genders, cases, and numbers, and (2) whether the stem
is the not what it appears to be in the masculine nominative
singular. Remember that an adjective listing in the dictionary
does not start to decline the adjective, as it does for a noun.
Instead it gives you the nominative forms, from which you deduce
the declension and any stem changes. These are the things an entry
for any adjective must tell you. So how does this work with third
declension adjectives?
But before I show you that -- do you get the feeling I'm
trying to put this off -- let me give you some good news. There
are only two kind of adjectives in the Latin language: those of the
first and second declensions, and those of the third. There are no
other possibilities. Either an adjective uses the "-us (-er), -a,
-um" endings or those of the third declension. So if you see an
adjective in the dictionary and the adjective is not of the first
and second declensions, then it must be a third declension
adjective. There are no adjectives of the fourth and fifth
declensions. That's the good news.
Now the bad news. There are three different types of
adjectives of the third declension, but the difference is only in
the nominative singular. All three adjectival types of the third
declension use the case endings you studied above for all the case
except the nominative singular. We need to focus now on the
nominative singulars of these three types of adjectives. The
different class are:
(1) adjectives of two terminations
(2) adjectives of one termination
(3) adjectives of three terminations
The distinguishing feature among these declensions is how many
different endings are possible in the nominative singular. Type
(1) adjectives have one ending in the nominative singular for the
masculine and feminine genders, and one ending for the neuter
gender; that makes two endings, hence "adjective of two
terminations". Type (2) has only one ending in the nominative
singular for all three genders: hence "adjective of one
termination". Finally, obviously, type (3) has one ending in the
nominative singular for the masculine gender, one for the feminine,
and another for the neuter; that makes endings, hence "adjective of
three terminations". Now, before we zero in on these different
types, let me repeat: after the nominative singular, these
differences among the three types of adjectives disappear entirely.
All three types use the normal case endings you're already good
friends with.
ADJECTIVES OF TWO TERMINATIONS
Now, unlike nouns, an entry for an adjective (normally) lists only
the nominative case. You know this: in "magnus, -a, -um" the "-us,
-a, -um" endings are only the nominatives. Nouns, you remember,
list the genitive singular ending after the nominative, and that's
for a good reason. You have to be told (1) what a noun's
declension is, and (2) whether there is a stem change. For nouns,
because they can't change gender, the next possible form after the
nominative singular is the genitive singular. So, in effect, the
dictionary must start declining the noun for you so that you can
get the information you need. But adjectives, because they can
have different genders, need not be "declined" for you. You can
get all the information you need about stem changes and case
endings by simply looking at the noun in a gender different form
the first gender -- the masculine. The entry, therefore, of
adjectives typically does not include the genitive singular; it
instead moves across the genders in the nominative case. So what
does this mean for our third declension adjectives?
All adjectives of two terminations look like this: "stemis,
-e". E.gg.
omnis, -e "all; each, every"
fortis, -e "strong"
dulcis, -e "sweet"
difficilis, -e "difficult"
brevis, -e "short [in time]; swift"
Now think. I told you that adjectives typically will move across
the genders in the nominative case, and here you have only two
different forms indicated. This means that two of the genders will
have identical forms in the nominative. For adjectives listed like
this, the "-is" ending is used both for the masculine and feminine
genders; the "-e" is used for the neuter in the nominative
singular. And, as you can see, the stem does not change. It's
evident in the nominative singular of the masculine and feminine
genders. You just drop off the "-is". Decline the following
expressions:
every boy every girl every war
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
ADJECTIVES OF ONE TERMINATION
These adjectives have only one form in the nominative singular for
all three genders. This creates an interesting problem. What will
its dictionary entry look like? Most adjectives, remember, simply
move across the nominative entries. But an adjective of only one
termination in the nominative singular has only one form in the
nominative singular. It must give you the information you need
about it -- stem changes and declension -- by beginning its
declension. Just like a noun, the second entry for an adjective of
one termination is the genitive singular. You drop off the
genitive singular ending "-is" to find the stem.
Now wait a minute. If an adjective of one termination is
listed in the dictionary just like a noun, with the genitive
singular as its second entry, how do you know whether the entry
you're looking at is telling you the word is a noun or an
adjective. Look:
potens, -ntis "powerful"
dens, dentis (m) "tooth"
Here you see the nominative singular entry "potens" followed by the
genitive singular "potentis". The stem of the word is "potent-",
but a noun of the third declension is list just like this. Look at
the word for tooth. How do you know, even before you see the
translation, that "potens" is an adjective and not a noun? Right!
"Potens" has no gender listed; the noun "dens" does. The form
"potens" can be masculine, feminine, or neuter. It's an adjective
of one termination. Except in the nominative singular, adjectives
of one termination operate just like all the other adjectives of
the third declension; they all use the same case endings and obey
the same laws. HINT: don't forget the laws of the neuter! Decline
the following:
powerful tooth powerful money powerful plan
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
ADJECTIVES OF THREE TERMINATIONS
As the name tells you, these are third declension adjectives which
have three nominative singular endings, one ending for each gender.
But there is an added twist. These adjectives end in "-er" in the
masculine singular, and you know what that means. It means that
the "-e-" of the "-er" might not be part of the true stem.
Remember this problem with first and second declension adjectives
like "miser, -a, -um" and "noster, -tra, trum"? Look at these two
entries for third declension adjectives of three terminations:
celer, celeris, celere "swift"
acer, acris, acre "keen; fierce"
Do you see what the dictionary is telling you? The first listing
is the masculine nominative singular. The second is the feminine
nominative singular, and it's here you need to look for stem
changes. As you can see the stem of "celer" is "celer-"; the stem
of "acer", however, is "acr-". So in all its forms except the
masculine, nominative singular, the root of "acer" to which the
case endings will be added is "acr-". The final entry is the
neuter nominative singular. Now, don't forget, the only place
where these adjectives have different forms for the three genders
is right here, in the nominative singular. After the nominative
singular, these adjectives use the normal endings of third
declension adjectives. Decline the following.
swift death keen memory fierce war
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
_________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________
DRILLS
The third declension adjectives can often help you out of some
problems. As you'll see once you start reading is that one of the
main difficulties with Latin is that it has too few discrete case
endings, not too many. The case endings overlap in so many places
that it's often difficult to tell what case a noun is in. Having
yet another set of endings helps you identify the case of the nouns
of nouns these adjective are modifying. For example, look at the
form "sapientiae". What case is "sapientiae"? Well, it could be
(1) genitive singular, (2) dative singular, or (3) nominative
plural. The "-ae" ending in the first declension is used for three
different cases. But suppose you see a third declension adjective
next to it with an ending "-es". The "-es" ending in the third
declension can only be nominative or accusative plural. "X"es must
be agreeing with "sapientiae", so "sapientiae" must be nominative
plural since that's the only number, gender, and case the two words
have in common. What you've done is this:
The noun "sapientiae" can be
genitive singular
dative singular
nominative plural
The adjective "x"es must agree with "sapientiae" and its form can
be
nominative plural
accusative plural
Therefore "'x'es sapientiae" must be nominative plural, since it is
the only case and number where the case endings of the noun and
adjective overlap.
Write out the possible number(s) and case(s) of the following nouns
and adjectives. Don't worry about the translations for now, just
focus on the endings.
Number(s) Gender Case(s)
1. omnium puerorum __________ _____ ____________________
2. celerem puellam __________ _____ ____________________
3. potenti regi __________ _____ ____________________
4. potentibus viris __________ _____ ____________________
5. fortes feminae __________ _____ ____________________
6. fortis feminae __________ _____ ____________________
7. forti feminae __________ _____ ____________________
8. acres mortes __________ _____ ____________________
9. acri memoria __________ _____ ____________________
10. acri bello __________ _____ ____________________
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
adiuvo Despite its appearance, the verb is not a regular
first conjugation. Look carefully at its
principal parts: "adiuvo, -are, -iuvi, -iutus".
(The "ad-" prefix only adds a little extra
emphasis, as with the difference in English
between "to help" and "to help out".)
quam This adverb is used to emphasize an adjective. It
doesn't mean "how" as in "in what way". It's used
to modify adjectives and means "how" as in "How
sweet it is!" or "How tall that young man is!"
01/08/93
CHAPTER 17
"The Relative Pronoun"
As has been the case in the last several chapters, this chapter
really doesn't confront the neophyte with a lot of new
grammatical concepts; it builds on knowledge already mastered.
Still it's going to take a little patience, but we'll go slowly.
Before we get to the relative pronoun per se, we're going to
clean up a syntactical point you've already been working with,
but may not have yet a firm conceptual understanding of. Let's
look at what we mean by a "clause".
THE CLAUSE
You all remember the junior high school definition of a sentence:
it's a complete thought. And by that we mean a thought which
includes a noun, either expressed or implied, and a verb, either
expressed or implied. That is, a complete thought must involve
something which is doing something or which is being held up for
description: "The road is blocked"; "The tree fell down"; and so
on.
Now, the human mind is a wonderful thing. It reasons and
perceives dozens of different kinds relationships between events,
things, and ideas. It arranges events and facts logically and
temporally, and in levels of priority. That is to say, it takes
two or more things, things which are separate ideas, separate
visions, and weaves them together conceptually and linguistically
into what we "reasoning". The way this reasoning is expressed in
language is called "syntax", which literally means "arranging
together"; putting together events and things and facts. For
example, the two separate ideas or visions -- "the road is
blocked" and "the tree fell down" -- might have a causal
relationship, which the mind instantly recognizes and expresses
linguistically with an appropriate conjunction: "The road is
blocked because the tree fell down". The conjunction "because"
in this example is spelling out the relationship the speaker
perceives between the two ideas. It's arranging them into a
cause and effect relationship: that the tree fell down is a fact,
and because of that fact, the road is now blocked.
Each thought, idea, or event, when it is expressed in
language, is a called a clause. Hence the sentence "the road is
blocked because the tree fell" contains two "clauses": the fact
that the tree fell is expressed in one clause, and the fact that
the road is blocked forms another "clause". It's possible for a
sentence to contain only one clause, as in "Roses are red". It's
also possible for a sentence to contain an ungodly number of
clauses. See whether you can spot all the clauses -- that is
separate thoughts -- in this sentence:
"Since we are looking for the ideal orator, we must use
our powers of oratory to portray a speaker free from
all possible faults and endowed with every possible
merit; for though it is undeniable that the large
number of lawsuits, the great variety or public
questions, the illiterate masses who make the audience
of our public speakers, offer a field to ever the most
defective orators, we will not for that reason despair
of finding what we want" (Cicero, On the Orator, 26).
Let's back up and take a look at a string of unsubordinated
clauses. (The speaker's name is George.)
"The dog is mean. The dog lives next door. One day
the dog bit George. George kicked the dog. George's
neighbor came out of the house. George's neighbor owns
the dog. George's neighbor screamed at George.
George's neighbor called the police. The police came.
The dog bit the police. The police shot the dog.
George is happy. The dog is dead".
We don't talk like this because our language has developed a
whole system of conjunctions and pronouns which allows us (1) to
avoid all the unneeded repetition of nouns and (2) to make the
logical and temporal relationships between thoughts explicit.
There are a hundred ways to cast this string of events and facts
which make full use of range of linguistic apparatus English
makes available to us. Here's only one:
"The dog that lives next door is mean, and one day he
bit me. So I kicked him. My neighbor, who owns the
dog, came out of the house and screamed at me. Then he
called the police. When they came, the dog bit them
too, so they shot it. I am happy the dog is dead".
You can see here all kinds of linkage between these thoughts, and
all kinds of different linguistic apparatus that makes it
possible. The kind of linkage we're interested in now is the
"relative clause". Let's look at how it's done.
ENGLISH RELATIVE CLAUSES
Here's a bare bones definition of a relative clause: "A relative
clause is a subordinate clause which acts like an adjective by
providing additional information about a noun in another clause".
Now here's an example showing the evolution of the relative
clause.
CLAUSE 1: "The five o'clock train is never on time".
CLAUSE 2: "Hundreds of people take the five o'clock
train".
The two clauses have something in common: the five o'clock train.
Two separate facts have been identified about this train: it's
never on time and hundreds of people take it. A speaker may
arrange these two clauses however he wishes, subject only to the
idea he wished to convey to his listener. If, for example, the
most important thing he wants his listener to know about the
train is that it is late all the time, clause 1 will have to be
logically and syntactically "superior" to the fact contained in
clause 2. That is to say, the fact in clause 2 -- that hundreds
of people take the five o'clock train -- will be added simply as
additional information about the train. In grammatical circles
we call the most important element in the sentence the "main" or
"ordinate" or "independent clause"; we call any other clause a
"subordinate" or "dependent clause", because it is, in a real
sense, a subordinate, a worker in the employment of the main
clause.
So let's assume that the most important fact the speaker
wants to get across is contained in clause 1, and that clause 2
is going to be worked in only as subordinate material. How is
this going to happen.
STEP 1: Substitute "the five o'clock train" in clause 2 with
the appropriate pronoun. The pronoun will refer the
listener to the noun stated in clause 1.
CLAUSE 1: "The five o'clock train is never on time".
CLAUSE 2: "Hundreds of people take it".
Now hold on. Why did we chose "it" as the appropriate
pronoun to reproduce "the five o'clock train" in clause 2? Well,
the noun which the pronoun has to reproduce is singular in number
and inanimate, so "it" is the correct choice. Next, what case is
"it" in? Look, it's acting as the object of the verb "take" in
its clause, so "it" is in the objective (or accusative) case.
(This was just a review. You already know that pronouns get
their number and gender from their antecedents, but get their
case from the way they're being used in their own clause.)
STEP 2: Embed the subordinate clause into main clause.
SENTENCE: "The five o'clock train -- hundreds of
people take it -- is never on time".
We could almost stop here. The two sentences have been merged
into one, and clause 2 has been subordinated to the idea in
clause 1. That is to say, the structure of clause 1 forms the
main architecture of the new sentence. But English developed a
further modification to work these two clauses into one sentence.
It replaces the pronoun of the subordinate clause with a pronoun
which indicates without a doubt that the clause coming up is
dependent, or subordinate to, the clause which has just been
interrupted. We replace the pronoun with the relative pronoun
"who, which" in the proper case and move it to the beginning of
the clause. Now the two clauses have been completely welded into
one sentence.
STEP 3: Substitute and move the pronoun.
SENTENCE: "The five o'clock train, which hundreds of
people take, is never on time".
And there you have it. Clause 2 has been fully incorporated into
the message of the first clause. As soon as you read the
relative pronoun "which" in this sentence, your mind
automatically understands two things:
(1) the clause coming up is not as important as the clause
you've just left and
(2) the clause coming up is going to give you more
information about some thing in the main clause.
So this sentence is saying something like this: "the five o'clock
train -- which, by the by, hundreds of people take -- is never on
time". And one last pesky question: what case is "which" in?
It's in the objective (or accusative) case because it is still
the object of the verb in the relative clause: "take". Remember,
number and gender from the antecedent, but case from its clause.
Now let's go back to the two clauses when they were independent
thoughts.
CLAUSE 1: "The five o'clock train is never on time".
CLAUSE 2: "Hundreds of people take the five o'clock
train".
It's also possible that main idea the speaker wishes to get
across is the fact contained in clause 2 and will have to
subordinate clause 1 into clause 2, in which case clause 2 will
provide the basic architecture for the new sentence. Like this:
"Hundreds of people take the five o'clock train, which is never
on time". Now what case is "which" in? Look at the relative
clause. If that doesn't help, look at the sentence from which
the relative clause evolved. It came from clause 1, where "the
five o'clock train" was nominative. The "which" is simply
standing in for it, so "which" must nominative. And it is.
THE ENGLISH RELATIVE PRONOUN: CASE SYSTEM
We're going to look at several more examples of this in a second,
but for now I have a few more things to add about the English
relative pronoun. Like the other pronouns in English, the
relative pronoun preserves three distinct case forms and even
distinguishes between animate and inanimate. There is no
distinction between the numbers.
ANIMATE INANIMATE
Nom. who which
Gen. whose whose
Acc. whom which
Notes:
(1) Obviously, since English has lost its grammatical
gender, the relative pronoun "who, whose, and whom" are
only going to be used for living beings, usually only
human beings, though sometimes for animals.
(2) A lot of people sniff at "whom" as archaic and elitist.
That's possible, but I look at it this way: you should
know how and when to use "whom" properly. If you're in
a situation where your audience will denounce your
pretensions to aristocracy if you use "whom", then
don't use it. Don't go into a bar and say "Is this the
same team whom the Packers beat last week?" On the
other hand, if your listener will dismiss you as a
bumpkin and ignoramus if you say "These are the actors
who I'd admire", then use "whom". Knowing when to use
"whom" correctly is like knowing the difference between
a salad and oyster fork. It's not knowledge that's
useful every day of your life, but when you need it
it's nice to have. In any case, never use "whom" when
you should use "who". You'll outrage everyone. If
you're in doubt as to which to use, use "who".
(3) The nominative and accusative case of the relative
pronoun "who, which" has been almost entirely replaced
in colloquial English by "that": "The boy that I
saw.."., "The girl that plays basketball.."., The car
that is in the garage..".
(4) English also has the option of omitting the relative
pronoun altogether, and often it does: "The boy whom I
saw is six feet tall" becomes "The boy I saw is six
feet tall". Latin doesn't have this option. It must
always use the relative pronoun.
DRILL
Combine these two English sentences into one. Use the case
system of the relative pronoun, and indicate which number and
case the Latin equivalent would be in.
Examples:
A. "George kicked the dog. The dog lives next door".
English: "George kicked the dog that (which) lives next
door".
Latin: nominative singular
B. "The students don't like Latin. The teachers gave the
students a book".
English: "The girls, to whom the teacher gave a book, don't
like Latin".
Latin: dative plural
1. "They see the cars. The cars belong to George".
English:
Latin:
2. "George likes hard boiled eggs. George's brother is in
jail".
English:
Latin:
3. "Many students are never prepared for class. The professor
is writing a very difficult final exam for the students".
English:
Latin:
4. "The rocks fell off the cliff. The rocks were very slick".
English:
Latin:
5. "Betty avoids my brother. My brother's hair is dyed
pea-green".
English:
Latin:
THE LATIN RELATIVE PRONOUN
We've done all the difficult work. You understand what a
relative clause is: (1) they are subordinate clauses; (2) they
are introduced by relative pronouns; (3) the relative pronoun
agrees in number and gender with its antecedent, but gets its
case from the way it's being used in its own clause; and (4) they
modify something in the main clause. Now you have only to learn
the declensional system of the Latin relative pronoun and
practice with it.
The Latin relative pronoun has a full declensional system.
That is to say, it has 30 separate forms: five cases in three
genders in both numbers. The stem is "qu-" and it follows
basically the pattern set down by the pronouns "is, ea, id",
"ille, illa, illud", etc. But there are some substantial
variations. Here is the full pattern. Look for regularities
first; then go back and collect the deviations.
MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER
Nom. qui quae quod
Gen. cuius cuius cuius
Dat. cui cui cui
Acc. quem quam quod
Abl. quo qua quo
Nom. qui quae quae
Gen. quorum quarum quorum
Dat. quibus quibus quibus
Acc. quos quas quae
Abl. quibus quibus quibus
Let's start the close up examination by running down the
masculine forms first.
(1) The nominative case singular is a little unusual: qui,
but most of the demonstratives and pronouns are odd in
the nominative singular.
(2) The genitive and dative singulars (of the genders) use
the predictable pronoun case endings "-ius" and "-i",
but the stem has changed from "qu-" to "cu-".
(3) In the accusative singular you'd expect "quum" ("qu" +
"um"); but no such luck: "quem" is the form. The "-em"
looks as if it's "borrowed" from the third declension,
doesn't it.
(4) Things calm down for a while, but the dative and
ablative plurals use the "-ibus" ending which they
evidently import from the third declension. Notice
again that "quibus" is the form for all the genders in
the dative and ablative plural.
Now let's have a look at the feminine.
(1) Nominative's odd: "quae" instead of "qua". But so
what?
(2) Genitive and dative singular: stem "cu-" + "-ius" and
"-i". Like the masculine.
(3) Finally, the dative and ablative plurals aren't "quis"
but, like the masculine, "quibus".
And then the neuter.
(1) After having seen the masculine and feminine forms of
the relative pronoun, the only truly unexpected quirk
of the neuter is the nominative, hence also accusative,
plural: you get "quae" instead of "qua". Pay
attention, now, the form "quae" can be any one of four
possibilities: (a) feminine nominative singular; (b)
feminine nominative plural; (c) neuter nominative
plural; (d) neuter accusative plural. Context will be
your only guide.
Now try to write out the forms of the relative pronoun on your
own.
MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER
Nom. _______________ _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________
Nom. _______________ _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________
Okay, now let's take apart a couple of Latin sentences with
relative clauses. Translate these sentences, and tell me the
number gender and case of the relative pronouns. Try following
these steps:
(1) Go slowly;
(2) First read the entire sentence and try to identify the
main clause and the relative clause. The relative
clause will begin with the relative pronoun and
probably end with a verb;
(3) After you've isolated the relative clause, forget it
for a moment, and concentrate on translating the main
clause -- the main clause is, after all, the most
important thought in the sentence;
(4) Next, look at the relative pronoun and try to figure
out it number and gender -- forget about the case for
now. You want to match up the relative pronoun with
its antecedent, and the relative pronoun will agree
with its antecedent in number and gender.
(5) After all that, then you're ready to translate the
relative clause. For that you'll need to know the case
of the relative pronoun. Look carefully, and use what
you know about its gender and number to check off any
multiple possibilities.
(6) The last step, then, after all the pieces of the
sentence have been analyzed separately, is to put it
all back together.
(7) Go slowly.
1. "Vidi canem qui ex Asia venit". (canis, -is (m) "dog")
Translation: __________________________________________________
Relative Pronoun: __________
2. "Vidi canes quos amas".
Translation: __________________________________________________
Relative Pronoun: __________
3. "Puellae, quarum pater est parvus, sunt magnae".
Translation: __________________________________________________
Relative Pronoun: __________
4. "Vidi pueros quibus libros dedistis".
Translation: __________________________________________________
Relative Pronoun: __________
5. "Vidi pueros cum quibus venistis".
Translation: __________________________________________________
Relative Pronoun: __________
6. "Civem quem miseratis laudaverunt".
Translation: __________________________________________________
Relative Pronoun: __________
Now let's do it the other way.
1. "The tyrant destroyed the cities from which the citizens had
fled".
____________________________________________________________
2. "He came with the citizen to whom they had entrusted their
lives".
____________________________________________________________
3. "I saw the citizens with whom you had fled".
____________________________________________________________
4. "They have the money with which the tyrant captured the
city".
____________________________________________________________
5. "The father whose sons were stupid came out of Asia".
____________________________________________________________
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
aut...aut It used like this: aut x aut y = either
x or y.
coepi, coepisse, coeptus The first entry for this verb is the
perfect tense, first person singular.
The second is the perfect infinitive
(which you have seen yet), and the third
entry is the fourth principal part. The
verb is listed this way because it has
no first principal part -- which mean
logically that "coepi" has no present
system tenses: no present, future, or
imperfect. Another way to list this
verb would be: "----------, ----------,
coepi, coeptus". Verbs which lack one
or more principal part are called
"defective verbs". To say "I begin", "I
will begin", or "I was beginning", Latin
uses the first principal part of the
verb "incipio, -ere, -cepi, -ceptus.
01/08/93
CHAPTER 18
"The Passive Voice for the 1st and 2nd Conjugations
in the Present System; Ablative of Agent"
THE ACTIVE VOICE
Up to this point in Latin, you've been working with verbs only in
the "active voice"; that is, in forms which show that the subject
of the verb is the agent of the action denoted in the verb. For
example, in the sentence "Pueri litteras ad amicos suos mittent",
the subject ("pueri") of the verb ("mittent"), and it is the
"pueri" who are actually performing the action. And how do we
know that the subject of the verb is the author of the action?
In the present system, the verb tells you so in the personal
ending. Do you remember the personal endings in Latin in the
present system:
-o,-m I -mus we
-s you -tis you
-t he, she, it -nt they
You learned that these endings tell you the person and number of
the subject, but they actually were telling you more than that,
though I kept it from you. Now it's time to come clean: these
endings also tell you that the subject of the verb is itself
performing the action of the verb. That is to say, these endings
tell you the number and person of the subject, but additionally
they tell you that the verb is in the "active voice". So these
endings are more than the personal endings for the present
system; they are the present system "active" personal endings.
THE PASSIVE VOICE IN ENGLISH
The grammars of Latin and English both recognize another "voice";
that is, another relationship the subject of the verb can have to
the action of the verb. When the subject of the verb is itself
represented as the direct recipient of the action of the verb,
the verb is in the "passive voice". In English, the formation of
the passive voice is a little clumsy: we use the third principal
part of the verb and use it as a passive participle; then we use
the verb "to be" in a inflected form as the auxiliary. Like this
with the verb "see, saw, seen".
Present: I am seen.
Present Progressive: I am being seen.
Future: I will be seen.
Imperfect: I was being seen.
Can you detect this pattern: inflected form for the verb "to be"
plus the passive participle of the verb you're conjugating.
Notice that the verb "to be" is doing all the work.
THE PASSIVE VOICE OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM IN LATIN
By contrast, the formation of the passive voice in the present
system in Latin is a marvel of simplicity. To begin with, which
principal part of the verb do you think the passive voice in the
present system will be built upon? If you guessed the first
principal part, you did well. Remember, the Latin present,
future, and imperfect tenses are formed off the first principal
part, regardless of the voice. Next the verb endings you're
familiar with are the active voice personal endings for the
present system. Logically, therefore, it follows that there must
be a set of "passive" personal endings. Here they are; watch for
similarities with the active endings:
-or I am [being] -mur we are [being]
-ris [-re] you are [being] -mini you
are [being]
-tur he is [being] -ntur they are [being]
These are the endings you add to the normal stems to form the
passive voice in the present system. Do you detect the
similarities? Only the second person singular and plural endings
are totally different from their active counterparts. Now let's
take a closer look at how all of this is going to come together.
PRESENT TENSE PASSIVE FOR ALL CONJUGATIONS
The present tense in the active voice is formed simply by adding
personal endings to the first principal part. (And remember, this
stem includes the stem vowel: an "-a-" for first conjugation
verbs, "-e-" for the second, "-e-" for the third, and "-i-" for
the fourth.) To form the present tense passive, you simply
replace the active personal endings with the passive endings.
The only apparently usual form you're going to see in all this
is the second person singular of third conjugation verbs. You
remember that the stem vowel of a third conjugation verb is short
"-e-" and that it changes when you start adding personal endings.
It becomes "-i-" and "-u-". But think back. The infinitive of
third conjugation verbs isn't "-ire" but "-ere". That's because
when the short "-e-" is followed by an "-r-" it stays short
"-e-". So what's that going to mean for the second personal
singular passive? The passive personal ending is "-ris", so,
since the ending starts with an "-r-", the stem vowel will not
change to "-i-" as you might expect, but it will remain short
"-e-". So the form will end in "-eris", not "-iris", as you
might have expected. Write out the present tense passive of all
four conjugations:
laudo moneo duco capio audio
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
FUTURE TENSE PASSIVE OF ALL CONJUGATIONS
To form the future tense passive, just as in the present tense,
you simply replace the active personal endings with the passive
personal endings. So form the future tense of each verb, without
the personal endings first, then simply attach the passive
personal endings. But be careful. In the second person singular
of all conjugations except the fourth something odd is going to
happen. Do you remember this rule of Latin phonetics? "When a
short '-e-' is followed by an '-r-' it remains short '-e-'. So
what does this mean for us? Watch this
lauda + be + ris = laudabris
mone + be + ris = monebris
Write out the future tense passive of the paradigm verbs, and
don't forget that 3rd and 4th conjugation verbs form the future
tense differently from the 1st and 2nd.
laudo moneo duco capio audio
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
IMPERFECT TENSE PASSIVE OF LATIN VERBS
Follow the same procedure you did with the present and future
tenses passive. Construct the imperfect tense less the personal
endings, then use the passive personal endings. The first person
singular is "-bar", where the personal ending "-r" is attached
directly to the "-ba- tense sign of the imperfect, without
inserting an "-o-" as you did in the present and future tenses.
Write out the imperfect passive of the paradigm verbs:
laudo moneo duco capio audio
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
__________ __________ __________ __________ __________
THE PASSIVE INFINITIVE
The present active infinitive passive is form which is also
derived from the first principal part. To form the passive voice
of the infinitive of first, second, and fourth conjugation verbs,
you simply use the ending "-ri" instead of "-re". In third
conjugation verbs, you replace the stem vowel with "-i".
1. lauda + ri = laudari "to be praised"
2. mone + ri = moneri "to be warned"
3. duc + i = duci "to be led"
3i. cap + i = capi "to be captured"
4. audi + ri = audiri "to be taken"
DRILLS
FIRST CONJUGATION VERB: laudo, -are
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1 _______________ _______________ _______________
2 _______________ _______________ _______________
3 _______________ _______________ _______________
1 _______________ _______________ _______________
2 _______________ _______________ _______________
3 _______________ _______________ _______________
INFINITIVE
_______________
SECOND CONJUGATION VERB: deleo, -ere
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1 _______________ _______________ _______________
2 _______________ _______________ _______________
3 _______________ _______________ _______________
1 _______________ _______________ _______________
2 _______________ _______________ _______________
3 _______________ _______________ _______________
INFINITIVE
_______________
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE PASSIVE VOICE
What's the difference between these two sentences:
(a) George kicked the ball.
(b) The ball was kicked by George.
Obviously, in (a) the verb is active, but in (b) it is passive.
But what's the difference between the active and passive voice as
a matter of presentation? The action being described in both
sentences is the same. Both authors are looking at the same
action. What's the difference as far as the speakers' emphases are
concerned? When we listen to or read English, we attach a certain
priority to the subject of the verb. So in sentence (a) the
speaker (or writer) relating the event, but with the focus of his
attention on what George is doing. In sentence (b), however, the
principle emphasis is on what is being done to the ball, and the
fact that George is the one who kick the ball is attached only as
further detail.
The order of rhetorical importance begins with the subject,
next comes the action performed on it, and then finally the agent
who actually performed the action. The sentence would still have
been a completed thought even if George's agency had not been
mentioned: "The ball was kicked". Similarly, the order of priority
in sentence (a) begins with the subject of the verb, then the verb,
and finally the object of the action of the verb.
You've probably been told sometime in your education
experience to eschew the passive voice. That's probably good
advice in general, but when you do use it, make sure that your
emphasis in the passive voice construction reflects the real
subordination of ideas in your narrative in general. Latin tends
to be more skittish of the passive voice than English is, and, as
you'll see, it definitely avoided our impersonal passive
constructions like "it seems that" or "it is asked that" and so on.
ABLATIVE OF PERSONAL AGENT: AB + ABLATIVE
Look at sentences (a) and (b) again. You can see how sentence (b)
is really a modification of (a). The original direct object in (a)
becomes the subject of the verb in (b) and the original subject of
(a) is expressed by a prepositional phrase in (b) -- "by George".
In the passive voice construction in Latin, the agent of the
action, if it is mentioned, is expressed by the preposition "ab" +
the ablative case. Wheelock gives you a stern warning: the
"Ablative of Personal Agent" is not the "Ablative of Means" (or the
"Instrumental Ablative"). The "Ablative of Means" expresses the
instrument with which the agent accomplished the action of the
verb; the "Ablative of Personal Agent" expresses the agent itself
in a passive construction.
"Nulli tyranni ab Romanis laudabantur". (No tyrants used to be
praised by the Romans.)
"Multae rosae puellis ab poetis dabuntur". (Many roses will be
given to the girls by the poets.)
But when the agent of a passive voice is not animate, then Latin
uses the Ablative of Means.
"Omnes his periculis terrentur". (Everyone is frightened by
these dangers.)
"Multae urbes vi pecuniae capientur". (Many cities will be
captured by the force of money.)
But
"Omnes a malis terrentur". (Everyone is frightened by the evil
[men].)
"Multae urbes istis tyrannis capientur". (Many cities will be
captured by those tyrants.)
PASSIVE VOICE LIMITED TO TRANSITIVE VERBS
There is one other idem you'll have to observe. As Wheelock tells
you, the passive construction is only possible with verbs which are
truly transitive: that is, which take direct objects. This makes
sense. When you change the voice of a verb from the active to
passive, the original direct object accusative becomes the subject
nominative. Since only transitive verbs take direct object
accusatives, it follows that only verbs that are transitive can
have a passive voice.
(a) "Romani nullos tyrannos laudabant".
(b) "Nulli tyranni ab Romanis laudabantur".
(a) "Poetae multas rosas puellis dabunt".
(b) "Multae rosae puellis ab poetis dabuntur".
DRILLS
Change the voice of the following sentences (active to passive or
passive to active):
1. Illi libri nos adiuvabunt.
____________________________________________________________
2. Haec pericula vos terrebant.
____________________________________________________________
3. Hi libri a discipulis meis cum celeritate legentur.
____________________________________________________________
4. Te in via videbo.
____________________________________________________________
5. Magna ira cives movent.
____________________________________________________________
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
videor, -eri, visus sum
The passive voice of the verb "video" takes
on a special meaning; one that is not
entirely predictable simply by knowing the
rules of translating the Latin passive voice
into English. To be sure, "videor" can mean
"I am seen", but more often it comes to mean
"I seem" or "I appear" and is often followed
by an infinitive: "videor legere" = "I seem
to be reading". For your future reference,
the third person impersonal passive of
"video" -- "videtur" does not equal our
popular construction "it seems"; rather it
means "it seems right". Latin never says "it
seem that George is sick"; it says "George
seems to be sick".
01/08/93
CHAPTER 19
"Perfect Passive System of All Verbs;
Interrogative Pronouns and Adjectives"
PERFECT PASSIVE SYSTEM
We divide the Latin tense system into two categories. (1) The
present system, active and passive, uses the first principal part
of the verb. It includes the present, future and imperfect
tenses. Notice, these tenses use the first principal part for
both the active and passive voices. The only difference between
the active and passive voices in the present system is the
personal endings. You learned all about this in Chapter 18. (2)
The perfect system active uses the third principal part of the
verb and attaches different personal endings to get the three
different tenses of the perfect system. Write out the endings:
Perfect Pluperfect Future Perfect
1 __________ ___________ __________
2 __________ ___________ __________
3 __________ ___________ __________
1 __________ ___________ __________
2 __________ ___________ __________
3 __________ ___________ __________
Notice, now, that the third principal part is the stem for the
perfect system active only. To form the perfect system tense in
the passive voice, Latin uses the fourth principal part of the
verb. Since it uses a different principal part, the Perfect
System Passive is considered to be a different category of
tenses. So there are three tense systems in Latin:
(1) the Present System Active and Passive;
(2) the Perfect System Active;
(3) the Perfect System Passive.
The tenses of systems (2) and (3) are the same -- Perfect,
Pluperfect and Future Perfect; the only difference is in the
voice, and the principal part of the verb on which they're built.
THE PASSIVE VOICE IN ENGLISH: THE PARTICIPLE DEFINED
First, let's look at how English forms its passive voice again.
As we saw in Chapter 18, English uses the third principal part of
the verb and uses an inflected form of the verb "to be" as the
auxiliary or helping verb. That is to say, the verb "to be" will
indicate the tense, the number, and the mood of the verb, while
the third principal part of the verb will define the specific
action involved. For example, for the verb "to see, saw, seen":
Betty is seen by George.
is being seen
will be seen
would be seen
should be seen
was seen
was being seen
has been seen
had been seen
should have been seen
would have been seen
You can clearly see that the constant in all these modifications
is the verbal form "seen". The verb "to be" is doing all the
work. So let's look at little more closely at the verbal form
"seen".
The third principal part of the English verb is called a
"participle". Now listen closely; this is going to be an
important definition: A participle is a "verbal adjective".
That is, an adjective which is derived from a verb. In fact,
that's why we call it a participle, because it "participates" in
the essence of both a verb and of an adjective. So in the
constructions of the English passive voice, the participle "seen"
is actually "modifying" the subject of the verb "to be". I can
say "Betty is tall" and "Betty is seen", and these two sentences
are analogous. In the predicate of both these sentences the
subject further modified, since it is linked to an adjective by
the verb "to be".
It may seem bizarre to be thinking of a verbal construction
as being essentially adjectival, but watch how we can use
participles where their adjectival force is quite obvious:
"the written text", "the spoken word", "the
destroyed city", "the bewildered students",
"the beleaguered professor", etc.
THE LATIN PERFECT PASSIVE PARTICIPLE
So where are we? English forms the passive voice of all its
tenses by using the participle of the verb which it links to the
subject with a conjugated form of the verb "to be". Now you
already know that Latin forms the passive voice of some of its
tenses -- those of the present system -- simply by using special
passive endings. The formation of the passive voice of the
perfect system, however, doesn't work that way.
The Latin perfect passive system is perfectly analogous to
the formation of the English passive voice. The perfect passive
system in Latin uses the fourth principal part of the verb, which
is then linked to the subject with an inflected form of the verb
"sum". The fourth principal part of a Latin verb is called the
"Perfect Passive Participle". Let's zero in on all the parts of
this description.
(1) We call it "Perfect" because the action is considered
to have been completed. This is an important
difference with the English participle. In English, we
might say "Betty is being seen", and the participle
doesn't force us to understand that the action is
finished. In this example, the action is clearly still
going on.
(2) We say "Passive" since whatever the participle is going
with had something done to it, rather than being the
agent of some action. Again, the English participle
can be used in conditions where the passive force is
not so obvious. In the sentence "I have seen Betty",
the participle "seen" doesn't strike us as passive in
force, but rather as a part of an active construction.
(3) We say "Participle" because it is a "verbal adjective",
and for Latin, this is going to have monumental
implications. The participle is an adjective, so it
must agree in number, gender, and case with the noun is
modifying. And if it must agree with nouns, then the
participle must be able to decline to get the different
numbers, genders, and cases it needs. (This is the
feature of the Perfect System Passive which causes
students the most trouble. It's difficult for them to
realize that the passive voice in the perfect system is
essentially adjectival: the verb "sum" linking the
subject of the verb with a predicate adjective.)
Now let's look at the fourth principal part of a verb. As you
know, the dictionary must give you all the principal parts of the
verb you're considering.
(1) The first entry is the first person singular of the
present tense.
(2) The second is the present infinitive, from which you
drop the "-re" to get the present system stem.
(3) The third is the first person singular of the perfect
tense, from which you get the perfect active stem by
dropping the "-i".
(4) The fourth entry is the perfect passive participle,
which is used with the auxiliary verb "sum" in the
formation of the perfect system passive.
We've said that the perfect passive participle is a verbal
adjective, so it must be able to decline, just like adjectives,
in order to agree with the nouns they're modifying.
The perfect passive participles of all verbs declines just
like the first adjectives you learned: just like "magnus, -a,
-um". That is, it uses endings of the first declension to modify
feminine nouns, endings of the second declension "-us" type to
modify masculine nouns, and endings of the second declension
"-um" type to modify neuter nouns. The dictionaries tell you
this in a number of different ways; but they're all telling you
the same thing. Some write out the whole "-us, -a, -um"; others
abbreviate it by using only the neuter "-um" or the masculine
"-us". So you may see the entry for the fourth principal part of
"laudo", for example, given in these three different ways:
(1) laudatus, -a, -um
(2) laudatum
(3) laudatus
PERFECT TENSE PASSIVE
So let's put this participle to work. How would you translate
this in Latin: "I was praised". Well, the tense is obviously
perfect -- that is, the action was completed before it was
reported -- so we must use the perfect passive participle:
"laudatus, -a, -um". The person is first and the number is
singular. Let's assume that the "I" is male. What case is "I"?
Obviously nominative -- it's the subject of the verb -- so the
form of the participle will be "laudatus" -- masculine,
nominative singular. Got that? The participle is going to agree
with the subject of the verb. The subject of the verb is
nominative, so the participle must be nominative, too. Now what
form of the verb "sum" should we use. Of course, we'll use the
first person singular, but what tense?
Did you guess "eram" -- "I was"? If you did, that's one
demerit. Look, the fourth principal part is the "perfect passive
participle" and the "perfect" tells you that the action is
considered to have been already completed. That is, in the
participle itself is the notion of a past event, so "laudatus"
could be translated as "having been praised". Therefore you
needn't repeat the idea of past completion in the auxiliary verb
"to be". So the correct form of the auxiliary is the present
tense: "sum". Think of it this way, and I admit this may seem
clumsy: "Laudatus sum" means "I am now in the condition of
having been praised". We can bring this over into English as
either "I was praised" or "I have been praised". So to form the
perfect tense passive in Latin, you use the perfect passive
participle + the verb "sum" as the auxiliary in the present
tense.
Now let's suppose that the subject "I" is feminine. What
changes would this necessitate? Well, the participle is a verbal
adjective, so it must agree in number, gender and case with
whatever it's modifying. If the subject of the verb is feminine,
then the participle has to be feminine, nominative, singular to
agree with it. So the participle will have be "laudata".
Therefore, if a woman is speaking, should would say "Laudata sum"
for "I was praised".
PLUPERFECT TENSE PASSIVE
So how do you imagine Latin forms the passive of the pluperfect
tense? Think. You're still going to use the perfect passive
participle linked to the subject with a conjugated form of the
verb "sum". All perfect system passive tenses do that. But
tense will the verb "sum" be in? Right! Now you use the
auxiliary verb "sum" in the imperfect tense. What you're doing
is adding an additional past idea in auxiliary to the past idea
already implicit in the participle. Therefore "Laudatus eram"
means "I was in the condition of having been praised" or "I had
been praised". And if the subject were feminine: "Laudata eram".
FUTURE PERFECT TENSE PASSIVE
And the future perfect tense? Yes. You use the future of the
verb "sum", thus attaching a future idea to the past idea in the
participle, and that's the definition of the future perfect
tense. "Laudatus ero" therefore means "I will be in the
condition of having been praised", which comes out "I will have
been praised". And if the subject were feminine "Laudata ero".
PERFECT SYSTEM PASSIVE SUMMARIZED
So let's look at all this. Conjugate in full the three tenses of
the perfect system passive, using the verb "laudo". (Carry all
the possible genders and check your work against list lists on
page 88.)
PARTICIPLE PERFECT PLUPERFECT FUTURE
PERFECT
laudatus, -a, -um sum eram ero
_________________ __________ __________ __________
_________________ __________ __________ __________
laudati, -ae, -a __________ __________ __________
_________________ __________ __________ __________
_________________ __________ __________ __________
THE FOURTH PRINCIPAL PART OF VERBS
In Chapter 12, you realized that you were going to have to
memorize the third principal part of all your verbs if you wanted
to be able to work with them in all their tense systems.
Similarly, now you must go back and memorize the fourth principal
parts of your verbs if you want to work with them in the perfect
system passive. As with the third principal parts, the formation
of the fourth will follow some regular patterns, so the task of
memorization will not be as tedious as it at first might seem.
FIRST CONJUGATION VERBS
The vast majority of first conjugation verbs, as you know, are
regular. This means that its principal parts are formed
regularly using the first principal part as the stem. The third
principal part, as you recall, is just the first principal part +
"vi". The fourth principal part also is a regular derivation
from the first principal part: it's the first principal part +
"t" plus the adjectival endings "-us, -a, -um". So for "laudo",
the fourth principal part is "laudatus, -a, -um" (lauda + t + us,
-a, -um) which is often abbreviated just as "laudatus" or
"laudatum". Here are all the first conjugation verbs you've had
up to this chapter. Fill out the principal parts, and double
check your work. You can use these lists to review from.
II III IV
amo _______________ _______________ _______________
cogito _______________ _______________ _______________
conservo _______________ _______________ _______________
do _______________ _______________ datus
erro _______________ _______________ _______________
exspecto _______________ _______________ _______________
iuvo _______________ _______________ _______________
laudo _______________ _______________ _______________
libero _______________ _______________ _______________
muto _______________ _______________ _______________
paro _______________ _______________ _______________
servo _______________ _______________ _______________
supero _______________ _______________ _______________
tolero _______________ _______________ _______________
voco _______________ _______________ _______________
(The two exceptions to this regularity of the first conjugation
verbs is "do, dare, dedi, datus", and "[ad]iuvo, -iuvare, -iuvi,
-iutus". If you look closely, however, you'll see that "do" isn't
really a first conjugation verb, since the stem vowel "-a-" is
not long.)
SECOND CONJUGATION VERBS
Although second conjugation verbs are slightly less regular than
first conjugation verbs, they do tend to follow a pattern in
their formation of the second, third, and fourth principal parts.
But because there are occasional irregularities in third second
conjugation verbs, the dictionary will list all four principal
parts of a second conjugation verb. Often the third principal
part of a third conjugation verb is the first principal part +
vi", which them becomes simplified from "-evi" to just "-ui".
The fourth principal part very often ends "-itus, -a, -um". So
for the paradigm verb "moneo", the principal parts are "moneo,
monere, monui, monitus". Again, here is the complete list of the
second conjugation verbs you've had till now. I've left the
principal parts of the regular verbs blank for you to fill in on
your own. When a verb lack one of the principal parts, I've left
no blank. Some verbs have unusual principal parts, which would
involve some explanation. Where verbs have principal parts which
are outside our interest here, I've inserted dashes. For now,
they don't exist and just memorize the principal parts the verbs
do have.
audeo _______________ --------------- ---------------
debeo _______________ _______________ _______________
deleo _______________ delevi deletus
doceo _______________ _______________ doctus
habeo _______________ _______________ _______________
moneo _______________ _______________ _______________
moveo _______________ movi motus
remaneo _______________ remansi remansus
teneo _______________ _______________ tentus
terreo _______________ _______________ _______________
timeo _______________ _______________ ---------------
valeo _______________ _______________ ---------------
video _______________ vidi visus
THIRD CONJUGATION VERBS
The third conjugation (-i- stem and non -i- stem) displays
several different ways of forming third and fourth principal
parts. Each verb is best treated individually as if they were
irregular, but certain patters are obvious. Additionally, a
great many of our English derivations come from the fourth
principal part of the original Latin verb. If you keep this in
mind as you try to memorize these forms, you'll find they'll
stick more readily.
ago _______________ _______________ actus
capio _______________ _______________ captus
coepi coeptus
committo _______________ _______________ commissus
curro _______________ _______________ cursus
dico _______________ _______________ dictus
duco _______________ _______________ ductus
diligo _______________ _______________ dilectus
eicio _______________ _______________ eiectus
facio _______________ _______________ factus
fugio _______________ _______________ -------
gero _______________ _______________ gestus
iacio _______________ _______________ iactus
incipio _______________ _______________ inceptus
intellego _______________ _______________ -tellectus
iungo _______________ _______________ iunctus
lego _______________ _______________ lectus
mitto _______________ _______________ missus
neglego _______________ _______________ neglectus
scribo _______________ _______________ scriptus
traho _______________ _______________ tractus
vinco _______________ _______________ victus
vivo _______________ _______________ victus
FOURTH CONJUGATION VERBS
The fourth conjugation sometimes forms third and fourth principal
parts regularly by adding "-vi" to the present stem for the third
and by adding "-tus, -a, -um" for the fourth. But there are so
many irregularities that fourth conjugation verbs are listed with
all four principal parts. Here's your list of all the four
conjugation verbs you've had up to Chapter 19.
audio _______________ _______________ auditus
invenio _______________ _______________ inventus
sentio _______________ _______________ sensus
venio _______________ _______________ ventus
THE INTERROGATIVE PRONOUN
Do you remember how Latin asks a question? You've learned that
enclitic "-ne" is attached to the end of the first word of the
sentence to indicate a question. Latin must do this because the
word order is so flexible that no rearrangement of the words will
indicate necessarily that a question is coming up. In English,
we ask a simple question by inverting the subject of the verb
with an auxiliary. The statement "You are walking the dog"
becomes a question like this: "Are you walking the dog?" But
Latin doesn't have all these handy auxiliary verbs, and besides,
since Latin doesn't rely on word order much to tell you the
syntax of the words in the sentence, inverting words won't help.
So Latin uses the enclitic, and the word the enclitic is
attached to is the focus of the question. For example, in the
question "Laudatisne filios huius viri?" the point of inquiry is
whether you are performing the action of praising. But if we
begin the sentence with "the sons" -- "Filiosne huius viri
laudatis?" then the focus of the question changes: "Are you
praising this man's sons? We can accomplish this effect in
English by inflecting our voice when we reach the word that is
the point of the question. Now look more closely at each of
these questions. Even though each has a different emphasis, all
the questions are essentially asking one thing: "If I should turn
this question into a statement, would it be true?" That is, the
question is about the validity of the predication.
The question "Are you praising this man's sons" is asking
whether it is true to say "You are praising this man's sons". We
call this kind of question a simple question; it ask for no
information that is not contained in its structure. Now look at
these questions:
(1) "Why are you praising this man's sons"?
(2) "When are you praising this man's sons"?
(3) "How are you praising this man's sons"?
Here it is taken for granted that the predication is true -- you
are praising this man's sons -- and the questions being asked are
not whether you're praising the sons, but why, when, or how?
These questions are calling for information that is not contained
within the syntax of the question; they are asking for specific
kinds of additional information. And the kind of information
they're asking for is indicated in the words "why, when, and
how". We call words which ask for specific kinds of information
"interrogatives". Some more questions with another kind of
interrogative:
(1) "Who's there?"
(2) "What's that?"
(3) "Whose mess is this?"
(4) "Whom are you accusing?"
(5) "What are you trying to say?"
In these questions, the predication is taken as true: (1) someone
is there; (2) that is something; (3) the mess does belong to
someone; (4) you are accusing someone; (5) you are trying to say
something. The information the questions are asking for,
however, is temporarily replaced with another word, and the hope
is that soon the information will be plugged into the spot where
its replacement now stands. What do we call a word which takes
the place of another word or idea? Right! We call them
pronouns, so these words are interrogative (because they're
asking questions) and pronouns (because they're replacing other
nouns or ideas): "interrogative pronouns".
The English interrogative pronouns, as you can see in the
examples above, have different cases and even genders. The
gender is determined by what is be filled in for, but the case is
determined by the way the pronoun is being used in the question.
MASCULINE AND FEMININE INANIMATE
Nom. who what
Gen. whose whose
Acc. whom what
Do you see any similarity between the interrogative pronouns and
the relative pronouns? Of course you do. "Who, whose, and whom"
are all forms that can also be used as relative pronouns. Only
the interrogative pronoun "what" has no use as an relative
pronoun.
The Latin interrogative pronoun also resembles the Latin
relative pronoun. In the plural, the forms of the interrogative
pronoun are identical to those of the relative pronoun. In the
singular many of the forms of the interrogative pronouns overlap
with those of the relative pronouns, but there are some
differences:
(1) For one, the forms for the masculine and feminine are
the same. Consequently, there are only two forms for
the nominative singular: one for the masculine and
feminine genders, and one for the neuter. Similarly,
there are only two forms for the genitive singular --
one masculine and feminine, and one neuter. And so on
for all the cases in the singular. Only two forms.
(2) Next, two of the forms are just plain different from
those of the relative pronoun. (a) For the masculine
and feminine nominative singular, the form is "quis",
not "qui" or "quae" as you might expect. (b) You might
expect "quod" for neuter nominative and accusative
singular, but the form is "quid". (c) For the
remaining cases of the masculine/feminine forms, the
interrogative pronoun uses the masculine forms of the
relative pronoun.
Look this description closely over and try to write out the Latin
interrogative pronoun (see Wheelock, page 89).
MASCULINE AND FEMININE NEUTER
Nom. _______________
_______________
Gen. _______________
_______________
Dat. _______________
_______________
Acc. _______________
_______________
Abl. _______________
_______________
MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER
Nom. _______________ _______________
_______________
Gen. _______________ _______________
_______________
Dat. _______________ _______________
_______________
Acc. _______________ _______________
_______________
Abl. _______________ _______________
_______________
Let's look at some examples of how the interrogative pronoun
works in Latin. You'll that it has some surprising properties,
which the English interrogative pronoun "who, what", etc.
doesn't have. "Quis librum tibi dedit?" ("Who gave you the
book?") You can tell this sentence is a question, obviously,
because it is introduced with the interrogative pronoun and
because it ends with a question mark. But the English
translation isn't as precise as the Latin. Why not? Look at
"quis". It's nominative because it is used as the subject of the
verb. But what about its number and gender? It's
masculine/feminine in gender and singular in number.
That means that the question was formed in such a way as to
imply that there was only one person who gave you the book. Now
look at the English "who". Can you tell whether the person
asking the question expects there to be only one person who gave
you the book? No, you can't. So, in Latin, the questioner
reveals more about the kind of answer expected because the
pronoun reveals more about the possible antecedent. How would we
translate these into English:
(a) "Qui librum tibi dederunt?"
(b) "Quae librum tibi dederunt?"
We'd have to translate them both as "Who gave you the book?", but
look more closely at the Latin. In (a), the question implies
that more than one person gave you the book and that they are
either all male or mixed male and female. In (b), those who gave
you the book are implied to be plural and all feminine. Look at
another example. All of these Latin question can be translated
into English as "Whose book did Cicero give you?":
"Cuius librum Cicero tibi dedit?"
"Quorum librum Cicero tibi dedit?"
"Quarum librum Cicero tibi dedit?"
The interrogative pronoun in each of these question is in the
genitive case because the point of the question is to learn more
about the owner(s) of the book. But each question suggests an
different kind of answer. Can you spot the different
expectations?
INTERROGATIVE ADJECTIVE
Okay, you know that the interrogative pronoun is a word which
takes the place of another noun or idea about which certain
information is being sought. Because it asks a question we call
it "interrogative"; because it stands in for something else, we
call it a "pronoun": "interrogative pronoun".
So what is an "interrogative adjective". Start from the
beginning. "Interrogative" means that it will be asking a
question. "Adjective" means that it will be modifying a noun in
the sentence and to modify a noun an adjective must agree with it
in number, gender, and case. Putting these two parts together,
we come up with this: an "interrogative adjective" is a word
which modifies an noun in a way that asks more information about
it. How does this work? Look at these English questions:
(a) "What child is this?"
(b) "Which way did he go?"
(c) "For what reason are we doing this?"
In each of these questions, more information is being requested
about something which is already expressed in the question. Like
this. What's the difference between "What is this"? and "What
child is this"? In (a), the answer sought is not restricted to
anything specified in the sentence itself. But in the second,
the potential responder is directed to limit his reply to
something in particular; namely, "the child". The same is true
with (b) and (c). (B) is not asking whether he's gone, but which
way he went; (c) is not asking what we're doing, but for what
reason. So English uses the adjective "which or what" to ask for
information specific to something already expressed in the
sentence.
Latin also has interrogative adjectives for this purpose,
but because Latin is a fully inflected language, the
interrogative adjective has many more forms than its English
analogue. After all, the Latin interrogative adjective is going
to have to agree with masculine, feminine, or neuter nouns in any
one of the ten cases and numbers. You'll be pleased to know,
however, that you're not going to have to learn anything new,
because the Latin interrogative adjective uses the forms of its
relative pronoun. Go ahead and write out the forms of the
interrogative adjective to refresh your memory. (Remember, it's
exactly the same as the relative pronoun).
INTERROGATIVE ADJECTIVE
MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER
Nom. _______________ _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________
Nom. _______________ _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________
Because the interrogative adjective is an adjective, its form is
determined entirely by the noun with which it is agreeing in the
sentence. Like this:
"Quem librum legebatis?" (What (or which) book were
you reading?)
The interrogative adjective "quem" is singular, accusative,
masculine because the noun about which the question is seeking
more information is singular, accusative, and masculine. Study
these examples:
(a) "Quibus feminis libros illos dedistis?" (To which women
did you give those books?)
(b) "A quo viro admoniti sunt?" (By which (or what) man
were they warned?)
(c) "A quibus viris admoniti sunt?" (By which (or what)
men were they warned?)
(d) "A qua femina admoniti sunt?" (By which woman were
they warned?)
DRILLS
Translate the following short sentences.
1. Cui libros dederunt?
__________________________________________________
2. Qui ei libros dederunt?
__________________________________________________
3. A quo libri dati sunt?
__________________________________________________
4. A quibus hi libri lecti erant?
__________________________________________________
5. A quibus discipulis hi libri lecti sunt?
__________________________________________________
6. Quis ab omnibus civibus amatus est?
__________________________________________________
7. Cuius civitatis ille homo erat?
__________________________________________________
8. E qua urbe iste tyrannus venit?
__________________________________________________
9. E quorum urbe iste tyrannus venit?
__________________________________________________
10. Qui vir ab omnibus civibus amatus est?
__________________________________________________
11. Who came from that city?
__________________________________________________
12. Which books did you read?
__________________________________________________
13. To whom were these books given?
__________________________________________________
14. Which students read these books?
__________________________________________________
15. Which citizens loved this man?
__________________________________________________
16. Whose city was loved by that tyrant?
__________________________________________________
17. By whom were those books given to the students?
__________________________________________________
18. By whom was this city loved?
__________________________________________________
19. To which women was the book given?
__________________________________________________
20. To which woman was the book given?
__________________________________________________
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
senex, senis This word is much more bizarre than Wheelock
lets on. You'll see it mainly as a noun,
meaning "old man" or "old woman". Don't
expect to see it modifying a neuter noun.
It'll always be masculine or feminine.
Because it's really a third declension
adjective, it'll decline like:
senex senes
senis senium
seni senibus
senem senes
seni senibus
novus, -a, -um Like most ancient civilizations, ancient Rome
didn't care much for change. So a way of
asking "What's wrong"? was "Quid novum est"?
01/08/20
CHAPTER 20
"Fourth Declension;
Ablatives of Place from Which and Separation"
FOURTH DECLENSION NOUNS
Let's review a moment. You know that a noun will belong to one
declension and one declension only; and you know that a declension
is a pattern of case endings. There are five declensions in Latin,
and in each of them some case endings resemble those the other
declensions. You know, the "-m" is almost always the ending of the
accusative singular; "-s" is almost always the ending of the
accusative plural; etc. So what makes these declensions truly
different from each other? The truly distinctive characteristic of
these declensions is the thematic vowel (that is, the vowel which
regularly appears in the case endings):
(1) The thematic vowel of the first declension is "-a-".
(2) The thematic vowel of the second declension is "-o-" (the
"-u-" in the declension was really an "-o-" which has
been changed).
(3) The thematic vowel of the third declension is short "-e-"
(which often changes to a short "-i-").
And now the fourth and fifth declensions:
(4) The thematic vowel of the fourth declension is "-u-".
(5) The thematic vowel of the fifth declension is "-e-".
(We'll look at fifth declension nouns later.)
So, how can you tell to which declension a noun belongs? The
dictionary must give you that information. But instead of listing
a number next to the noun, the dictionary does something else. The
dictionary actually starts to decline the noun for you. The first
entry in the dictionary is the nominative singular, followed by the
genitive singular, which is then followed by the gender. You
deduce the declension by looking at the genitive singular ending,
which means you must know the forms of the genitive singulars for
all the declensions:
(1) An "-ae" genitive ending means the noun declines in the
first declension, because "-ae" is the genitive singular
ending of the first declension.
(2) An "-i" genitive ending means the noun is second
declension.
(3) An "-is" genitive ending means the noun is third
declension.
So now let's look at the fourth declension. Like the third
declension, the fourth declension can have nouns of all three
genders belonging to it: the masculine and feminine nouns will
follow one pattern of endings; the neuter nouns will follow
another. (Now it happens that the vast majority of fourth
declension nouns are masculine and that there are hardly any
feminine nouns; but you should keep your guard up anyway.) So here
are the different case endings:
MASCULINE AND FEMININE NEUTER
Nom. -us -u
Gen. -us -us
Dat. -ui -u
Acc. -um -u
Abl. -u -u
Nom. -us -ua
Gen. -uum -uum
Dat. -ibus -ibus
Acc. -us -ua
Abl. -ibus -ibus
Let's take a closer look at these endings. First the
masculine and feminine endings:
(1) The nominative singular is short "-us", so this ending
looks exactly like the "-us" type second declension
ending for the nominative singular. So, looking at the
dictionary entry for the nominative singular of a fourth
declension masculine or feminine noun, you might be lured
into thinking that it's of the second declension. To see
the difference you must go to the next entry -- the
genitive singular.
(2) The genitive singular is long "-us", so the dictionary
entry for a fourth declension noun will look like this:
'x'us, -us (m./f.), where 'x' is the stem of the noun.
(3) The dative singular ending is the "-i" you've seen in the
third declension and on the pronouns, which is attached
to the thematic vowel "-u-".
(4) The accusative singular ending is entirely predictable:
it's just the thematic vowel with the ending "-m"
attached. This is the way all accusative singulars of
masculine and feminine nouns are formed.
(5) Equally predictable is the ablative singular: it's just
the thematic vowel.
(6) The nominative plural works on the analogy of the third
declension: the long thematic vowel plus the ending "-s".
(7) The genitive plural is odd-looking -- "-uum" -- but it's
made up of the thematic vowel plus the genitive plural
ending "-um" you're already familiar with from the third
declension.
(8) The dative and ablative plurals "-ibus" look like the
third declension endings; notice also that the thematic
vowel "-u"- has been replaced. It's "-ibus", not
"-ubus". Strange.
(9) The accusative plural is the same as the nominative
plural. You've seen this phenomenon before in the third
declension.
Now let's look at the neuter side of the fourth declension.
Wheelock tells you correctly that these are rare. And we're lucky
they are, because they're somewhat odd.
(1) The nominative singular ends in just a long "-u". Odd.
(2) According to the laws of neuters, therefore, the
accusative singular will also end in long "-u".
(3) You would expect the dative singular to have a
predictable ending, but look at it: the ending is long
"-u". Take a look at the endings in the singular, now.
Four of the cases in the singular have the same ending --
long "-u" -- which means you may have a devil of a time
deciding which case a noun is in when it ends in long
"-u". Context has to help you.
(4) Nothing irregular happens in the plural -- if you
remember that proposition two of the law of neuters tells
you that all neuter nominative and accusative plurals end
in short "-a".
One more thing about the fourth declension which might interest you
is that there are no fourth declension adjectives. You recall that
the first, second and third declensions are patterns of endings
which nouns and adjectives can use. The fourth declension contains
only nouns.
A list for a fourth declension noun in the dictionary will
look like this:
metus, -us (m)
fructus, -us (m)
manus, -us (f)
cornu, -us (n)
versus, -us (m)
The first entry is the nominative singular, the second tells you
the declension and indicates whether there are any stem changes
from the nominative form. But, there are no stem changes in fourth
declension nouns. Isn't that nice? So decline these nouns. Check
you work against Wheelock page 93.
metus, -us (m) cornu, -us (n)
Nom. _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________
Nom. _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________
ABLATIVE OF PLACE FROM WHICH AND SEPARATION
There's nothing really difficult about this bit of knowledge.
You've seen for quite some time now that prepositions take certain
cases and that the meaning of such expressions is set by the
meaning of the preposition. The case the noun is in really has
nothing to contribute to the meaning of the expression. For
example, "ad" means "to" or "toward" and it takes its object in the
accusative case. Therefore "ad urbem" means "to/toward the city".
The prepositions "ab, ex, de" mean something like "from" or
"out of" or "away from" and they take the ablative case. So we can
say, "Veniunt ex urbe". ("They are coming out of the city".) Got
that? Now here's a new twist. If the verb being used explicitly
contains the idea of physical separation, then the prepositions
indicating separation ("ab, ex, de") are not used. Instead, the
thing from which the separation is being made is simply put into
the ablative case. We call this prepositionless use of the
ablative case the "Ablative of Separation". Like this. The verb
"to free", "libero (1)", also carries with it the sense "to free
from". Hence the idea of separation from something is explicit in
the verb. So if we wish to say something like this -- "The truth
will free us from fear" -- we write "Veritas nos metu liberabit
(not "ab metu")". Look at the following examples:
"Fructibus bonis numquam carebamus". (We never used to lack good
fruits.)
"Liberavistis nos sceleribus istius tyranni". (You have freed us
from the crimes of that tyrant.)
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
fructus, -us (m) Don't forget the extended senses of the
word "fruit": "fruits of our labor", for
example.
communis, -e It doesn't mean "common" in the negative
sense of "ordinary"; it means "common" in
the sense that many share it. "General"
is a better first translation. "Communis
opinio" means "general opinion";
"communis salus", "general safety".
careo (2), carui, ----- Pay no attention to the fourth principal
part for now, but do look at the
construction which follows the verb.
"Careo" take the "Ablative of
Separation", not the accusative case, as
you might be led to expect by our use of
the verb "to lack".
01/08/93
CHAPTER 21
"Third and Fourth Conjugations: Passive Voice
of Indicative and Present Infinitive"
SYSTEMS OF VERBS REVIEWED
In Chapter 18 you learned the passive voice of the present system
of tenses -- the present, future and imperfect -- for first and
second conjugation verbs. I also added in my notes the third and
fourth conjugations, although Wheelock didn't take them up.
You'll see in the chapter that the third and forth conjugation
verbs follow the same rules for forming the passive voice in the
present system as those governing first and second conjugation
verbs. Let's do a little review for a moment. Latin verbs have
four principal parts. Let's look at them in reverse order.
The fourth principal part is the perfect passive participle,
and it is used with a conjugated form of the verb "sum" to form
the perfect passive system:
Perfect Passive: 4th prin. part.+ present of "sum"
Pluperfect Passive: 4th prin. part + imperfect of "sum"
Future Perfect Passive: 4th prin. part + future of "sum"
An important feature to notice about the perfect system passive
is that the formulae given above for the three tenses apply to
all four conjugations of Latin verbs. Once you get to the fourth
principal part of a verb, there is only one set of formulae for
forming the different perfect tenses passive. How do you form
the perfect tense passive of a first conjugation verb; say
"laudo"? The fourth principal part is "laudatus (-a, -um)", so
it's like this:
laudatus (-a, -um) sum
laudatus (-a, -um) es
laudatus (-a, -um) est
laudati (-ae, -a) sumus
laudati (-ae, -a) estis
laudati (-ae, -a) sunt
Now form the perfect tense passive of a fourth conjugation verb;
"audio, -ire, audivi, auditus". You follow precisely the same
formula set out above: the fourth principal part + "sum"
auditus (-a, -um) sum
auditus (-a, -um) es
auditus (-a, -um) est
auditi (-ae, -a) sumus
auditi (-ae, -a) estis
auditi (-ae, -a) sunt
Do you see? Even though "laudo" and "audio" are verbs of
different conjugations, their perfect system passive are formed
according to the same rules.
The perfect system active, similarly, follows the same rules
for all four conjugations. To form this system of tenses, you
simply find the third principal part of the verb you wish to
conjugate and add the perfect system personal endings:
PERFECT PLUPERFECT FUTURE PERFECT
-i -eram -ero
-isti -eras -eris
-it -erat -erit
3rd prin. part +
-imus -eramus -erimus
-istis -eratis -eritis
-erunt -erant -erint
The purpose of this review is to remind you that verbs of
different conjugations differ from one another only in the
present system. Strictly speaking, therefore, it is meaningless
to talk about forming the perfect system of a first, second,
third or fourth conjugation verb. All Latin verb work the same
way in the perfect system -- active and passive.
So, the only tense system in which the different
conjugations follow different rules is the present system -- in
the system which uses the first principal part as its stem. The
four conjugations, nevertheless, share many common features.
Let's review these differences and similarities.
(1) All four conjugations use the same personal endings in
the active and passive voices for all three tenses.
Write out the personal endings for the present system
tenses:
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________ ____________
2nd ____________ ____________
3rd ____________ ____________
1st ____________ ____________
2nd ____________ ____________
3rd ____________ ____________
(2) The imperative mood is formed the same way -- first
principal part + endings. What are the formulae?
SINGULAR: 1st principal part + __________
PLURAL: 1st principal part + __________
(3) The active infinitives from all conjugations are formed
the same way: 1st principal part + "-re".
(4) The imperfect tense in all the conjugations is formed
the same way:
First Principal Part + ba + active or passive pers. end.
But there are also differences among the conjugations in the
present system:
(1) The first and most obvious difference among the
conjugations in the present system is the stem (or
thematic) vowels. This is vowel which appears at the end
of the stem, directly before the conjugated endings of the
verb. What are the stem vowels for the conjugations?
CONJUGATION STEM VOWEL
FIRST __________
SECOND __________
THIRD __________
FOURTH __________
(2) Another substantial difference among the declensions has
to do with the formation of the future tense.
(a) First and second conjugation verbs form the future by
inserting the tense sign "-be-" (short "-e-") between
the first principal part and the personal endings
(whether active or passive).
(b) But the third and fourth conjugations use the vowels
"-a-" and "-e-" as their tense signs for the future.
Then they add on the personal endings. Let's do a
fast review of all the conjugations in the future
tense active voice. Write out the future tense of
these verbs.
I II III III-i IV
laudo moneo duco capio audio
___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________
___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________
___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________
___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________
___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________
___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________
REVIEW OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM IN THE PASSIVE VOICE
You know the present system passive for the first and second
conjugation verbs, and you saw that there was nothing very
difficult about it. The only difference between the active and
passive voices is the different set of personal endings each uses.
(1) To form the present tense passive, you add the passive
personal endings to the end of the first principal part.
(2) To form the future tense passive, you add the passive
personal endings to the stem + the tense sign for the
future. (In the first and second conjugations the tense
sign for the future is "-be-".)
(3) To form the imperfect tense passive, you add the passive
personal endings to the first principal part + the tense
sign for the imperfect tense -- "-ba-".
Write out the present system passive of these first and second
conjugation verbs: "amo"; "deleo".
FIRST CONJUGATION: PRESENT SYSTEM, PASSIVE VOICE
amo (1)
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
SECOND CONJUGATION: PRESENT SYSTEM, PASSIVE VOICE
deleo (2)
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE VOICES OF THE THIRD CONJUGATION
Now look again at the rules for forming the present system passive
up above. Third and fourth conjugation verbs follow these rules to
the letter.
(1) Present tense passive is the first principal part +
passive personal endings.
(2) The future passive is the first principal part + the
tense sign for the future + passive personal endings.
(3) The imperfect passive is the first principal part + the
tense sign for the imperfect + the passive personal
endings.
Essentially what you're doing is simply replacing the active
personal endings with the passive. Let's have a look at the
present tense passive for a third conjugation verb. The stem vowel
of a third conjugation verb is short "-e-", but the vowel undergoes
some changes when you start adding personal endings to it:
(a) it is completely absorbed by the "-o" of the first person
singular;
(b) it becomes short "-i-" before all the other personal
endings except the third person plural;
(c) it becomes short "-u-" before the "-nt" of the third
person plural.
Okay, now try to guess what the present passive forms of a third
conjugation verb are going to be. First write down the present
tense active of "duco", then go back and change the personal
endings from the active to the passive. (Check your answers in
Wheelock, p. 97.)
PRESENT TENSE: ACTIVE AND PASSIVE
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
Now let's do the same thing for the future of "duco". Remember,
all you're doing is changing the active endings to the passive
endings.
FUTURE TENSE: ACTIVE AND PASSIVE
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
Now for something truly horrifying. Write the present and the
future tense passive 2nd person singular of "duco" next to each
other:
PRESENT FUTURE
_______________ _______________
The only difference between these two tenses is the length of the
vowel "-e-". In the present tense, it's short, because it
represents the original stem vowel, which is a short "-e-" in the
third conjugation. In the future tense, the "-e-" is long, because
this time the "-e-" is the tense sign for the future. The length
of the vowel -- and hence the location of the stress accent -- is
the only difference between the present and future second person
passive: the present "ducris" is pronounced "DOO ki ris"; the
future "duceris" is pronounced "doo KEH ris".
Now let's look at the imperfect tense of the "duco". First
write down the form for the active voice, then change it to the
passive voice by substituting the active personal endings with the
passive personal endings.
IMPERFECT TENSE: ACTIVE AND PASSIVE
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE VOICES OF THIRD CONJUGATION I-STEM
So let's go on to the third conjugation "i-stem". The first thing
to do is to remain calm. The third conjugation "i-stem" forms its
passive voice according to the same rules the "non i-stem"
conjugation follows. You're simply going to alter the active forms
by replacing the active personal endings with the passive endings.
This means that wherever the extra "-i-" shows up in the active
voice, it'll show up in the passive voice as well. Write down the
active forms first, and then change them to the passive: "capio".
THIRD CONJUGATION I-STEM
PRESENT
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
FUTURE
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
IMPERFECT
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE VOICES OF THE FOURTH CONJUGATION
And now, finally, the fourth conjugation. You'll have no trouble
with this conjugation, if you remember that the stem vowel is long
"-i-". Use "audio".
FOURTH CONJUGATION
PRESENT
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
FUTURE
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
IMPERFECT
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
THE PASSIVE INFINITIVES OF THE THIRD AND FOURTH CONJUGATIONS
To form the passive infinitive of first and second conjugation
verbs, you simply replace the normal "-re" ending with "-ri". This
is how you form the passive infinitive of fourth conjugation verbs
as well. Hence,
1st Conjugation amare "to love" amari "to be loved"
2nd Conjugation delere "to destroy" deleri "to be
destroyed"
4th Conjugation audire "to hear" audiri "to be heard"
Notice that these three conjugation have something in common. In
each the stem vowel is long: "ama-", "dele", and "audi-". Hence
they form their present passive infinitives the same way. But this
leave the third conjugation, both "i-stem" and "non i-stem"
unaccounted for, because third conjugation verbs have a short stem
vowel: short "-e-". To form the passive infinitive of third
conjugation verbs, you drop the stem vowel and replace it with long
"-i". Hence
Non I-Stem ducere "to lead" duci "to be led"
I-Stem capere "to capture" capi "to be captured"
DRILLS
Work through Wheelock's Self-Help Tutorials for this chapter to see
whether you've thoroughly understood the material. Then try these
exercises for a little more practice. Reverse the voice of these
sentences.
1. Homines saepe malam laudem audiunt.
____________________________________________________________
2. Ab quibus discipulis hi versus legebantur?
____________________________________________________________
3. Iste tyrannus omnes civitates capiet.
____________________________________________________________
4. Nostri amici nos adiuvabant.
____________________________________________________________
5. Tui amici te non neglegent.
____________________________________________________________
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
causa, -ae (f) Note well the common use of causa to mean "for
the sake of". In this usage, causa is used
like a preposition: it is put into the
ablative case and its object, which actually
precedes it, is in the genitive case. E.g.
"artis causa" = "for the sake of art".
finis, -is (m) Look at what it means in the plural.
quod You have to be careful with this word. As you
probably remember, quod is the form used by
the relative pronoun for the neuter nominative
and accusative singular.
From FFL00DAG@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU Ukn Jan 8 09:31:49 1993
Return-Path:
Received: from mx2.cac.washington.edu by shivafs.cac.washington.edu
(5.65/UW-NDC Revision: 2.27 ) id AA05184; Fri, 8 Jan 93 09:31:48 -0800
Received: from bashful.u.washington.edu by mx2.cac.washington.edu
(5.65/UW-NDC Revision: 2.27 ) id AA29884; Fri, 8 Jan 93 09:33:01 -0800
Received: from unccvm.uncc.edu by bashful.u.washington.edu
(5.65/UW-NDC Revision: 2.22 ) id AA10623; Fri, 8 Jan 93 09:31:44 -0800
Message-Id: <9301081731.AA10623@bashful.u.washington.edu>
Received: from UNCCVM.BITNET by UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R1)
with BSMTP id 2388; Fri, 08 Jan 93 12:32:25 EST
Received: from UNCCVM (FFL00DAG) by UNCCVM.BITNET (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id
2689; Fri, 08 Jan 93 12:32:19 EST
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 12:31:50 EST
From: FFL00DAG@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU
Subject: Chapter 21
To: lwright@u.washington.edu
Status: RO
X-Status:
CHAPTER 21
"Third and Fourth Conjugations: Passive Voice
of Indicative and Present Infinitive"
SYSTEMS OF VERBS REVIEWED
In Chapter 18 you learned the passive voice of the present system
of tenses -- the present, future and imperfect -- for first and
second conjugation verbs. I also added in my notes the third and
fourth conjugations, although Wheelock didn't take them up.
You'll see in the chapter that the third and forth conjugation
verbs follow the same rules for forming the passive voice in the
present system as those governing first and second conjugation
verbs. Let's do a little review for a moment. Latin verbs have
four principal parts. Let's look at them in reverse order.
The fourth principal part is the perfect passive participle,
and it is used with a conjugated form of the verb "sum" to form
the perfect passive system:
Perfect Passive: 4th prin. part.+ present of "sum"
Pluperfect Passive: 4th prin. part + imperfect of "sum"
Future Perfect Passive: 4th prin. part + future of "sum"
An important feature to notice about the perfect system passive
is that the formulae given above for the three tenses apply to
all four conjugations of Latin verbs. Once you get to the fourth
principal part of a verb, there is only one set of formulae for
forming the different perfect tenses passive. How do you form
the perfect tense passive of a first conjugation verb; say
"laudo"? The fourth principal part is "laudatus (-a, -um)", so
it's like this:
laudatus (-a, -um) sum
laudatus (-a, -um) es
laudatus (-a, -um) est
laudati (-ae, -a) sumus
laudati (-ae, -a) estis
laudati (-ae, -a) sunt
Now form the perfect tense passive of a fourth conjugation verb;
"audio, -ire, audivi, auditus". You follow precisely the same
formula set out above: the fourth principal part + "sum"
auditus (-a, -um) sum
auditus (-a, -um) es
auditus (-a, -um) est
auditi (-ae, -a) sumus
auditi (-ae, -a) estis
auditi (-ae, -a) sunt
Do you see? Even though "laudo" and "audio" are verbs of
different conjugations, their perfect system passive are formed
according to the same rules.
The perfect system active, similarly, follows the same rules
for all four conjugations. To form this system of tenses, you
simply find the third principal part of the verb you wish to
conjugate and add the perfect system personal endings:
PERFECT PLUPERFECT FUTURE PERFECT
-i -eram -ero
-isti -eras -eris
-it -erat -erit
3rd prin. part +
-imus -eramus -erimus
-istis -eratis -eritis
-erunt -erant -erint
The purpose of this review is to remind you that verbs of
different conjugations differ from one another only in the
present system. Strictly speaking, therefore, it is meaningless
to talk about forming the perfect system of a first, second,
third or fourth conjugation verb. All Latin verb work the same
way in the perfect system -- active and passive.
So, the only tense system in which the different
conjugations follow different rules is the present system -- in
the system which uses the first principal part as its stem. The
four conjugations, nevertheless, share many common features.
Let's review these differences and similarities.
(1) All four conjugations use the same personal endings in
the active and passive voices for all three tenses.
Write out the personal endings for the present system
tenses:
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________ ____________
2nd ____________ ____________
3rd ____________ ____________
1st ____________ ____________
2nd ____________ ____________
3rd ____________ ____________
(2) The imperative mood is formed the same way -- first
principal part + endings. What are the formulae?
SINGULAR: 1st principal part + __________
PLURAL: 1st principal part + __________
(3) The active infinitives from all conjugations are formed
the same way: 1st principal part + "-re".
(4) The imperfect tense in all the conjugations is formed
the same way:
First Principal Part + ba + active or passive pers. end.
But there are also differences among the conjugations in the
present system:
(1) The first and most obvious difference among the
conjugations in the present system is the stem (or
thematic) vowels. This is vowel which appears at the end
of the stem, directly before the conjugated endings of the
verb. What are the stem vowels for the conjugations?
CONJUGATION STEM VOWEL
FIRST __________
SECOND __________
THIRD __________
FOURTH __________
(2) Another substantial difference among the declensions has
to do with the formation of the future tense.
(a) First and second conjugation verbs form the future by
inserting the tense sign "-be-" (short "-e-") between
the first principal part and the personal endings
(whether active or passive).
(b) But the third and fourth conjugations use the vowels
"-a-" and "-e-" as their tense signs for the future.
Then they add on the personal endings. Let's do a
fast review of all the conjugations in the future
tense active voice. Write out the future tense of
these verbs.
I II III III-i IV
laudo moneo duco capio audio
___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________
___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________
___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________
___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________
___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________
___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________
REVIEW OF THE PRESENT SYSTEM IN THE PASSIVE VOICE
You know the present system passive for the first and second
conjugation verbs, and you saw that there was nothing very
difficult about it. The only difference between the active and
passive voices is the different set of personal endings each uses.
(1) To form the present tense passive, you add the passive
personal endings to the end of the first principal part.
(2) To form the future tense passive, you add the passive
personal endings to the stem + the tense sign for the
future. (In the first and second conjugations the tense
sign for the future is "-be-".)
(3) To form the imperfect tense passive, you add the passive
personal endings to the first principal part + the tense
sign for the imperfect tense -- "-ba-".
Write out the present system passive of these first and second
conjugation verbs: "amo"; "deleo".
FIRST CONJUGATION: PRESENT SYSTEM, PASSIVE VOICE
amo (1)
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
SECOND CONJUGATION: PRESENT SYSTEM, PASSIVE VOICE
deleo (2)
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE VOICES OF THE THIRD CONJUGATION
Now look again at the rules for forming the present system passive
up above. Third and fourth conjugation verbs follow these rules to
the letter.
(1) Present tense passive is the first principal part +
passive personal endings.
(2) The future passive is the first principal part + the
tense sign for the future + passive personal endings.
(3) The imperfect passive is the first principal part + the
tense sign for the imperfect + the passive personal
endings.
Essentially what you're doing is simply replacing the active
personal endings with the passive. Let's have a look at the
present tense passive for a third conjugation verb. The stem vowel
of a third conjugation verb is short "-e-", but the vowel undergoes
some changes when you start adding personal endings to it:
(a) it is completely absorbed by the "-o" of the first person
singular;
(b) it becomes short "-i-" before all the other personal
endings except the third person plural;
(c) it becomes short "-u-" before the "-nt" of the third
person plural.
Okay, now try to guess what the present passive forms of a third
conjugation verb are going to be. First write down the present
tense active of "duco", then go back and change the personal
endings from the active to the passive. (Check your answers in
Wheelock, p. 97.)
PRESENT TENSE: ACTIVE AND PASSIVE
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
Now let's do the same thing for the future of "duco". Remember,
all you're doing is changing the active endings to the passive
endings.
FUTURE TENSE: ACTIVE AND PASSIVE
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
Now for something truly horrifying. Write the present and the
future tense passive 2nd person singular of "duco" next to each
other:
PRESENT FUTURE
_______________ _______________
The only difference between these two tenses is the length of the
vowel "-e-". In the present tense, it's short, because it
represents the original stem vowel, which is a short "-e-" in the
third conjugation. In the future tense, the "-e-" is long, because
this time the "-e-" is the tense sign for the future. The length
of the vowel -- and hence the location of the stress accent -- is
the only difference between the present and future second person
passive: the present "ducris" is pronounced "DOO ki ris"; the
future "duceris" is pronounced "doo KEH ris".
Now let's look at the imperfect tense of the "duco". First
write down the form for the active voice, then change it to the
passive voice by substituting the active personal endings with the
passive personal endings.
IMPERFECT TENSE: ACTIVE AND PASSIVE
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE VOICES OF THIRD CONJUGATION I-STEM
So let's go on to the third conjugation "i-stem". The first thing
to do is to remain calm. The third conjugation "i-stem" forms its
passive voice according to the same rules the "non i-stem"
conjugation follows. You're simply going to alter the active forms
by replacing the active personal endings with the passive endings.
This means that wherever the extra "-i-" shows up in the active
voice, it'll show up in the passive voice as well. Write down the
active forms first, and then change them to the passive: "capio".
THIRD CONJUGATION I-STEM
PRESENT
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
FUTURE
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
IMPERFECT
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
ACTIVE AND PASSIVE VOICES OF THE FOURTH CONJUGATION
And now, finally, the fourth conjugation. You'll have no trouble
with this conjugation, if you remember that the stem vowel is long
"-i-". Use "audio".
FOURTH CONJUGATION
PRESENT
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
FUTURE
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
IMPERFECT
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
THE PASSIVE INFINITIVES OF THE THIRD AND FOURTH CONJUGATIONS
To form the passive infinitive of first and second conjugation
verbs, you simply replace the normal "-re" ending with "-ri". This
is how you form the passive infinitive of fourth conjugation verbs
as well. Hence,
1st Conjugation amare "to love" amari "to be loved"
2nd Conjugation delere "to destroy" deleri "to be
destroyed"
4th Conjugation audire "to hear" audiri "to be heard"
Notice that these three conjugation have something in common. In
each the stem vowel is long: "ama-", "dele", and "audi-". Hence
they form their present passive infinitives the same way. But this
leave the third conjugation, both "i-stem" and "non i-stem"
unaccounted for, because third conjugation verbs have a short stem
vowel: short "-e-". To form the passive infinitive of third
conjugation verbs, you drop the stem vowel and replace it with long
"-i". Hence
Non I-Stem ducere "to lead" duci "to be led"
I-Stem capere "to capture" capi "to be captured"
DRILLS
Work through Wheelock's Self-Help Tutorials for this chapter to see
whether you've thoroughly understood the material. Then try these
exercises for a little more practice. Reverse the voice of these
sentences.
1. Homines saepe malam laudem audiunt.
____________________________________________________________
2. Ab quibus discipulis hi versus legebantur?
____________________________________________________________
3. Iste tyrannus omnes civitates capiet.
____________________________________________________________
4. Nostri amici nos adiuvabant.
____________________________________________________________
5. Tui amici te non neglegent.
____________________________________________________________
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
causa, -ae (f) Note well the common use of causa to mean "for
the sake of". In this usage, causa is used
like a preposition: it is put into the
ablative case and its object, which actually
precedes it, is in the genitive case. E.g.
"artis causa" = "for the sake of art".
finis, -is (m) Look at what it means in the plural.
quod You have to be careful with this word. As you
probably remember, quod is the form used by
the relative pronoun for the neuter nominative
and accusative singular.
01/08/93
CHAPTER 22
"Fifth Declension; Summary of Ablatives"
THE FIFTH DECLENSION
After your considerable experience with the morphology of Latin
nouns, the fifth declension is practically nothing but a review.
There are no new concepts you have to juggle while you're working
on memorizing another set of forms. This chapter, in fact,
should give you a little breather. The fifth declension is
simple -- probably the simplest declension in Latin:
(1) it has no subcategories or deviant set of endings;
(2) the nouns of the fifth declensions never have stems
which are not the same as the nominative singular;
(3) its thematic vowel "-e-" is transparent in all the case
endings;
(4) there are no adjectives which use the fifth declension
endings;
(5) there is only one nominative singular ending;
(6) and the vast majority of fifth declension nouns are
feminine.
Here are the endings. Take a close look at them.
FIFTH DECLENSION CASE ENDINGS
N/V. -es
Gen. -ei
Dat. -ei
Acc. -em
Abl. -e
N/V. -es
Gen. -erum
Dat. -ebus
Acc. -es
Abl. -ebus
The nominative singular is always "-es", which makes this
declension much easier than the second and the third declensions,
in which there are a variety of possible endings for the
nominative singular. Therefore, a fifth declension noun will
always end in "-es" -- and that is the first entry in the
dictionary. But be careful not to make an elementary error in
logic. All fifth declension nouns end in "-es" in the nominative
singular, but not all nouns which end in "-es" in the nominative
singular are fifth declension. "Nubes", for example, ends in
"-es", but its genitive is "nubis", clearly telling you that it's
a third, not a fifth declension noun. Be sure to check the
nominative and the genitive forms for your nouns. A fifth
declension noun will look like this: "x"es, -ei (gender).
THE PROBLEM WITH dies, diei (m)
Wheelock shows you the noun "dies" separately, and it's possible
to get the impression that it is a paradigm for a subdivision of
the fifth declension. It is not. Look at the endings carefully.
You'll see the case endings on "dies" don't differ from the
endings of "res" in any significant way. The only difference is
in the quantity of the thematic vowel "-e-".
By nature, the thematic vowel of the fifth declension is
long, and it "wants" to stay long. Often, however, it becomes
short when certain endings are attached. For "res", the thematic
vowel "-e-" becomes short when you add the genitive and dative
singular ending long "-i" (and it also is short before the "-m"
ending of the accusative singular). But when the thematic vowel
"-e-" is itself preceded by another vowel -- as it is in "dies"
-- then it stays long before the genitive and dative ending long
"-i". So you get "diei" for the genitive singular, not "dii".
Since you're not overly concerned with getting all the long marks
right at this point in your study, you might just as well cross
out "dies" in Wheelock and forget about it. The stem of "dies"
is "die-" to which you add the fifth declension case endings.
ABLATIVE OF MANNER WITH AND WITHOUT cum
Now you get a stylistic variation on the Ablative of Manner
construction you've already learned. This really needs no
amplification. It's a simple adjustment. The Ablative of
Manner, you may recall, is a way to use a noun as an adverb. You
use the preposition "cum" with the noun in the ablative case: "Id
cum celeritate fecerunt (They did it quickly)". You can also
modify the noun being used adverbially with an adjective. Latin
likes to turn the word order around some, but this is no great
problem: "Id magna cum celeritate fecerunt (They did it with
great speed)".
When the noun in this kind of construction is modified by an
adjective, Latin has the option of droping the preposition "cum".
So this sentence could also be written: "Id magna celeritate
fecerunt". But if the noun governed by "cum" is not qualified by
an adjective, the "cum" must be used. This is incorrect: "Id
celeritate fecerunt"; but this is not: "Id cum celeritate fecit";
neither is this: "Id magna cum celeritate fecit"; nor this: "Id
magna celeritate fecit".
SUMMARY OF ABLATIVES
This is just a rehash of old material, but it's good to get all
the facts laid out at one time. The uses of the ablative case
can be divided into two groups:
(1) uses of the ablative with a preposition;
(2) uses of the ablative without a preposition.
You really needn't memorize the different uses of the ablative
with prepositions. When you have a preposition governing an
ablative case, you just translate the meaning of the preposition
and then translate the meaning of the noun. The fact that the
noun is in the ablative case really doesn't contribute anything
to the translation. It's in the ablative case because the
preposition requires it. That's all.
One preposition which takes the ablative case requires some
special caution, however, and that's "cum". Remember, "cum"
means "with" in two different senses: (1) as accompaniment, and
(2) as manner.
(1) "Id cum amico fecit". (He did it with a friend.)
(2) "Id cum cura fecit". (He did it with care.)
It is important, however, that you know all the
"prepositionless" uses of the ablative case. Here the ablative
case itself, without a preposition in Latin to govern it, takes
on special meanings. You simply must know them.
(a) Ablative of Means shows the instrument with which the
action of the verb was effected. Keep it distinct from
the Ablative of Manner, which shows in what manner the
action was carried out. Common translations of the
Ablative of Means are: "with", "by means of", "through".
(b) Ablative of Time is easy to spot. If you have a word of
a unit of time in the ablative case without a
preposition, it's expressing time. The problem is that
Latin used this construction to indicate two different
kinds of time which we keep separate in English. The
Latin Ablative of Time can express either the Time When
or Time Within Which of an action. (See Chapter 15.)
(c) Ablative of Separation is a prepositionless use of the
ablative case after verbs which strongly contain the
idea of separation; so the normal prepositions "ex" or
"ab" are dropped, and the ablative case alone is used.
(d) Ablative of Manner can be written without a preposition
if the noun used as an adverb is modified by an
adjective -- as you just saw above.
VOCABULARY PUZZLES:
res, rei (f) Start by scratching off the first translation
"thing". "Res" doesn't mean "thing" in our
common sense of "What's that thing on the
table"? or "Bring me that thing". It doesn't
mean a non-descript object for which we can't
quite come up with a name. It means "thing"
when we say something like "What's this thing
about you're not wanting to learn Latin"? or
"Things sometimes get out of control". It
means "matter", "affair", or "business"
(non-commercial).
res publica (f) First, this is the origin of our one word
"republic", but in Latin it is two words --
the noun "res" and the adjective "publicus,
-a, -um" modifying it. Therefore both "res"
and "publica" decline:
rei publicae
rei publicae
rem publicam
re publica
etc.
Second, it obviously doesn't mean "public
thing" as in "public object", but "public
business or affair". Here you can see the
real meaning of "res".
medius, -a, -um It is an adjective, not a noun, so it can't
be used the way our noun "middle" is used.
We say "the middle of the city", putting
"city" into the genitive case. Latin can't
do this, because "medius" doesn't mean
"middle", but "mid". Hence they say "medius
urbs"; or "media nocte" ("in the middle of
the night").
01/18/93
CHAPTER 23
"Participles"
Despite its disarmingly simple title, this chapter contains a lot
of material -- some of it simple, some of it potentially perplexing
-- but all of it overwhelming taken together in one heap. I'm
going to break it down into two sections for you. Don't try to do
them both in one sitting, unless you find the first section so easy
that you need more. The sections are (I) Morphology (formation),
and (II) Syntax (use) of the participles.
PART I
BASIC CONCEPTS OF LATIN PARTICIPLES
You already know what a participle is; you've been working with one
now for a couple of chapters. A participle is a verbal adjective.
That is, an adjective derived from a stem of a verb. The
participle you're familiar with is the perfect passive participle
-- the fourth principal part of the verb -- which is used in the
formation of the perfect system passive. So let's look at it
again, this time with a finer eye for detail.
We call the fourth principal part of a verb a participle
because it's a verbal adjective. Now, because it's an adjective it
must agree with whatever noun it's modifying. That's what
adjectives do: modify and agree with nouns. So to agree with its
noun, a participle must be able to decline in some way to get the
different numbers, genders, and cases it may need -- just as any
adjective must. The fourth principle part, therefore, has the
adjectival endings "-us, -a, -um" attached to it, and that tells
you it declines in the first and second declensions -- like
"magnus, -a, -um" -- to get the endings it needs. So every
participle in a sentence will have number, gender and case because
it is an adjective and it must be agreeing with something in the
sentence of which it is a part.
But a participle is a verbal adjective, so it's going to get
some of its character from its verbal ancestry. What qualities do
verbs have? They have (1) number, (2) person, (3) tense, (4) mood,
and (5) voice. So which of these six will participles retain?
(1) Number
A participle has number, that's true, but it gets its number
-- singular or plural -- from the noun it's modifying. So a
participle will have number, but not because it is a verbal
derivative, but because it's an adjective.
(2) Person
A participle does not have person -- 1st, 2nd, or 3rd. You
can't say of a participle, this is in the first person.
(3) Tense
A participle will have tense -- after a fashion. It will be
either present, future, or perfect. The participle you know
is the perfect participle.
(4) Mood
A participle is already a mood of a verb. There are the
indicative, imperative, subjective, infinitive, and
participial moods of verbs. So to say "participle" is already
to designate a certain mood.
(5) Voice
A participle has voice -- either active or passive. The
participle you know is a passive participle; hence it is the
perfect passive participle.
So let's summarize all this. Whenever you see a participle in
a sentence, you must be prepared to identify its adjectival and
verbal components:
ADJECTIVAL VERBAL
number voice
gender tense
case
FORMATION OF LATIN PARTICIPLES
Now for a pleasant surprise: the Latin participial system is not
nearly so complicated as the English system. In English,
participles are often compounds of verbal stems and auxiliary
verbs: "having been seen", "having looked", etc. In Latin, a
participle is a one-word show.
You know that the Latin participles have number, gender, and
case, all of which it must have because of its adjectival
character. It gets its number, gender, and case in its adjectival
endings. The participle which you already know -- the perfect
passive participle -- is declined in the first and second
declensions. This is important to remember: all participles will
have number, gender, and case, and they get them by declining.
We'll look at this again.
But what about voice and tense? You know only one participle,
and it is passive in voice and perfect in tense. But there are
other participles with other tenses and voices. In Latin there are
participles of the present, future, and perfect tenses, and of the
active and passive voices. (Only the future tense has participles
of both voices. There is an active, but not passive participle of
the present tense; there is a passive, but not active participle in
the perfect tense.) Here are the formulae for their formation.
I. FUTURE ACTIVE PARTICIPLE
The future active participle of any verb is formed by adding
"-ur-" and the adjectival endings "-us, -a, -um" to the stem
of the fourth principal part of the verb. For example, the
future active participle of "laudo" is:
laudat + ur + us, -a, -um = laudaturus, -a, -um
II. FUTURE PASSIVE PARTICIPLE (THE GERUNDIVE)
The future passive participle (also called the gerundive [jeh
RUHN div] for reasons you'll see in a minute) of any verb is
formed by adding "nd" and the adjectival endings "-us, -a,
-um" to the lengthened stem of the first principal part of the
verb. Hence for the four conjugations:
1. lauda + nd + us, -a, -um=laudandus, -a, -um
2. mone + nd + us, -a, -um =monendus, -a, -um
3. age + nd + us, -a, -um =agendus, -a, -um
3-i. capie + nd + us, -a, -um=capiendus, -a, -um
4. audie + nd + us, -a, -um=audiendus, -a, um
III. PRESENT ACTIVE PARTICIPLE
The present active participle is formed by adding the third
declension adjectival ending "-ns, -ntis" to the lengthened
stem of the first principal part. This adjectival ending is
the same ending you saw in the adjective "potens, potentis".
(We'll consider the declension a little later.) So the
present active participle of the four conjugations look like
this:
1. lauda + ns, -ntis = laudans, laudantis
2. mone + ns, -ntis = monens, monentis
3. age + ns, -ntis = agens, agentis
3-i. capie + ns, -ntis = capiens, capientis
4. audie + ns, -ntis = audiens, audientis
IV. PERFECT PASSIVE PARTICIPLE
The perfect passive participle is given to you as the fourth
principal part of the verb in the dictionary with the
adjectival endings "-us, -a, -um". The only refinement you
should make to your knowledge is that the true fourth
principal part of a verb is what is left after you drop off
the adjectival endings. The true fourth principal part of
"laudo", for example, is "laudat-", not "laudatus, -a, -um".
"Laudatus, -a, -um" is the perfect passive participle;
"laudat-" is the true stem of the fourth principal part.
So let's go back to the empty table of participles and insert these
formulae:
ACTIVE PASSIVE
FUTURE 4th p.p. + ur + us, a, um lst p.p. + nd + us, a, um
PRESENT 1st p.p. + ns, -ntis xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PERFECT xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 4th p.p. + us, a, um
SOME PRACTICE WITH PARTICIPLE MORPHOLOGY
Write out the complete participial system of the following verbs:
1. duco, ducere, duxi, ductus -a, -um
ACTIVE PASSIVE
FUTURE ____________________ ____________________
PRESENT ____________________ ____________________
PERFECT ____________________ ____________________
2. mitto, mittere, misi, missus -a, -um
ACTIVE PASSIVE
FUTURE ____________________ ____________________
PRESENT ____________________ ____________________
PERFECT ____________________ ____________________
3. cupio, cupere, cupivi, cupitus -a, -um
ACTIVE PASSIVE
FUTURE ____________________ ____________________
PRESENT ____________________ ____________________
PERFECT ____________________ ____________________
4. amo, amare, amavi, amatus -a, -um
ACTIVE PASSIVE
FUTURE ____________________ ____________________
PRESENT ____________________ ____________________
PERFECT ____________________ ____________________
5. lego, legere, legi, lectus -a, -um
ACTIVE PASSIVE
FUTURE ____________________ ____________________
PRESENT ____________________ ____________________
PERFECT ____________________ ____________________
TRANSLATING THE PARTICIPLES: THE BASICS
Now let's think about the meaning of these participles. We'll
first look at their barest, literal translations. They make really
awful sounding English and, I hope, you'll soon discard them, but
by learning these rudimentary translations first, you'll be certain
to understand the grammar the participles involve.
I. THE FUTURE ACTIVE PARTICIPLE
Obviously, the future active participle tells you that the
modified noun is about to undertake some action sometime time
in the future ("future active"). But this construction has no
convenient parallel in English. To translate this in English
we used what is called a "periphrasitic" (peh ri FRAS tik)
construction. The root of this term is "periphrase" and
that's precisely what we have to do to translate the future
active participle -- we have to find a periphrase for it, some
way of approximating the meaning it would have had for the
Roman ear. We "talk around it". The standard periphrases for
the future active participle is "about to 'x'" or "going to
'x'", where "x" is the meaning of the verb. For example, for
the participle "laudaturus" we would say "about to (or going
to) praise"; for "facturus" we would say "about to (or going
to) do".
II. THE FUTURE PASSIVE PARTICIPLE
This participle, too, has to be brought into English with a
periphrase. Since both future participles make use use
periphrastic constructions, the translation for the future
active participle is often called the "1st periphrastic"; the
future passive participle is called the "2nd periphrastic".
The periphrase of the future passive participle might be
something like this "about to be 'x'ed", or "going to be
'x'ed", where "x" is the meaning of the verb. For example,
"ducendus" might be translated "about to be (or going to be)
led".
But the future passive participle in Latin usually has a
special sense attached to it you can't foresee simply by
examining the grammar of its constitutent parts. The future
passive participle very often implies a sense of obligation or
necessity that the action be performed. We can get a feel for
it in our construction "to be 'x'ed" with a conjugated form of
the verb "to be". Like this:
"This book is to be put on the shelf".
"This point is not to be ignored".
The underlined portions would be represented in Latin with the
future passive participle. The next chapter will straighten
all this out. For now, just remember that the future passive
participle involves a special meaning that has to be treated
separately.
III. THE PRESENT ACTIVE PARTICIPLE
The key to the translation is "present and active". This
tells you that the noun which the participle is modifying is
currently engaged in an action. That is, the noun is the
agent of an action, and the action is currently underway. The
Latin present active participle can be translated directly
into our English present active participle, which is formed
from the first principal part of the verb plus the participial
suffix "-ing"; egg., "walking", "running", "seeing", etc.
IV. THE PERFECT PASSIVE PARTICIPLE
Once again, with this participle the translation is spelled
out in its title. The perfect passive participle tells you
that the noun which the participle is modifying underwent
("passive") an action that is viewed as having been completed
("perfect"). The surest way to get this over into English is
with the rather clumsy auxilary construction "having been"
plus the third principal part of the English verb; egg.,
"having been seen", "having been taken", "having been helped".
For some good practice identifying and translating the participles,
look the Self-Help Tutorials in Wheelock, excerises 1-3. You
really shouldn't go any futher in this lesson until you feel
comfortable about the morphology and basic translations of the
participles.
VERBS WITH DEFECTIVE FOURTH PRINCIPAL PARTS
You have already seen many verbs whose fourth principal part is a
little odd looking, or which have no fourth principal part listed
in the dictionary at all. Verbs which do not have a perfect
passive participle as its fourth principal part are called
"defective" verbs. But often defective verbs will nevertheless
have a future active participle. Now, this may seem to be an
impossibility, because the future active participle is a derivative
of the fourth principal part of the verb, right? For example, you
get "laudaturus" by using the perfect passive participle "laudat-"
plus "-ur" plus "the adjectival ending "-us, -a, -um". So if a
verb has no fourth principal part, how can you put together a
future active participle? Look again. The fourth principal part
is the perfect passive participle, and there are many verbs which
have no possible passive voice. Verbs which are intransitive
cannot be made passive, so, logically, they'll have no perfect
passive participle. But the future active participle is a possible
form for intransitive verbs. In this case, the dictionary will
list the future active participle as the fourth principal part:
fugio fugere fugi fugiturus
sum esse fui futurus
careo carere carui cariturus
valeo valere valui valiturus
PART II: THE SYNTAX OF THE PARTICIPLES
Latin is fond of its participles; it uses them much more often and
with many more shades of meaning than English. For this reason, it
is critically important that you not rush to grab hold of
one-to-one equivalent translations from Latin to English. First
you must force yourself to understand the "meaning" of the the
Latin construction, and only then look for an English translation
which will faithfully reproduce the "meaning" of the Latin. It's
in cases like this where basic language instruction truly
approaches the relm of the liberal arts. You must understand the
meaning of the Latin before you reproduce it in English.
TENSE OF THE PARTICIPLES
This feature of the Latin participle may be the most difficult for
students to comprehend. You know that participles have three
different "tenses": the present, the future, and the perfect. The
present participle indicates an action that is on-going; the
future, an action that is going to happen; and the perfect an
action that has been completed. But a Latin participle only shows
time relative to the tense of the main verb of the sentence.
Participles only indicate whether an action
(a) is going on at the same time as the action of the main
verb -- the present participle;
(b) will occur after the action of the main verb -- the future
participle;
(c) was already completed before the action of the main verb
-- the perfect participle.
To keep things simple, we refer to these temporal relationships as
(a) time contemporaneous: the present participle
(b) time subsequent: the future participles
(c) time prior: the perfect participle
Therefore, the participle "ductus" does not mean that the action
happened in the absolute past, but that it happened before the
action of the main verb. If the main verb is in the future tense,
then the action of "ductus" might not have happened yet in absolute
time. Similarly, the participle "ducens" does not mean that the
action is going on in the real present, but that the action is
going on at the same time as the main verb. Therefore, if the main
verb is a past tense, the action of "ducens" may have already been
complete by the time the sentence is uttered. And so also for the
future participle. The future participle indicates that, relative
to the time of the main verb, the action in the participle has yet
to take place. "Ducturus", therefore, may represent an action that
by the time of the real present has already been completed, if the
main verb of the sentence was a past tense. This may be too much
to absorb at once, but the tenses of English participles work the
same way. So let's forget the Latin for a moment and look at some
English examples.
1. The students, about to go home for break, are excited.
2. The students, going home for break, are excited.
3. The students, having gone home for break, are excited.
The main verb of each of these sentences is "are" -- that is,
a present tense. The students "are" now excited -- that is, at the
time the speaker utters his thought. Now let's look at the
participial constructions.
In sentence #1, the students have not yet gone home, when they
are excited. That is, they are excited now, and then they are
going to go home. (There's no doubt it's the prospect of going home
that makes them excited.) The participle is therefore indicating
an action that will take place after the time of the main verb.
In sentence #2, the students are excited and are going home at
the same time; consequently the present participle is used, because
the action it indicates is contemporaneous with that of the main
verb.
In sentence #3, the students are now excited -- that's the
absolute time -- but before that they had gone home. Therefore the
perfect participle is used, since it shows time prior to that of
the main verb. They went home and now they are excited.
Now let's shift the whole time frame by using "were" instead
of "are" for the main verb of the sentence. Remember, it is the
tense of the main verb that sets the absolute time of the sentence.
1. The students, about to go home for break, were excited.
2. The students, going home for break, were excited.
3. The students, having gone home for break, were excited.
Read each of these sentences carefully. Even though the main
action now has a different meaning for the speaker and his audience
-- he's talking about an event that was a fact -- the temporal
relationship of the participles to that event does not change. The
participial construction in sentence #1 is still talking about
something that is subsequent to the time of the main verb; the one
in sentence #2 is still talking about an action contemporaneous
with the time of the main verb; and the one in sentence #3 is
talking about an action prior to the time of the main verb.
Now let's see how this looks in Latin. Translate these
sentences into literal English.
1. Puellae, cursurae, matrem vident.
__________________________________________________
2. Puellae, currentes, matrem vident.
__________________________________________________
3. Puellae, vocatae, matrem vident.
__________________________________________________
Now translate these into English -- notice the change of the tense
of the main verb.
1. Puellae, cursurae, matrem viderunt.
__________________________________________________
2. Puellae, currentes, matrem viderunt.
__________________________________________________
3. Puellae, vocatae, matrem viderunt.
__________________________________________________
TRANSLATING LATIN PARTICIPLES AS CLAUSES
In many ways, English is a very precise language, especially
when it comes to spelling out the relationship a subordinate clause
has to the main clause of a sentence. Consider these complex
sentences.
a. When the sailors were seen by Polyphemus, they were
frightened.
b. Because the sailors were seen by Polyphemus, they were
frightened.
c. Since the sailors were seen by Polyphemus, they were
frightened.
d. The sailors who were seen by Polyphemus were frightened.
e. The sailors, who were seen by Polyphemus, were frightened.
f. The sailors, although they were seen by Polyphemus, were
frightened.
Each of these five sentences is doing the same thing
syntactically: each is subordinating one thought to another. The
main clause -- the main thought -- is that the sailors were
frightened. Subordinate to the main thought is the thought that
the sailors were seen by Polyphemus -- the one-eyed monster. So
syntactically, these sentences are constructed the same way.
But look at the different ways this subordination is realized
and look at the different ways the relationship between the two
thoughts is being expressed. In sentence (a), the relationship is
strictly temporal -- they were seen, then they were frightened.
And it's very possible that they were seen and frightened at the
same time for some length of time. Like this:
they were seen ---------------
they were frightened -----------
In sentence (b), by constrast, the relationship is expressly
causal -- being seen made them fear. Hence the subordinating
conjunction "because" is used to tell you explicitly that the
action in the subordinate clause caused the action in main clause.
Now look at (c). Does the subordinating conjunction "since"
express a chronological or causal relationship? The truth is, it
can be indicating both! Let's look at the subordinating
conjunction "since" more closely. In these examples, "since" is
used temporally.
(1) Since your children were such monsters at the party,
Sticky the Clown is charging double his normal fee.
(2) Since you called yesterday, I've been busy cleaning the
house.
(1) shows "since" in its causal sense; (2) shows it in the
chronological sense. But often you can't tell in which way you
ought to understand a "since" in a sentence, and often it has to be
taken in both senses at the same time. In sentence (c) above,
clearly, it has to be understood in both senses, because both are
accurate descriptions of what happened. The sailors were seen and
then they were frightened (they weren't fightened until after they
were seen); but just as well, the sailors were frightened because
they were seen. It's maddening, sometimes. Look at these examples
where "since" could expressing a causal, temporal, or both a causal
and temporal subordination.
(i) Since the town of Hootersville had grown so much, no one
could book a room at the Shadey Rest Hotel.
(ii) Since you came yesterday, our peaceful home has been
reduced to near anarchy.
Now let's have a look at the sentences "d" and "e" from above.
As you can see, the same subordination is present. The main idea
is still that the sailors were terrified, and the fact that they
were seen by Polyphemus is attached to it. In these sentences,
however, this latter idea is put into a relative clause -- "who
were seen by Polyphemus". That is, it is presented simply as
additional information about something in the main clause, as an
adjectival clause.
Do you know the difference in meaning between "d" and "e"?
It's quite subtle but very real. Read the sentences out loud and
ask yourself this: "Is the relative clause picking a group of
sailors from among other sailors"? That is to say, are there
several sailors around, but only those who were seen by Polyphemus
were frightened? Or is no such distinction or restriction implied?
Suppose this is what happened. There's a ship in a narrow bay,
surrounded by land on the north, south, and east. There are two
hundred men on the deck, one hundred looking north, one hundred
looking south. Suddenly Polyphemus appears on a hill to the north.
The sailors looking to the north, obviously, see him, and because
they are seen by him too, they are frightened. But those looking
south do not see him, and they are not frightened. Okay, that's
the situation, and you want to sum it up. Only some of the sailors
were seen by him and only they were frightened. You could say this
"The sailors who were seen by Polyphemus were frightened", and the
meaning of the relative clause is that only those seen by
Polyphemus were frightened, but the others, who were not seen, were
not frightened. We call this a "restrictive" relative clause,
because it "restricts" the main clause to a group defined by the
relative clause. In written English, a restrictive relative clause
is not marked off with commas.
So what about the "non-restrictive" relative clause, which is
marked off with commas? Just undo what the "restrictive" relative
clause does. The non-restrictive relative clause does not limit
the main clause to a group specified by the relative clause. It
simply gives you more information about something in the main
clause. Suppose that all the sailors on the ship saw and were seen
by Polyphemus and they were all frightened. You would say, "The
sailors -- who, by the way, were seen by Polyphemus -- were
frightened". Study this example.
1. The books which are on the table are not worth reading.
(I'm talking about only the books on the table to
distinguish them from some other books which may be in the
room.)
2. The books, which are on the table, are not worth reading.
(There may be others which aren't worth reading, but here
are some and they're on the table.)
Now what about translating the Latin participle? As I said at
the beginning of this section, English likes to nail down the
precise logical and temporal relationships between subordinate and
main clauses in its sentences. It accomplishes this with a wide
array of subordinating conjugations. Latin, however, isn't so
fussy about stating these relationships precisely. All the
sentences "a" through "e" could be represented by one Latin
sentence:
Nautae, visi ab Polyphemo, territi sunt.
The participial phrase "visi ab Polyphemo" could be translated into
English different ways.
The sailors having been seen by Polyphemus were terrified.
who were seen by Polyphemus
because they were seen by Polyphemus
since they were seen by Polyphemus
after they were seen by Polyphemus
when they were seen by Polyphemus
although they were seen by Polyphemus
This is the moral: a way to bring a Latin participle is into
English is to "promote" it from a single word to a full subordinate
clause, one that mixes well with the context. Try your hand at
some of the examples in Wheelock's Self-Help Tutorials, and use a
variety of subordinating English constructions. Watch the tenses
of the main verb and the "relative tense" of the participles.
THE PARTICIPLE AS A NOUN
There isn't really anything shocking about this. You've seen
adjectives used as nouns before. You simply noted the number and
the gender, and then plugged an appropriate pronoun. The
participle, since it's an adjective, can do the same thing. The
trick is to find a good way to bring the verbal part of the
participle out. A simple solution, for starters, is to "promote"
it to a relative clause which captures the meaning, tense, and
voice of the verbal root of the participle.
opprimens "he/she/it who oppresses" or "the oppressor"
opprimentes "they who oppress" or "the oppressors"
oppressus "he who was oppressed"
oppressi "they who were oppressed" or "the oppressed"
oppressuri "those who are going to oppress"
THE ACTIVE PARTICIPLE TAKING OBJECTS
We mustn't ever forget that the participle is a verbal adjective,
and it always retains its verbal character. The verb "laudo" takes
a direct object to complete its sense when it's being used in the
active voice.
"Romani duces bonos laudaverunt". (The Romans praised the good
leaders.)
Similarly, when the participle derived from it is in the active
voice, it also can take a direct object.
"Romani duces bonos laudantes virtutem amaverunt". (The
Romans, who praised good leaders, loved virtue.)
Study the following examples of participles taking objects. A very
common word-order for participles taking direct objects is to put
the direct object between the noun and the participle which agrees
with it. Watch for that arrangment. Wheelock (page 306) has a
number of excellence little exercises on translating participles.
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
Aliquis, aliquid This pronoun means "somebody", something",
"some people", some things". It has two parts:
the "ali-" and the "quis, quid" part. It is
very easy to decline this pronoun because it
follows the pattern set by the interrogative
pronoun "quis, quid". The one difference is
the nominative and accusative plurals, which
are "aliqua" and not the expected "aliquae".
aliquis aliquid
alicuius alicuius
alicui alicui
aliquem aliquid
aliquo aliquo
aliqui aliquae aliqua
aliquorum aliquarum aliquorum
aliquibus aliquibus aliquibus
aliquos aliquas aliqua
aliquibus aliquibus aliquibus
Chapter 23
1. The girls, about to run, see their mother.
2. The girls, running, see their mother.
3. The girls, having been called, see their mother.
1. The girls, about to run, saw their mother.
2. The girls, running, saw their mother.
3. The girls, having been called, saw their mother.
01/08/93
CHAPTER 24
"Ablative Absolute; Passive Periphrastic;
The Dative of Agent"
Once again, this is a chapter which only expands on principles
you've already been working with. The two constructions
explained in this chapter all called "idioms" of the language.
To put it briefly, an idiom is a construction whose meaning is
more than the sum of its parts. That is, you can't simply look
at the constituent parts of the construction and deduce the full
meaning. For some reason, the language gives these construction
special, additional meanings which is not present in its parts.
Just to give one example of an idiomatic construction from
English, consider this. We form the present progressive tense in
the active voice by using the verb "to be" as an auxiliary verb
and the present participial stem of the verb. Like this: "The
ants are crawling along the ground". Obviously the ants are the
active subject of the verb "are crawling" -- they are the agents
performing the action. Now look at this very idiomatic use of
the present progressive tense in the active voice. "The tables
are crawling with ants". Just like the "ants" in the first
sentence, "tables" is the subject of the verb "is crawling", but
this time the subject cannot be the active subject of the verb.
The tables are not crawling, but the ants are crawling all over
the tables. Even though the verb form is the same in both
sentence -- "are crawling" -- the grammatical function of the
subjects are entirely different. The "ants" are the active
agent; the "tables" are passive recipients of the action
performed by the ants, expressed in the prepositional phrase
beginning with "with". The second construction is an example of
an idiom, since the active form of the verb -- "are crawling" --
is over-ridden. The final meaning of the construction cannot be
deduced simply by adding up the meaning of its parts. That's an
idiom.
REVIEW OF PARTICIPLES
As you learned in the last chapter, a participle is a verbal
adjective. The formation of participles from the different
verbal stems obeys a few, very regular rules. Let's run through
them again. Write out the formulae for forming the different
participles:
FUTURE ACTIVE PARTICIPLE
____________________________________________________________
FUTURE PASSIVE PARTICIPLE (GERUNDIVE)
____________________________________________________________
PRESENT ACTIVE PARTICIPLE
____________________________________________________________
PERFECT PASSIVE PARTICIPLE
____________________________________________________________
As you can see, all the participles except the present active use
the "-us, -a, -um" adjectival endings, and so present no problem
in their declensions. The present active participle, however,
declines in the third declension, and behaves like a third
declension adjective of one termination of the "-ns, -ntis" type,
with the exception of the short "-e-" in place of the "-i-" in
the ablative singular . Decline a couple of present active
participles just to refresh your memory.
PRESENT ACTIVE PARTICIPLES DECLINED
laudo (1) moneo (2)
Masc/Fem. Neuter Masc/Fem. Neuter
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
duco (3) capio (3-i)
Masc/Fem. Neuter Masc/Fem. Neuter
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
______________________________ ______________________________
THE ABLATIVE ABSOLUTE: CONSTRUCTION AND SYNTAX
You remember from Chapter 23 that Latin isn't so fussy as English
is about spelling out the exact temporal or logical relationship
between a subordinate and main clause. In English, we have a
bumper crop of subordinating conjunctions for this purpose:
"since, because, although, if, even if, if and only if, being as
how, seeing as how, before, after, during, while, inasmuch as,
who", and on and on. Latin has many of these conjunctions, too,
but, always aiming at compression, Latin likes to reduce
subordinate thoughts to participles. A very popular way of
linking two separate ideas without spelling out the exact
relationship they have to each other is the "Ablative Absolute"
construction. Let's look at both parts of the description
"ablative" and "absolute".
We call a subordinate clause "absolute" when it stands
entirely outside of the grammar of the main clause and contains
no finite verb. We have a common "absolute" construction in
English, which we call the "nominative absolute". Watch:
"The door being open, everyone could see inside".
"The key having been lost, I couldn't get in".
"That said, I now move to my next point.
"All other things being equal, the procedures are
identical".
The first clause in each of these sentences are simply
stating a fact that is given as a circumstance under which the
action of the main clause takes place. And none of the absolute
contructions has a finite verb. Now, obviously there is a
logical or temporal relationship between the absolute clauses and
the main clauses in each of these sentences, and you could easily
recast the sentences to make them explicit. For example,
"Because the door was open..".
"Because the key was lost..".
"Now that that has been said..".
"If all other things are equal..".
But the speaker has chosen to keep the relationship unstated or
implicit. For that reason, the verb is left as a participle and
-- this is important -- the participle is not attached to
anything in main clause. For example, let's rewrite the original
absolute construction in "The key having been lost, I couldn't
get in" to "Having lost my key, I couldn't get it". Now the
participle agrees with something in the main clause -- "I"
and the act of losing the key is specifically attributed to "I"
and not left ambiguous.
In the original sentence, the speaker may or may not have been
the one who lost the key. It may have been lost by someone else.
But in the rewritten version, the guilty party is fingered: "I"
lost the key. An absolute construction doesn't do that.
So here are two things to remember about clauses which are
absolute: the verb is a participle, and it agrees with something
in the absolute clause, not in the main clause of the sentence.
Now for the "ablative" part of the construction called the
"Ablative Absolute". Just as the word "ablative" tells you, in
Latin the participle and the noun it agrees with are both in the
ablative case. For example:
"Hac fama narrata, dux urbem sine mora reliquit".
In this sentence, the main clause is "dux...reliquit". The
Ablative Absolute clause is "hac fama narrata". The verb of the
clause is the participle "narrata", which in turn agrees with the
ablative "hac fama". So how do we translate the Ablative
Absolute clause it into English? As always, let's start with the
roughest, but most accurate, way. The quickest way to translate
an Ablative Absolute clause is to use the preposition "with",
followed by the noun, and then the participle in it correct tense
and voice: "with this story having been told". So this sentence
would come out:
"With this story having been told, the leader left the city
without delay".
1. Cane currente, equus magno cum timore campum reliquit.
"With the dog running, the horse left the field with great
fear".
2. Equo cursuro, canis magno cum timore campum reliquit.
"With the horse about to run, the dog left the field with
great fear".
As you can see, the relationship between the clauses of these
sentences is clear enough, even though it's unstated. In the
first sentence, perhaps we could say, "Because the dog was
running, the horse left the field". That is, the horse has some
fear of running dogs. In the second, the dog doesn't like
running horses, so when it realized that the horse was going to
run, it ran away: "Bcause the horse was going to run, the dog
left the field".
One last item about the Ablative Absolute clause is that
when the participle is in the active voice, it can be followed by
objects of its own which are not in the ablative case. That is
to say, not every word in the Ablative Absolute clause has to be
in the ablative case. Only the noun and the participle agreeing
with it are necessarily ablative; the rest of the Ablative
Absolute clause will follow the normal rules of Latin grammar.
For example:
"Rege haec dicente, omnes cives terrebantur". (With the king
saying these things, all the citizens were terrified.)
The Ablative Absolute clause in this sentence is "rege haec
dicente", as you can see by looking at the case of "rege" and
"dicente" and by recognizing that the verb of the clause is in
the participial mood. These are the two parts of an Ablative
Absolute clause: noun and participle in the ablative case. But
what about "haec"? Why is it in the accusative case if it's in
an Ablative Absolute clause? The answer is that "haec" is the
direct object of the action of the participle "dicente", and
direct objects are always in the accusative case, regardless of
the mood or construction of the verb. Remember, once you have a
noun -- "rege" -- and a participle -- "dicente" -- in the
ablative case, you have an Ablative Absolute construction.
Everything else in the clause is simply additional material which
follows the predictable rules of Latin grammar. Let's look at a
few more examples.
1. "Bonis viris imperium tenentibus, res publica valebit".
(With good men holding power, the republic will be strong.)
2. "Civibus patriam amantibus, possumus magnam spem habere".
(With the citizens loving the fatherland, we are able to
have great hope.)
3. "His rebus gravibus ab oratore dictis, omnis cupiditas
pecuniae expulsa est". (With these serious matters having
been said by the orator, all longing for money was driven
out.)
THE ABLATIVE ABSOLUTE WITH "BEING"
The Ablative Absolute construction, as you now know, is made up
of a noun and a participle agreeing with it in the ablative case.
This brings up an interesting problem with the verb "sum", which
has no present participle. How would you say, for example, "The
king being good, the people were happy"? The clause you would
turn into the Ablative Absolute contains the present participle
"being", but Latin has no translation for it. In occasions like
this, Latin simply leaves the participle out and uses the noun in
the ablative case with the adjective agreeing with it: "Rege
bono, populus beatus erat". So if you see a clause set off with
commas containing a noun and adjective in the ablative case
without a participle, just plug in our participle "being".
ABLATIVE ABSOLUTE: TRANSLATIONS
The literal translation of Ablative Absolutes -- "having..",
"with..., etc. -- makes for some hellish English. A translation
is not complete until we've rendered a thought in one language
into a the target language in a smooth, fluent epxression that
wouldn't suprise a native speaker. We have to message Ablative
Absolutes a little to get them into English.
Because the Ablative Absolute is essentially a participial
construction, the same rules that applied to translating
participles will apply to the translating the Ablative Absolute.
That is,
(1) the Ablative Absolute shows time relative to the time of
the verb of the main clause -- future participles show
time subsequent, present participles show time
contemporaneous, perfect participles show time prior;
(2) the exact logical relationship between the main clause
and the Ablative Absolute has to be reconstructed from
the context and expressed by one of our subordinating
conjunctions: because, since, after, although, if,
inasmuch as, and so on.
So recognizing that an Ablative Absolute clause in a Latin
sentence and pluging in the "with" to bring it into English is
only the first step in translation. Next you must "promote" the
participial clause into a subordinate clause with a finite verb
(a verb with person) and decide on the most likely subordinating
conjunction. Obviously, this is going to involve some judgment
on your part, since the possible subordinating conjunction have
very different meanings. For example, here are two possible
translations of this Latin sentence: "Civibus patriam amantibus,
possumus magnam spem habere".
(a) Because the citizens love the fatherland, we are able to
have great hope.
(b) Although the citizens love the fatherland, we are able
to have great hope.
The meaning of (a) and (b) are flatly contradictory; (a) is
saying that it's a good thing for citizens to love the
fatherland, but (b) says that it's not. But both are possible
translations of the Latin sentence. You must first examine the
general intention of the author as it appears in the context of
his writing before you can translate this sentence into
meaningful English. It'll take some practice and patience.
The relationship of tenses should present you little
difficulty -- your natural instincts will serve you well. But
one item should be mentioned. As you know, a perfect participle
shows time prior to the time of the verb in the main clause. If
therefore, the participle in the Ablative Absolute is perfect,
and if the tense of the main verb is one of the past tenses --
imperfect, perfect, or pluperfect -- then how should you
translate the participle when you promote it to a finite verb?
Think about it a moment. If the perfect participle is showing
time prior to another past event, then what finite tense should
you use? The tense which shows time prior to another past event
is the pluperfect tense, so you should choose the pluperfect
tense to represent the perfect participle of the Ablative
Absolute clause. Like this: "Omnibus bonis civibus ex urbe
expulsis, tryannus imperium accepit". (When all the good
citizens had been expelled from the city, the tyrant took power.)
Take a moment now do these sentences from Wheelock's
Self-Help Tutorial. First analyze the sentence literally, then
smooth it over into English you'd expect to hear in civil
conversation.
8.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
9.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
10. _________________________________________________________
_____________
12. _________________________________________________________
_____________
14.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
15.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
16.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
17.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
22.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
25.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
THE PASSIVE PERIPHRASTIC WITH THE DATIVE OF AGENT
Look at these English sentences:
"This button is not to be pushed".
"You are to remain right here until we get back".
"This door is to be left open".
"You are to do all your homwework".
"This lesson is to be done by tomorrow".
In each of these the subject of the sentence is linked to an
infinitive in the predicate by a form of the verb "to be", and
they show a sense of duty, necessity, or obligation. This is an
idiomatic construction in English. A conjugated form of the verb
"to be" plus an infinitive -- either passive or active -- show
obligation or necessity. Each of these sentence could have been
written in several different ways. We could just as easily say
"This button should be pushed".
must
ought to
has to
As I warned you in the last chapter, Latin has an idiomatic
use of the future passive participle. If the future passive
participle is linked to the subject with a form of the verb
"sum", it takes on a sense of obligation or necessity. When it
is used this way, we call the future active participle a
"gerundive". Do you remember the future passive participle?
Let's review its formation for a moment. You for the future
passive participle this way:
1st principal part + nd + -us, -a, -um
Since there is no way to translate this construction
directly over into English -- that is, you can't simply translate
each word and come up with a true representation of the original
intention -- you have to periphrase it. You have to "talk
around" (peri) it to translate it. For this reason, the
construction "sum + gerundive" is called a "periphrastic"
construction, because you must periphrase it to translate it.
Let's note three more things about this construction before we
look at some examples.
(1) The construction links a participle with the subject
through a form of the verb "sum". Since participles
are verbal adjectives the participle -- the gerundive
-- will agree in number, gender and case with the
subject to which it is linked. That is, the gerundive
modifies the subject of the verb "sum".
(2) Because the gerundive is the future passive participle,
this construction will always be in the passive voice.
That is, the construction will always be saying what
should be done.
(3) When the passive periphrastic construction expresses
the person agent who should be performing the action,
the agent is put into the dative case; the agent is
not, as is normal for the passive voice, shown by "ab +
ablative.
Now let's look at a couple of simple examples of the passive
periphrastic.
"Carthago delenda est".
"Carthago" (Carthago, -inis (f) "Carthage") is the subject
and is feminine; so the gerundive, "delenda" (from "deleo"
"to destroy") agrees with it. A literal translation,
therefore, would be "Carthage is to be destroyed". Some
acceptable variations may be: "Carthage ought to be
destroyed", "Carthage should be destroyed", "Carthage has to
be destroyed", "Carthage must be destroyed". Each of these
translations has a different flavor in English, but they are
all legitimate renderings of the Latin "Carthago delenda
est".
"Carthago nobis delenda est".
What about the "nobis"? It is in the dative case, so it is
expressing the agent of the passive construction. So we
should add to our translation "by us". "Carthage is to be
(should be, ought to be, has to be, must be) destroyed by
us".
Written English tries to be parsimonious of the passive voice, so
a final translation of the passive periphrastic might be a
conversion to the active voice: "We are to (must, ought to,
should, have to) destroy Carthage".
"Haec puella meo filio amanda est".
"This girl is to be (ought to be, should be, must be, has to
be) loved by my son". Or, in the active voice "My son is to
(must, ought to, should, has to) love this girl".
"Haec omnibus agenda sunt".
"These things are to be (must be, ought to be, should be,
have to be) done by everyone". Or "Everyone is to (must,
ought to, should, has to) do these things".
Finally, the conjugated form of "sum" can be in any of the
tenses -- naturally -- so the translation has to reflect the
different tenses. Watch:
"Haec omnibus agenda erunt". (Everyone will have to do these
things.)
"Haec omnibus agenda erant". (Everyone had to do these things.)
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
quisque, quidque The inflected part of the word come
before the suffix "-que". This is
the interrogative "quis, quid" +
the suffix, so you already know how
it is declined. It means "each
one", so obviously should have no
plural forms -- and it doesn't
until after Classical Latin. And
that's not your concern for now.
01/08/93
CHAPTER 25
"All Infinitives Active and Passive;
Indirect Statement"
You've already been working with a couple of infinitive forms of
Latin verbs -- the present infinitive active and passive. In
this chapter you're going to learn all the remaining infinitives
of a Latin verb: infinitives of the perfect and future tenses,
both active and passive. Then you'll learn one of the most
common uses of infinitives: their use in indirect statement.
TENSES OF THE INFINITIVE: MORPHOLOGY
Let's set out the formulae for all the infinitives you're going
to study in this chapter, then we'll work with each in more
detail. Here they are:
ACTIVE PASSIVE
FUTURE: fut. act. part. esse [supine + iri]
PRESENT: 1st p.p. + re 1st p.p. + ri
1st p.p. + i
PERFECT: 3rd p.p. + isse 4th p.p. esse
FUTURE ACTIVE INFINITIVE
Do you remember how to form the future active participle?
You use the fourth principle part + ur + the adjectival
endings "-us, -a, -um". (If you're shaky on this, go back
to Chapter 23 for a reminder.) The future active infinitive
is formed by using the future active participle of the verb
and then uses the infinitive of the verb "esse". So the
future active infinitive of the verb "laudo" will be
"laudaturus (-a, -um) esse". Translating the future active
infinitive is a little tricky, however, because we have no
simple future active infinitive in English. Two common
suggestions -- clumsy though they are -- will at least help
you rough-out the Latin until you can polish up the
translation: try "to be about to x" or "to be going to x".
So "laudaturum esse" can be translated "to be about to (or
to be going to) praise".
FUTURE PASSIVE INFINITIVE
This infinitive is put in brackets because it's rare in
Latin and won't come up in your work this year, nor in the
next most likely. So we can skip it. One thing to
remember, however, is that the future passive infinitive is
not formed with the future passive participle plus the
infinitive of the verb "sum". The future passive participle
is the gerundive and has the idiomatic sense of obligation:
"must", "ought", "should", etc.
PRESENT ACTIVE AND PASSIVE INFINITIVES
These are the infinitives you've been working with all
along. No special explanation should be needed. Remember,
though, that the passive infinitives of first, second and
fourth conjugations are formed by adding "-ri" to the stem;
but the third conjugation deletes the stem vowel and
replaces it with a single long "-i".
PERFECT ACTIVE INFINITIVE
The perfect active infinitive is a new form for you: the
third principal part with the ending "-isse" attached. The
literal translation is our English "to have x". Hence
"laudavisse" can be translated "to have praised".
PERFECT PASSIVE INFINITIVE
This infinitive, like the future active infinitive, is made
up of a participle followed by the infinitive of the verb
"sum". The translation for starters is "to have been xed".
Hence "laudatum esse" may be rendered "to have been
praised".
DRILLS
Fill in the infinitives for the following paradigm verbs.
1. amo (1)
ACTIVE PASSIVE
FUTURE: ____________________ ____________________
PRESENT: ____________________ ____________________
PERFECT: ____________________ ____________________
2. habeo (2), habui, habitus, -a, -um
ACTIVE PASSIVE
FUTURE: ____________________ ____________________
PRESENT: ____________________ ____________________
PERFECT: ____________________ ____________________
3. duco (3), duxi, ductus, -a, -um
ACTIVE PASSIVE
FUTURE: ____________________ ____________________
PRESENT: ____________________ ____________________
PERFECT: ____________________ ____________________
3 i-stem. capio (3), cepi, captus, -a, -um
ACTIVE PASSIVE
FUTURE: ____________________ ____________________
PRESENT: ____________________ ____________________
PERFECT: ____________________ ____________________
4. audio (4), audivi, auditus, -a, -um
ACTIVE PASSIVE
FUTURE: ____________________ ____________________
PRESENT: ____________________ ____________________
PERFECT: ____________________ ____________________
THE IDEA OF INDIRECT STATEMENT
So far all the sentences you've been working with in Latin have
been in direct speech. The difference between direct and
indirect speech is a little difficult to describe completely, but
a couple of examples of each may give you a feel for it. Here
are some direct statements:
"She sees her friend".
"Our times are evil".
"These things were not known".
In a direct statement, the author cast the thought in a sentence
and addresses it directly to the audience. In indirect
statement, a thought is treated as the object of a verb, and the
thought is being reported to the audience. In English we
frequently precede the reported thought, the "indirect
statement", with the conjunction "that", or we may omit it.
"I think [that] she sees her friend".
"He said [that] our times are evil".
"We heard [that] these things were not known".
If you analyze these sentences, you see that they are complex
sentences (having a main and a subordinate clause). The verb
which introduces the indirect statement is the main verb, and the
indirect statement, which is treated as an object of the main
verb, is the subordinate clause.
There are many verbs which can be followed by an indirect
statement, and, naturally enough, they are verbs which conote
some kind of mental activity or speaking or perceiving: verbs
like "to think [that]", "to say [that]", to hear [that]",
"understand [that]", "to suppose [that]".... In short, there are
dozens of verbs which can introduce indirect statement, and it
would be futile to try to memorize them all outright. Just use
your common sense. If a verb is a "head verb" -- if it implies
mental activity or speaking or sensing -- then it can be followed
by indirect statement.
In English indirect statement, you can see that the form of
the original statement or thought is hardly changed at all when
it is put into indirect statement. Like this:
Original Statement: "My friends are coming".
As Indirect Statement: "I think [that] my friends are
coming".
Obviously this is going to require some subsequent
refinement, but in general, and for now, you can see that English
really does very little altering or the original statement when
it is made the object of a "head verb" -- i.e., when it is turned
into an indirect statement.
LATIN: THE ACCUSATIVE-INFINITIVE CONSTRUCTION
In Latin, this is not true. Latin considerably alters the
original statement when it becomes indirect. Two things happen:
(1) The subject of the original statement, which is in the
nominative case, is put into the accusative case.
(2) The original finite verb (the verb which has person,
1st, 2nd or 3rd) becomes an infinitive.
The example sentences above would work like this in Latin:
Original Statement: "Mei amici veniunt".
As Indirect Statement: "Puto meos amicos venire".
We often call this the accusative-infinitive construction,
because the infinitive has a subject which is in the accusative
case. The literal translation of the second sentence would be "I
think my friends to be coming", and we could make sense of that
if we heard someone say it in English like this. In fact,
sometimes English can form indirect statement by using this
accusative-infinitive construction. For example, you'd have no
trouble understanding this: "We think him to be a scoundrel".
The original statement behind this is "He is a scoundrel", which
then becomes "him to be a scoundrel" after the verb which
introduces the thought as an indirect statement. The differences
is that in English we sometimes have the option which
construction we'll use; but Latin from the period you're studying
had only one construction for indirect statement: the
accusative-infinitive construction.
There is one more item you need to know before we can pause
and try some exercises. As you know, because Latin verbs have
personal endings, it's not always necessary to have a subject
pronoun expressed in the sentence. We simply look at the
personal ending on the verb and insert the correct personal
pronoun in our English translation. For example:
Meos amicos laudo. I am praising my friends.
Meos amicos laudas. You are praising my friends.
Meos amicos laudat. He is praising my friends.
Meos amicos laudamus. We are praising my friends.
Meos amicos laudatis. You are praising my friends.
Meos amicos laudant. They are praising my friends.
This shouldn't cause you any anxiety. You've been supplying
personal pronouns for twenty-five chapters, and by now it's
probably second nature for you. You probably don't even notice
any longer that you're doing it. The question, though, is how
are we going to make these original direct statements into
indirect statements. They have no subjects in their original
forms, and you can't just put the verb into the infinitive.
Infinitives have no person, so it would be impossible to tell who
the agent of the action is.
The solution is really quite simple. You use the accusative
case of the personal pronoun which is indicated by the original
personal ending on the verb. What that means is that for
"laudo", for example, you reconstruct the original nominative
form of the personal pronoun -- which would be "ego" -- and then
put it into the accusative case -- which is "me" -- and then put
the original finite verb into the infintive. The same for the
other persons. So these sentence in indirect statement would be
this:
Meos amicos laudo. - Dico me meos amicos laudare.
Meos amicos laudas. - Dico te meos amicos laudare.
Meos amicos laudat. - Dico eum meos amicos laudare.
Meos amicos laudamus. - Dico nos meos amicos laudare.
Meos amicos laudatis. - Dico vos meos amicos laudare.
Meos amicos laudant. - Dico eos meos amicos laudare.
You can see that all indirect statements must have the
subject accusative expressed. The infinitive, by its nature,
doesn't contain person, so it alone can't tell you its subject.
You must have "me, te, etc" or some accusative-subject expressed
in indirect statement. Next, how many of you are wondering about
the accusative "meos amicos" in the sentences above? You may be
wondering how you can tell which accusative is the subject of the
infinitive and which is its object, since Latin word order is
generally very flexible. That is, what's to keep the first
sentence from meaning: "I say that my friends are praising me".
Here is one place where word order is very important in Latin.
The normal word order in an indirect statement is this:
Subject-Accusative Direct Object Accusative Infinitive
me amicos meos laudare
It usually is the case that the first word in the indirect
statement is the subject accusative. The next accusative, if
there is one, will be the direct object of the verb in the
infinitive.
DRILLS
Change the following direct statements into indirect statements.
Remember: (1) the original subject nominative becomes the subject
accusative; (2) the original finite verb becomes the infinitive;
(3) where there is no subject expressed, you must use the
appropriate pronoun in the accusative case.
Examples:
A. Veniunt cum amicis tuis.
Puto eos cum amicis venire.
B. Veritas sine magno labore inveniri non potest.
Intellegunt veritatem sine magno labore inveniri non posse.
1. Illa puella dona multa patri dat.
Putamus __________________________________________________
2. Hoc signum ab Caesare dandum est.
Nuntiat __________________________________________________
3. Spes novarum rerum mollibus sententiis alitur.
Scimus __________________________________________________
4. Vos iuvamus.
Scitis __________________________________________________
5. Tyrannus multas copias in mediam urbem ducit.
Nuntiant __________________________________________________
TENSES OF INFINITIVES: RELATIVE TENSE
Now that you've mastered the basics of the Latin indirect
statement, it's time for some refinement. Earlier I said that
English generally leaves the form of the direct statement alone
when it becomes and indirect statement. English often simply
subordinates the original statement to a "head verb" with the
conjunction "that", without changing the original statement at
all. But this is not always true. Sometimes we do change the
form of the original statement when it becomes indirect
statement.
Let's assume that someone says "I am coming", and that you
wish to report what he said to someone else. You would say, "He
says that he is coming". Except of the logical change in person,
you haven't changed the form of the original direct statement at
all. But suppose that he said this yesterday. That is,
yesterday he said, "I am coming". To report this statement as
indirect statement, you would say, "He said that he was coming".
Here English lets some of the past tense of the main verb of the
sentence -- "said" -- infect the original direct statement: "am
coming" is changed to "was coming". He didn't say "I was
coming", rather he said "I am coming". But because the leading
verb is past tense -- "he said" -- English make the original
statement a past tense, too, although logically it shouldn't
because it distorts what was actually said. What is worse, it
introduces the possiblility for ambiguity. What did he really
say? Did he say "I am coming", or did he really say "I was
coming"? You can't tell from the sentence "He said that he was
coming".
Let's change the example slightly. Suppose he is now
saying, "I will come". You would report this as "He says that he
will come". No problem. But suppose he said "I will come"
yesterday. You would report his statement as "He said that he
would come". Once again, you can see that English changes the
form of the original statement when it becomes indirect. Here,
when a statement referring to the future is reported as a past
event, the original simple future becomes the conditional. It's
a great big mess.
In Latin there is none of this nonsense. First you have to
recognize something about the tenses of the infinitives in Latin:
like the tenses of participles, the tenses of infinitives are not
absolute, but are only relative to the tense of the leading verb
-- the verb which is introducing the indirect statement. Think
of it this way. The future tense of a finite verb depicts an
action which has not yet occurred, but a future infinitive
depicts an action which occurs after the action of the leading
verb. The present tense of a finite verb depicts an action which
is currently going on, but the present infinitive depicts and
action that is going on at the same time as the leading verb.
And finally, the perfect tense (or any of the past tenses) of a
finite verb depicts an action that has already occurred, but the
perfect infinitive depicts an action which occurs before the
leading verb. To simplify this we say that a present infinitive
shows time contemporaneous, a future infinitive shows time
subsequent, and a perfect infinitive shows time prior. Let's
look at several examples of this.
1. Puto eum venire.
Here the tense of the infinitive in the indirect statement
is present, so it is showing time contemporaneous with the
time of the leading verb "puto". This means that I think
that he is coming now (while I'm thinking). We may
translate the sentence, therefore, "I think that he is
coming".
2. Puto eum venturum esse.
Now the tense of the infinitive is future, showing time
subsequent to the action of the leading verb. This means
that I am thinking now that he will come -- not that he is
coming but that he will come. So we can translate the
sentence "I think that he will come (or that he is going to
come)".
3. Puto eum venisse.
The perfect infinitive shows time prior to the leading verb,
so at the moment I'm thinking, the action I'm thinking about
has already occurred. So the translation is "I think that
he has come (or that he came)".
4. Putavi eum venire.
Since the present infinitive shows time contemporaneous,
this means that the sentence must be translated "I thought
that he was coming". Do you see why? "Venire" shows time
contemporaneous with the action of the leading verb, which
is depicting a past event, so we have to translate the
sentence into English to show this relationship. The
trouble here is not with the Latin. As you can see, the
indirect statement "eum venire" doesn't change when we use a
different tense of the leading verb. The problem is with
our English representation of the Latin.
5. Putavi eum venturum esse.
How are you going to translate this sentence. The future
tense of the infinitive shows time subsequent (after) the
time of the leading verb, and how do we do that in English?
We say "I thought that he would come".
6. Putavi eum venisse.
The translation is "I thought that he had come". Can you
explain why? This actually can get a little sticky in
English, because we tend to shy away from the pluperfect
tense. We might just as possibly say "I thought that he was
coming" when we mean that he was coming before I thought
about it. In Latin, though, there is no chance for
ambiguity. The perfect infinitive "venisse" shows time
prior to "putavi", and "putavi is already representing a
past event. An event before another event in the past is
represented by the pluperfect tense. Hence "I thought that
he had come".
THE REFLEXIVE PRONOUN "SE" IN INDIRECT STATEMENT
You're going to get plenty of chances to work with the indirect
statement and the tenses of the infinitives soon, but there is
one more item in the chapter we have to look at -- although it's
really quite simple. Consider the following sentence: "He said
that he was a good leader". Is there anyway you can tell whether
the sentence means "he said that he himself was a good leader",
or "he said that he [somebody else] was good leader"? You can't.
This is the same problem we saw before with the third person
pronoun: English has no convenient way to distinguish the
reflexive from the non-reflexive third person pronoun. In Latin,
however, the pronoun "is, ea, id" is always non-reflexive, and
the pronoun "sui, sibi, se, se" is reflexive. Consequently, "He
said that he [somebody else] was a good leader" is "Dixit eum
ducem bonum esse"; and "He said that he [himself] was a good
leader" is "Dixit se ducem bonum esse". Remember also that the
reflexive pronoun doesn't show difference in number: "Dixerunt se
bonos ducos esse" is "They said that they [themselves] were good
leaders".
DRILLS
A. Translate from Latin to English
1. Putamus omnes bonos viros vitas beatas agere.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
2. Putamus omnes bonos viros vitas beatas egisse.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
3. Putamus omnes bonos viros vitas beatas acturos esse.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
4. Putavimus omnes bonos viros vitas beatas agere.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
5. Putavimus omnes bonos viros vitas beatas egisse.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
6. Putavimus omnes bonos viros beatas vitas acturos esse.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
7. Putabimus omnes bonos viros beatas vitas agere.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
8. Putabimus omnes bonos viros beatas vitas egisse.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
9. Putabimus omnes bonos viros beatas vitas acturos esse.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
10. Putabimus bonum virum vitam beatam acturum esse.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
B. Translate into Latin
1. We hear that you (pl.) are coming.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
2. We heard that you (pl.) were coming.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
3. We heard that you had come.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
4. We heard that you would come.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
5. They think that the letter was written by us.
____________________________________________________________
__________
6. They think that the letter is being written by us.
____________________________________________________________
__________
7. They thought that the letter was being written by us.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
8. They thought that the letter had been written by us.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
9. They thought that we would write the letter.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
10. They think that we should write the letter.
_________________________________________________________________
_____
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
hostis, -is (m) In the singular, it means an enemy -- one
person you don't like. In the plural it
means an enemy -- the group of people you
don't like -- not a lot of individual
enemies. It means "enemy" in our sense of an
enemy of country.
ait, aiunt "He, she says/ they say". Its first and
second persons don't appear in this book, and
it's used only in its present tense forms.
spero (1) "Spero" takes its infinitive in indirect
statement in the future tense. This makes
sense, because you generally hope for
something that is not now presently the case.
"We hope to see our friends" comes over into
Latin as "We hope that we will see our
friends": "Speramus nos amicos nostros
visuros esse".
01/10/93
CHAPTER 26
"Comparison of Adjectives; Declension
of Comparatives"
DEGREES OF ADJECTIVES
Adjectives are words which attribute a quality to nouns, and in
Latin adjectives must agree in number, gender and case they are
modifying. You have learned adjectives which decline in the first
and second declensions, and those which decline in the third. But
up to this chapter the adjectives you've studied attribute
qualities to nouns in what is called the positive degree only.
That is, they simply attach the quality to the noun. But
adjectives can also attribute the quality in way that compares the
noun with other nouns by indicating that the noun has more of the
quality than another noun, or that it has the most of the quality
than at least two other nouns. We call these two other degrees the
comparative (more of the quality) and the superlative (most of the
quality) degrees.
In English, we form the comparative and superlative degrees of
adjectives in two different ways. We use the adverbs "more" and
"most", and we use the suffixes "-er" and "-est" added to the base
of the adjectives. For example,
POSITIVE DEGREE COMPARATIVE DEGREE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE
blue skies bluer skies bluest skies
difficult book more difficult book most difficult book
For your concerns now, there is only one way to form the
comparative and superlative degrees of adjectives in Latin, and
that is by adding suffixes to the base of the adjectives. Since
adjectives are listed in the dictionary under their base forms --
the nominative singular of the positive degree -- and don't have
separate listings for inflected (or derived) forms, you're going to
have to do some more work as you read to simplify adjectives in the
comparative and superlative degrees down to their dictionary forms
so that you can look them up.
THE COMPARATIVE DEGREE OF ADJECTIVES
To form the comparative degree of an adjective, you add the ending
"-ior", "-ius" to its stem. Let's have a look at this suffix.
Because the word is still an adjective, it's still going to have to
decline. The comparative suffix is a third declension ending and
declines just like a normal noun of the third declension. This is
a little odd, since you might expect the comparative suffix to
decline like a third declension adjective, and third declension
adjectives are all i-stems. (Look at Chapter 16 if you're not sure
what I'm talking about.) Let's look at the declension of this
suffix. The masculine and feminine nominatives are "-ior", and the
neuter nominative is "-ius". The stem of the ending is "-ior-".
Decline the comparative adjectival suffix. The comparative ending
"-ior, -ius" essentially tells you that it is a third declension
adjective of two terminations. Simply attach the proper third
declension case endings to the stem "-ior-". Don't forget the
rules of the neuter. (Check your work in Wheelock.)
MASCULINE AND FEMININE NEUTER
N/V. -ior -ius
Gen. _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________
N/V. _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________
How did you do? Do you see the patterns at work? The stem
"-ior-" plus the cases endings from the third declension non
i-stem. These are the inflected endings you then attach to the
stem of the adjectives. So to make any adjective comparative,
regardless of its original declension -- 1st and 2nd, or 3rd -- you
attach these endings to the stem of the adjective and then decline
the adjective in the third declension. This is important to
remember. As soon as an adjective is put into the comparative
degree, it gets its case endings from the third declension, because
that's how the comparative suffix declines. Let's look at some
examples of this.
ADJECTIVE STEM COMPARATIVE DEGREE
beatus, -a, -um beat- beatior, -ius
fortis, -e fort- fortior, -ius
potens, potentis potent- potentior, -ius
DRILL
Decline the following expressions:
wiser plan more powerful city
_____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
_____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
_____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
_____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
_____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
_____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
_____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
_____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
_____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
_____________ ____________ ____________ ____________
THE SUPERLATIVE DEGREE OF ADJECTIVES
The superlative degree of adjectives is even easier to form. It's
simply the stem of the adjective plus the suffix "-issim-" plus the
first and second declension adjectival endings "-us, -a, -um".
Hence all adjectives in the superlative degree decline like the
simpliest adjectives you know: the first and second declension
types, just like "magnus, -a, -um". The only trick is to use the
proper stem. For example:
ADJECTIVE STEMSUPERLATIVE DEGREE
beatus, -a, -um beat- beatissimus, -a, -um
fortis, -e fort- fortissimus, -a, -um
potens, potentis potent- potentissimus, -a, -um
TRANSLATIONS OF THE COMPARATIVE AND SUPERLATIVE DEGREES
You may well wonder why we need to bother with how the degrees of
the adjectives are translated. It's obvious that the comparative
will be translated "more X" or "X-er" and that the superlative will
be translated "most X" or "X-est". And, in fact these are common
ways of translating them into English. But often, very often, the
comparative and superlative degrees are used "absolutely"; that is,
without anything being direct compared to the quality depicted in
the adjective. Latin can use the comparative degree to say "A is
X-er than B", but it can also use the comparative degree to say "A
is rather X". Similarly, Latin can use the superlative degree to
say "A is most X of all", or to say "A is very X". Hence the
adjective "longior, -ius" can mean "longer", if there's something
being compared, or it can mean just "rather long", if there isn't
anything being compared. Similarly, "longissimus, -a, -um", can
mean "longest", or it can mean "very long". If there is nothing
being compared to the noun with respect to the quality designed in
the adjective, then use "rather" or "very" instead of "more" or
"most".
THE USE OF THE ADVERB QUAM
The adverb "quam" is used like our word "than" in a comparison to
link the two terms of the comparison. "They are more happy than
we". Although we tend to slop over it in English, you must
remember that in Latin the two things being compared must be in the
same case. In the example I just gave, we might be tempted to say
"They are happier than us", and we probably should say "us" if
we're in a situation when erudition might be the cause of some
scorn or suspicion. But technically, because "they" is the point
of comparison, and because "they" is in the nominative case, we
should use "we" and not "us". And so also, "They are happier than
she [is]". In Latin, the "quam" is like an equal sign: it requires
the same case on each side of the comparison. Study these
examples.
1. Sunt beatiores quam ego. (They are happier than I).
2. Ille est beatior quam hic. (That man is happier than this
man.)
3. Puto illos esse beatiores quam hos. (I think that those men
are happier than these men.)
4. Nemo est stultior quam ei qui libros numquam legunt. (No one
is more foolish than those who never read books.)
"Quam" can also be used with an adjective in the superlative degree
to mean "as X as possible". In fact, sometimes the whole
construction is written out like this: "quam potest longissimus":
"as long as is possible".
THE POSSESSIVE PRONOUN
There is one other issue I'd like to take up even though it's not
in Wheelock. It causes students some confusion. Consider this
sentence. "Our city is more illustrious than yours". The final
word in the sentence, "yours" is standing in for "your city": "Our
city is more illustrious than your city". But English has a way of
simplifying the full construction by using a "possessive pronoun".
Check both words here: "pronoun", meaning a word which stands in
for another, and "possessive", meaning a word that shows
possession. The possessive pronouns in English for the different
numbers and persons are: "mine, ours, yours, his, hers, its,
theirs".
Latin has no equivalent of the possessive pronoun, which we
find so useful. Instead, Latin uses the possessive adjective in
the number and gender of the noun which has been omitted, and in
the case required by the construction of the sentence. Like this.
1. "Veni cum amicis meis; venit cum suis". (I came with my
friends; he came with his.)
2. "Nostra civitas est clarior quam vestra". (Our city is more
illustrious than yours.)
3. "Mea mater est sapientior quam tua". (My mother is wiser than
yours.)
DRILLS
Translate the following sentences into Latin.
1. Your city is rather shameful.
____________________________________________________________
2. They said that this [woman] is happier than that [woman].
____________________________________________________________
3. Their friends are wiser than ours.
____________________________________________________________
4. The tyrant was very harsh. ("acerbus, -a, -um")
____________________________________________________________
5. This road was as long as possible.
____________________________________________________________
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
quidam, quaedam, quiddam or quoddam
Obviously this word is an inflected form of the
relative pronoun "qui, quae, quod" with an
indeclinable suffix "-dam" attached. It has a set
of closely related meanings which make its
translation a little slippery at first. When used
as an adjective, it means "a certain" or "some":
"quidam auctor" (some author); "quaedam terrae"
(some lands), etc. When it is used as a pronoun,
it means "somebody", "something", "some people",
"somethings". "Quidam putant eum stultum esse"
(Some people think he is foolish.) "Quiddam" is
the neuter form used when the word is being used as
an adjective; "quoddam" when it's being used as a
pronoun. "Fecit quiddam consilium" (He made some
plan); "Fecit quoddam" (He made something). You'll
have to work some to keep this word distinct from
"quidem" (indeed). I remembered the difference
this way. "Quidem" has "-e-", like "indeed".
"Quidam" has an "-a-" as when you're saying "ah.".
because you can't come up with the name for
something.
quam You've see this before, meaning "how", as in "Quam
dulce est beatam vitam agere" (How sweet it is to
live a happy life). In this chapter, you learned
that it is the adverb of comparison "than", and
that it can also be used with a superlative degree
of the adjective to mean "as X as possible", where
X is the meaning of the adjective.
vito (1) Students always confuse this with "vivo" (to live).
Try to remember this: when you see the verb "vito",
it's inevitable (unavoidable) that you'll confuse
it with something else.
1/10/93
CHAPTER 27
"Special and Irregular Comparison of
Adjectives"
The title of this chapter says it all: some adjectives in Latin
form their comparative and superlative degrees irregularly. But
don't panic. The irregularities are entirely limited either to the
stem of the adjective uses in the comparative and superlative
degrees, or to the way the comparative or superlative endings are
attached to the stem. The irregularities do not affect the way the
adjectives decline in the comparative or superlative degrees. You
already have experience with irregular comparison in lots of
English adjectives:
good better best
bad worse worst
little smaller smallest
much (many) more most
If you take a close look at the degrees of these adjectives you can
see that for all of them the stem is changed from the positive to
the comparative and superlative degrees. It's not "good, gooder,
goodest", because English substitutes another stem in place of the
one you would expect if you were thoughtlessly following the rules
that apply to the regular adjectives. Now look more closely. Even
though the stems have changed, you can still often see the regular
comparative and superlative endings "-er" and "-est" attached to
the irregular stem.
ADJECTIVES WITH IRREGULAR STEMS
The positive degree of the adjective meaning "good" is "bonus, -a,
-um", a first and second declension adjective. To form the
comparative degree, you use another stem, "mel-", to which you add
the comparative adjectival ending "-ior, -ius". Review the
comparative endings "-ior, -ius" from Chapter 26 if you have to and
decline the adjective "melior, -ius".
MASCULINE AND FEMININE NEUTER
N/V. _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________
N/V. _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________
There was really no reason for you to decline this adjective.
It follows precisely the same pattern as the regular comparative
degree. I just want you to believe that the irregular comparative
degree isn't completely irregular: its irregularity is limited to
the stem it uses and does not affect its declension at all.
Perhaps you have some bad feelings already about all the new
forms you're going to have to memorize. There's no escaping the
hard fact that you will have to memorize three forms for irregular
adjectives, but there's a way to ameliorate the problem. These
irregular stems often are the roots are English words, so if you
learn the English derivatives, it will much easier to fix the
irregular stems in your memory. For example, from the stem "mel-"
we get the English verb "ameliorate", which means "to make better,
improve".
Let's move on now to the superlative degree of the adjective
"bonus, -a, -um": it's "optimus, -a, -um". Obviously we get the
English words "optimist", "optimal", "optimum", and others from
this stem, but notice that the superlative degree simply uses the
"-us, -a, -um" endings without the "-issim-" infix which the
regular adjectives use. You'll have no problem adjusting to this.
Here are some more irregular adjectives with a few comments.
POSITIVE COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE
magnus, -a, -um maior, maius maximus, -a, -um
(great) (greater) (greatest)
The comparative degree "maior" will look more familiar if you add
a tail to the intervocalic "-i-": "major". (A Major is greater
than a Captain.) Remember, now, that even though it looks a little
odd, "maior" will decline quite normally: maioris, maiori, etc.,
with "ma-" as the stem.
POSITIVE COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE
malus, -a, -um peior, peius pessimus, -a, -um
(bad) (worse) (worst)
Use the same trick with the intervocalic "-i-" in "peior".
"Pejorative" means "derogatory, disparaging", from the Latin sense
of "worse".
POSITIVE COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE
parvus, -a, -um minor, minus minimus, -a, -um
(small) (smaller) (smallest)
The comparative degree looks odd: the adjectival ending "-ior,
-ius" seems to be missing. It's there; only the "-i-" is missing.
You decline "minor, minus" as you normally would, but just leave
the "-i-" off. Try it:
MASCULINE AND FEMININE NEUTER
N/V. _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________
N/V. _______________ _______________
Gen. _______________ _______________
Dat. _______________ _______________
Acc. _______________ _______________
Abl. _______________ _______________
POSITIVE COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE
superus, -a, -um superior, -ius supremus, -a, -um
(above) (higher) (last)
summus, -a, -um
(highest)
The only peculiarity of this adjective are the two superlative
degrees which are derived from it. "Summus" means "highest", and
so does "supremus", but "supremus" can also mean "last". Think of
it this way. We're stand at the bottom of a long ladder that's
extending upward. The object which is the highest on the ladder is
the "last" we would reach as we ascend. So Latin can say "supremo
die" (on the last day). The point is, both "summus" and "supremus"
can mean "highest", but "supremus" often can have the extended
meaning "last".
POSITIVE COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE
(pro, prae) prior, -ius primus, -a, -um
(before) (prior, previous) (first)
The adjectives "prior" and "primus" are comparative and
superlative degrees of an adjective that doesn't exist in the
positive degree. "Pro" and "prae" are prepositions, not
adjectives, and they can mean "before".
POSITIVE COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE
multus, -a, -um plus, pluris (n) plurimus, -a, -um
(much; many) plures, plura (very many; most)
(more)
The chief difficulty with this adjective, as you can see,
comes in the comparative degree. In the singular of the
comparative, the adjective "multus" becomes a neuter noun "plus,
pluris (n). It isn't an adjective at all. It's a noun which means
"more". Latin uses it with a genitive case of the noun: "plus
pecuniae" (more of money). Like this:
N/V. plus pecuniae (more money)
Gen. pluris pecuniae (of more money)
Dat. ----- -----
Acc. plus pecuniae (more money)
Abl. plure pecuniae (by/with more
money)
In the plural, however, the word for "more" becomes an
adjective, and declines just as you would expect a normal third
declension adjective to decline. One set of forms for the
masculine and feminine, and one for the neuter:
MASCULINE AND FEMININE NEUTER
N/V. plures plura
Gen. plurium plurium
Dat. pluribus pluribus
Acc. plures plura
Abl. pluribus pluribus
There is a distinction to be maintained between "plus, pluris,
(n)" and "plures, plura". The adjective "multus, -a, -um" means
"much" or "many", and these two words, "much" and "many" are not
interchangeable in English. We use the adjective "much" when we're
talking about something which can't be counted up individually; we
use "many" when it can. For example, we say "much mud", or "much
money". It would sound odd to say "many muds" or "many moneys".
We could possibly say "many muds" we're mudologists and we're
talking about many different kinds of muds around the world:
Chinese mud, Korean food, French mud, and so on. In this case the
mud types would in fact be countable, and the adjective "many"
would be appropriate: "There are many muds in the world today.
Some tan, some yellowish, and others which are completely black".
Conversely, we wouldn't say "much towels", "much rivers", or "much
people", because these are objects which are countable. Latin uses
the singular neuter noun "plus, pluris" when referring to
uncountable objects, and the adjective "plures, plura" when
referring to countable objects. "Plus aeris" (more [of] bronze),
and "plures homines" (many people).
SUPERLATIVE DEGREE OF ADJECTIVES IN -R
To form the degrees of regular adjectives, you simply add "-ior,
-ius" or "-issimus, -a, -um" to the stem of the adjective. The
stem, you remember, is the form you see in all the forms of the
adjective except for the masculine nominative singular. When the
adjective ends in "-r" in the nominative masculine singular,
however, the superlative degree does something slightly different.
These rules hold true for all adjectives which end in "-r", not
just for a chosen few. Let's look at a couple of examples:
pulcher, -chra, -chrum
liber, -a, -um
acer, acris, acre
celer, celeris, celere
The comparative degree of these adjectives is quite regular. You
simply use the stem with the comparative suffix "ior, -ius"
attached.
POSITIVE COMPARATIVE
pulcher, -chra, -chrum ____________________
liber, -a, -um ____________________
acer, acris, acre ____________________
celer, celeris, celere ____________________
But to form the superlative degree of these adjectives you do two
things: (1) use the masculine nominative singular as the stem, and
(2) add the suffix "-rimus, -a, -um". Thus, according to step (1),
even if the true stem of the adjective lacks the "-e-" before the
"-r", you build the superlative degree from a base ending in "-er".
Adding the suffix "-rimus, -a, -um", you end up with a doubled "r".
So for the adjective "piger, -a, -um" (slow), the superlative
degree is "pigerrimus, -a, -um" Now write out the superlative
degree of these adjectives.
POSITIVE SUPERLATIVE
pulcher, -chra, -chrum ____________________
liber, -a, -um ____________________
acer, acris, acre ____________________
celer, celeris, celere ____________________
SOME ADJECTIVES ENDING IN -LIS
There are six adjectives in Latin ending in "-lis, -e" which have
a oddity in the formation of the superlative degree. Wheelock
concentrates on only three. The irregularity of these adjectives
is that the suffix "-limus, -a, -um" is used in place of "-issimus,
-a, -um". The comparative degree, however, is entirely regular.
Form the degrees of the three adjectives which use this irregular
suffix in the superlative, then compare them to three other
adjectives in "-lis, -e" which use the regular superlative suffix.
(Remember, this irregularity is limited to only six adjectives
ending in "-lis, -e". All other adjectives ending in "-lis, e"
form their comparisons regularly.)
POSITIVE COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE
1. Irregular
facilis, -e _______________ _______________
similis, -e _______________ _______________
difficilis, -e _______________ _______________
2. Regular
mollis, -e _______________ _______________
(soft)
mortalis, -e _______________ _______________
(mortal)
fidelis, -e _______________ _______________
(loyal)
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
appello (1) This verb in the passive voice is a
copulative verb, linking the subject to a
predicate nominative. "He is called
Brutus" would be "Appellatur Brutus", not
"Brutum".
maiores, -ium (m) Obviously this noun is derived from the
comparative adjective for "magnus, -a,
-um". Used as a noun in the plural, it
means "the greaters in age" or the
"ancestors".
similis, -e It takes the dative case as its
complement. "Hoc non simile illi" (This
is not similar to that.)
01/10/93
CHAPTER 28
"Subjunctive: Present Active and Passive;
Jussive; Purpose"
In this chapter, you begin your study of the subjunctive mood of
verbs by learning the subjunctive in the present tense and two of
the uses of the subjunctive mood: the jussive (JUH siv or JEW
siv) subjunctive and the purpose (or final) clause. The first
real difficulty for students to overcome when beginning the
subjunctive is to realize that there is no one way to translate a
Latin verb in the subjunctive mood. The subjunctive mood is one
primarily of syntax and is almost always used in subordinate
clauses. What you must do is (1) learn the morphology
(formation) of the subjunctive mood, and then (2) study the
different ways the subjunctive is used in Latin to express what.
Once you've understood the intent of the Latin sentence, then
you're prepared to bring that meaning over into an appropriate
English construction. This all may sound rather metaphysical and
frightening, but it isn't really. It just means that the method
of assigning one to one correspondences from Latin to English and
vice versa, which may have served you so well in the past, can't
help you anymore. You'll learn to form the subjunctive in the
different tenses, while you collect and study the different uses
of the subjunctive. Let's start.
FORMATION OF THE SUBJUNCTIVE: PRESENT TENSE
The subjunctive is one of the moods of a Latin verb. The moods
you know so far are: indicative, imperative, infinitive, and
participial. The subjunctive mood is limited to finite forms
(forms with person) of the verb. Hence you'll not have to worry
over the subjunctive infinitive, the subjunctive participle, et
cetera.
I. Subjunctive of the First Conjugation Present Tense
To form the subjunctive, present tense, a first conjugation verb
simply substitutes the normal stem vowel long "-a-" with a long
"-e-". The personal endings, active and passive, are not changed
(except that the first person singular ending is the variant "-m"
instead of "-o-"). Write out the present subjunctive active and
passive of the first conjugation verb "laudo" in the present
tense.
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
This wasn't so difficult, but look at these forms again. If you
didn't know that these forms were derived from a first
conjugation verb, you might think that some of the forms were
forms of the indicative from a second or third conjugation verb.
The form "laudetis," for example, looks like it could be a
present tense from a second conjugation verb, or a future tense
of the third conjugation non i-stem verb. The only way to be
sure, if you're not totally familiar with the verb you're
examining, is to look the verb up and make sure you note its
conjugation. When you seen "laudo (1)" in the dictionary, then
you can be sure that the form "laudetis" is subjunctive present
tense. Let's move on.
II. Subjunctive of the First Conjugation Present Tense
As you're about to see, the way a first conjugation verb forms
the subjunctive present tense is actually an exception to the
general rule verbs follow to form the present subjunctive mood.
All other conjugations form the present subjunctive by inserting
a long "-a-" between the stem and the personal endings. This
rule is easily seen in the second conjugation: "mone + a + m =
moneam"; "mone + a + r = monear"; etc. Write out the present
subjunctive, active and passive, of "moneo, -ere".
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
III. Subjunctive of the Third Conjugation Present Tense
When you insert the long "-a-" between the stem and the personal
endings on a third conjugation verb, the stem vowel short "-e-"
drops out entirely, leaving only the "-a-" between the personal
endings. Note that many of the resulting forms look exactly like
first conjugation forms in the indicative mood. Again, you need
to take care from now on and look at your dictionary entries
thoroughly. Write out the subjunctive present tense, active and
passive, of "duco, -ere".
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
IIIi. Subjunctive of the Third Conjugation i-stems Present
Tense
In the present tense, the extra "-i-" of a i-stem verb is present
throughout the forms: "capi + a + m = capiam" etc.
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
IV. Subjunctive of the Fourth Conjugation Present Tense
The stem vowel of a fourth conjugation verb is a long "-i-" so it
stays part of the stem after the addition of the long "-a-" sign
of the subjunctive: "audi + a + m = audiam".
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
Don't forget that there are no subjunctive infinitives,
imperatives, or participles. These are all the possible forms of
the Latin subjunctive mood in the present tense. There is no
present subjunctive participle, or present subjunctive
infinitive. You now know all the subjunctive forms of the
present tense.
USES OF THE SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD: THE JUSSIVE SUBJUNCTIVE
The first use of the subjunctive you'll learn is the only use of
the subjunctive in the main clause of a sentence (except for
conditional sentences). All other uses of the subjunctive are
restricted to subordinate clauses. The jussive subjunctive is
used when a command or exhortation is directed to a first or
third person. (When a command is directed toward a second
person, as you recall, Latin uses the imperative mood.) To issue
a prohibition or negative command in the first or third persons,
the negative particle "ne" is used, not "non". We direct
commands to first and third persons with our construction
"let..". and negate them with "let...not..".
INDICATIVE JUSSIVE SUBJUNCTIVE
Viros bonos laudamus Viros bonos laudemus.
(We are praising good men.) (Let's praise good men.)
Veniunt. Veniant.
(They are coming.) (Let them come.)
Libros malos non legimus. Ne libros malos legamus.
(We don't read bad books.) (Let's not read bad books.)
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PURPOSE CLAUSES
A purpose clause is, as the name tells us, a subordinate clause
which explain the purpose for which the action in the main clause
was undertaken. English has basically two way to show purpose:
(1) infinitive, sometimes supplemented with "in order," and (2) a
subordinate clause introduce by "so that" or "so" or "in order
that" often with the conditional mood of the verb. Let's look at
the infinitive showing purpose first.
"She is coming to help (or in order to help)".
"They are sending him to tell you what to do".
"The dog has a long nose to smell better".
"In order to serve you better, our store has installed anti-
theft devices".
Now let's rewrite these sentences using method (2) -- as full
subordinate clauses with finite verbs:
"She is coming so that she may help".
"They are sending him so that he may tell you what to do".
"The dog has a long nose so that it may smell better".
"In order that we may serve you better, our store has
installed anti-theft devices".
Some of these may sound rather over-blown; our native English
sense leans toward simplicity. But there are many cases where we
must we the subordinate clause to show purpose. For example,
there is no way, short of considerable re-writing, to simplify
these purpose clauses down to infinitives.
"We are coming so that you won't have to work so hard".
"She is writing the paper so that you can leave early".
The Latin prose you're studying has only one way to show purpose:
a full subordinate clause introduced by "ut" or "ne" (the
negative) plus a finite verb in the subjunctive mood. It never
uses the infinitive to show purpose, the way English does. We
can translate the Latin purpose clause in whichever of the two
English purpose construction seems most natural to us, but never
try to translate an infinitive showing purpose in English
directly into a Latin infinitive.
Id facit ut eos adiuvet.
(He is doing it to help them [or in order to help them,
or so that he may help them].)
Veniunt ne civitates deleantur.
(They are coming so that the cities will not be
destroyed.)
Haec dicit ut discipuli omnia intellegant.
(He is saying these things so that the students will
understand everything.)
Multos libros legit ne stulta videatur.
(She reads many books so that she won't seem foolish.)
A FINAL WORD
"Real" Latin uses the subjunctive mood nearly as often as the
indicative mood, so, obviously, you must thoroughly master the
forms and the uses of the subjunctive. But beyond that, you must
also begin to read Latin, not word by word, but letter by letter.
You must strive to understand every tiny twist and turn of the
morphology of the verbs. As you know, the difference between an
indicative and subjunctive mood is very often just one letter; it
seems like a microscopic difference, but if you fail to note it,
your entire sentence will come grinding to a halt. I strongly
recommend that you first throw this book down for a few hours and
let it "cool" off. Next look over the vocabulary briefly, write
down the entire entry for each verb, and turn to the self-help
tutorials for this chapter, constantly checking the answers.
Then throw the book down. After a few hours -- or the next day -
- look over the vocabulary again, and start the assignment. You
simply must slow down some and watch your steps carefully as you
begin the subjunctive. If you get off the path now, you'll get
more and more lost in the future. By the end of Chapter 30,
you'll have studied all the forms of the subjunctive and many of
its most common uses -- and that's a pretty quick pace.
01/10/93
CHAPTER 29
"Imperfect Subjunctive; Present and Imperfect
Subjunctive of Sum and Possum; The Result Clause"
FORMATION OF THE IMPERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE
Wheelock tells you that the imperfect subjunctive is an easy form
to recognize and to produce. He tells you that it is, in effect,
the present active infinitive plus the personal endings, active
or passive. Although this may be a convenient way to look at it,
it isn't quite true. The actual morphology is just a little more
complicated, and, to spare yourself some confusion in the future,
you should learn the real history of the imperfect subjunctive.
The formula for the imperfect subjunctive is
1st principal part + se + personal endings
Because the "s" of the infix "se" will be intervocalic, it
changes to an "r," hence giving the appearance of the regular
active infinitive ending "-re". The personal endings are those
you use in the present system. (Use "-m" instead of "-o" in the
first person singular.) So for the first conjugations, the forms
look like this:
lauda + se + m = laudasem - laudarem
lauda + se + m = laudases - laudares
Let's have a look at the imperfect subjunctive in all its forms
in all the conjugations.
I. Laudo (1)
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
II. Moneo, -ere, monui, monitus
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
III. Duco, -ere, duxi, ductus
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
III i. Capio, -ere, cepi, captus
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
IV. Audio, -ire, audivi, auditus
ACTIVE PASSIVE
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
As you can see by looking back over these forms, the imperfect
subjunctive does in fact look like the present active infinitive
with personal endings attached. You can think of it this way if
you wish, provided that you're aware that this understanding will
have to be revised in the near future.
Wheelock also tells you that the imperfect subjunctive is used in
subordinate clause when the verb of the main clause is a past
tense. That's ture, but don't worry about it for now. You
should just be alerted to the fact that, just like participles
and infinitives, verb in the subjunctive mood don't have absolute
tense, but rather they express time relative to the tense of the
main verb. This will all be explained in Chapter 30. Your task
in this chapter is to learn to recognize an imperfect subjunctive
when you see it.
SUBJUNCTIVE OF "SUM" AND "POSSUM"
The present subjunctive of "sum" is the stem "si-" plus the
active personal endings. (No passive forms, obviously. What
would the verb "to be" mean in the passive voice?) The imperfect
subjunctive is the first principal part plus "se" plus the active
personal endings. Hence
es + se + m = essem
SUM, ESSE
PRESENT IMPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
As you no doubt recall, the verb "possum" in Latin is a compound
of the adjective "pot-" and the verb "sum". If you add the
"pot-" the present subjunctive of "sum," the "t" of "pot-" will
always assimilate to "s". Since all the forms of the present
subjunctive of "sum" begin with "s". The imperfect subjunctive
of "possum" is best thought of as the present infinitive plus
personal endings -- the present infinitive of "possum," that is,
which is "posse". Write out the present and imperfect
subjunctive of "possum".
POSSUM, POSSE
PRESENT IMPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
THE RESULT CLAUSE
A subordinate clause which shows the consequence or result of
something in the main clause is called, naturally enough, a
Result (or Consecutive) Clause. We often tip off our listener in
English that a Result Clause is comming up by inserting adverbs
like "so" or "such" in the main clause, and the result clause
itself is introduced by the subordinating conjunction "that".
"The eclipse made the sky so dark that it seemed like
night".
"They wrote so badly that no one could read the letter".
"She was such a good athlete that she easily jumped over the
fence".
Latin result clauses are also frequently anticipated by adverbs
or special adjectives in the main clause -- "ita, sic, tam,
tantus, -a, -um". The clause itself it introduced by "ut" when
the result clause is positive, and by "ut" with a negative in the
clause when the result is negated. The verb is put into the
subjunctive mood.
In the positive result clause, when "ut" is used as the
subordinating conjunction, you may think that some confusion
between a purpose and a result clause is possible: they're both
introduced by "ut" and have a subjunctive verb. This is true in
theory, but in practice it happens rarely. If you see "ita,"
"sic," "tam," or "tantus, -a, -um" in the main clause and an "ut"
clause, then you know for certain that the "ut" clause is a
result clause. In the majority of cases, result clauses are
anticipated somehow in the main clause. There is no possibility
of confusing a negative purpose clause with a negative result
clause. Negative purpose clauses are introduced with "ne;"
negative result clauses start with "ut" and then negate the verb
in the clause with "non," "numquam" etc., or by using a negative
pronoun such as "nemo".
Id sic fecerunt ut omnes metu liberarentur. ("They did it in
such a way that everyone was freed from fear".)
Scripserunt ita male ut nemo litteras legere posset. ("They
wrote so badly, that no one was able to read the letter".)
Tantum ferrum tenebat ut territi hostes fugerent. ("He was
holding such a great sword that the terrified enemy ran away".)
Wheelock gives you several examples in the chapter which show you
the difference between purpose and result clauses. You should
study them carefully -- and by all means work through his
self-help tutorials for this chapter. It takes a while for this
all to settle in.
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
ita, sic, tam The adverbs which anticipate result clauses are
not entirely interchangeable. "Sic" is used
primarily to qualify verbs: "Id sic fecit ut..".
The other two, "ita" and "tam" can qualify verbs,
adjectives or other adverbs: "Via erat tam [ita]
longa ut..". or "Tam [ita] male scripserunt ut..".
or "Id tam [ita] fecit ut..".
tantus, -a, -um This adjective for some reason always throws
students off at first. It means basically
"so great" but some flexibility is required
to get this over into smooth English. Study
carefully the way this adjective is used.
quidem It's an adverb meaning "indeed, certainly," and is
postpositive (it's never the first word in a
sentence or clause.) This poses no problem. But
the expression "ne...quidem" is sometimes
difficult to spot. "Ne X quidem" means "not even
X". Watch out for this. When you see "quidem,"
check to see whether there is a "ne" one word
back. If you miss this construction, you'll mess
up the sentence badly.
01/10/93
CHAPTER 30
"Perfect and Pluperfect Subjunctive Active and
Passive; Sequence of Tenses; Indirect Questions"
As the title indicates, this chapter has a lot of new information
it. I suggest that you try to digest it in two sittings: the
perfect system subjunctive and the sequence of tenses first, and
then the section on indirect questions -- which draws on the
first two topics.
PERFECT SYSTEM SUBJUNCTIVE
The perfect system tenses, as you know, are the perfect,
pluperfect and future perfect; they are built on the third
principal part of the verb (for the active voice) and the fourth
principal part (for the passive voice). In the subjunctive mood,
however, there is no future perfect tense -- just as there was no
future subjunctive in the present system. The subjunctive abhors
the future. So you'll be learning only two tenses of the
subjunctive for the perfect system: the perfect and the
pluperfect. As Wheelock tells you, and this can hardly be
overemphasized, verbs of all conjugations operate according to
the same rules in the perfect system, so you needn't look at
verbs of the different conjugations to know how they're going to
work. Once you get to the third and fourth principal parts of
the verbs, regardless of their original conjugations, there is
only one set of rules all verbs follow.
PERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE ACTIVE
The formula for the perfect subjunctive active is:
3rd principal part + eri + personal endings
The one oddity is that the personal endings used for the
subjunctive mood in the perfect system are not the endings you
learned for the perfect system in the indicative; the endings are
not "-i, -isti, -it, -imus, -istis, -erunt". The perfect system
subjunctive uses the same endings which are used in the present
system: "-m, -s, -t, -mus, -tis, -nt". Linguists use this fact
as evidence that the subjunctive mood is somehow closely related
to the present system of tenses.
PLUPERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE ACTIVE
The formula for the pluperfect subjunctive active is:
3rd principal part + isse + personal endings
As Wheelock tells you, this amounts to the perfect infinitive,
which is the third principal part + isse, with personal endings
attached to the end. Again, the personal endings are not "eram,
eras," etc.; they are "-m, -s," etc.
Let's look at the perfect and pluperfect subjunctive active
for a couple of verbs. Write out the forms for the following
verbs.
Duco, -ere, duxi, ductus
PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st ______________________ ______________________
2nd ______________________ ______________________
3rd ______________________ ______________________
1st ______________________ ______________________
2nd ______________________ ______________________
3rd ______________________ ______________________
Audio, -ire, audivi, auditus
PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st ______________________ ______________________
2nd ______________________ ______________________
3rd ______________________ ______________________
1st ______________________ ______________________
2nd ______________________ ______________________
3rd ______________________ ______________________
Rogo (1)
PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st ______________________ ______________________
2nd ______________________ ______________________
3rd ______________________ ______________________
1st ______________________ ______________________
2nd ______________________ ______________________
3rd ______________________ ______________________
FUTURE PERFECT INDICATIVE AND PERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE COMPARED
Wheelock warns you that the perfect subjunctive is very similar
to the future perfect indicative. Let's have a close look. The
future perfect indicative is built on the third principal part
and uses the future of the verb "sum" for its personal endings
(except for the third person plural, where it's "erint" and not
"erunt"). Compare the future perfect indicative with the perfect
subjunctive from the verb "laudo (1)".
FUTURE PERFECT INDICATIVE PERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE
1st ______________________ ______________________
2nd ______________________ ______________________
3rd ______________________ ______________________
1st ______________________ ______________________
2nd ______________________ ______________________
3rd ______________________ ______________________
As you can see, there is only one person in which these two
differ: the first person singular. In all the other forms, they
are identical. But you needn't despair. There is an easy way to
tell the difference between the future perfect indicative and the
perfect subjunctive. You simply look at the context. If you see
the form "laudaverint," for example, in a clause where the
subjunctive is required, then the form is perfect subjunctive.
If, on the other hand, you're in a clause where the subjunctive
is not called for, then the form is future perfect indicative.
It's as simple as that. You know of two subordinate clauses
which require the subjunctive already: purpose and result. In
the future you'll be gathering more. This is really the
simpliest way to work with subjunctives, since knowing when a
verb must be, or probably is, subjunctive greatly reduces the
amount of dictionary time spent looking up words. Take this
sentence, for example:
"Haec dixerunt ut hac sapientia uteremur".
You don't recognize the verb "uteremur," and just looking at it
in isolation, you can see that the conjugated form here could
have a number of possible sources. It could be
(1) present indicative from a 2nd conjugation verb with a
stem in "utere-"
(2) future tense indicative from a 3rd conjugation verb
with a stem in "utere-" (short "-e-")
(3) present subjunctive from a first conjugation verb, stem
"utera-"
(4) imperfect subjunctive from a 2nd conjugation verb, stem
"ute-"
(5) imperfect subjunctive from a 3rd conjugation verb, stem
"ute-"
But if you examine the context of the form, you'll notice that
it's in an "ut" clause, and since all "ut" clause you know so far
take the subjunctive, the verb must be in the subjunctive mood,
thus eliminating possibilities 1, 2, and 3. This is precisely
how Latin is read by even the most advanced readers -- only the
experienced reader goes through these steps almost
instantaneously. Let's move on.
PERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE PASSIVE
You recall that the perfect indicative passive is formed from the
fourth principal part (the perfect passive participle) with a
conjugated form of the verb "sum" in the present tense. The
perfect subjunctive passive is formed exactly the same way, only
the verb "sum" is in the subjunctive mood instead of the
indicative.
laudatus, -a, -um sim
PLUPERFECT SUBJUNCTIVE PASSIVE
How do you imagine Latin forms the pluperfect subjuctive passive?
Remember that the pluperfect indicative passive is the fourth
principal part (the perfect passive participle) with a conjugated
form of "sum" in the imperfect tense. Take a guess.
laudatus, -a, -um essem
Let's practice a couple of verbs in the perfect system passive
subjunctive.
Moneo, -ere,m monui, monitus
PERFECT PASSIVE PLUPERFECT PASSIVE
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
_______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
_______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
_______________
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
_______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
_______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
_______________
Praesto, -are, praestiti, praestitus
PERFECT PASSIVE PLUPERFECT PASSIVE
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
_______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
_______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
_______________
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
_______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
_______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
_______________
SEQUENCE OF TENSES
You now know all four tenses of the subjunctive mood -- there is
no future or future perfect of the subjunctive. Next you need to
know how these four tenses are used. First you need to recall
that verbs show absolute time only when in they're indicative
mood; in every other mood, verb show only time relative to the
verb in the indicative mood. Once again, only the indicative
mood shows real time; when verbs are in the infinitive,
participial or subjunctive mood, they can indicate only whether
their action takes place before, during, or after the action of
the main verb. The rules of the "sequence of tenses" tell you
which tense in the subjunctive mood shows which temporal
relationship. Let's be clear on this: the sequence of tenses are
rules that apply to dependent subjunctives (subjunctive verbs in
subordinate clauses) and only to dependent subjunctives. These
rules have nothing to do with participles or infinitives or any
other form of a verb which has relative tense. This is the
sequence of tense of dependent subjunctives only.
For the purposes of these rules, the tenses of the main verb of a
sentence are divided into two categories: the primary tenses, and
the secondary (or historical) tenses.
Primary Tenses: Present
Future
Future Perfect
Perfect
Secondary Tenses: Perfect
Imperfect
Pluperfect
This means that if the main verb is in one of the primary tenses,
then the sentence is in "primary sequence". If the main verb is
in one of the secondary tenses, then the sentence is in
"secondary sequence". Now the rules.
(1) In primary sequence
(a) a present subjunctive shows time contemporaneous
or it may show time subsequent to the action of
the main verb;
(b) a construction called the "active future
periphrastic" with the present subjunctive of the
verb "sum" may be used to show time subsequent to
the action of the main verb;
(c) a perfect subjunctive shows time prior to the
action of the main verb.
(2) In secondary sequence
(a) an imperfect subjunctive shows time
contemporaneous or it may show time subsequent to
the action of the main verb;
(b) the active future periphrastic with the imperfect
subjunctive of the verb "sum" may show time
subsequent to the action of the main verb;
(c) a pluperfect subjunctive shows time prior to the
action of the main verb.
Let's look at this another way:
MAIN VERB SUBORDINATE SUBJUNCTIVE TEMPORAL RELATIONSHIP
FUT. PERI. + SIM TIME AFTER
PRIMARY PRESENT SAME TIME OR AFTER
PERFECT TIME BEFORE
FUT. PERI. + ESSEM TIME AFTER
SECONDARY IMPERFECT SAME TIME OR AFTER
PLUPERFECT TIME BEFORE
Let's have a look at how this works (We'll skip the periphrastic
tenses for now.)
1. "Haec dicit ut pericula comprehendamus". (He is saying these
things, so that we may understand the dangers.)
2. "Via ita longa est ut ad urbem numquam veniant". (The road
is so long that they never come to the city.)
Both of these sentences are in primary sequence because the tense
of the main verb is one of the primary tenses. Therefore any
subordinate subjunctives in the sentence can be either in the
present or perfect tense: the present tense for action
contemporaneous or subsequent to the main verb, the perfect for
action prior. The subordinate clause in the first sentence "ut
pericula comprehendamus" obviously cannot be depicting an action
that occurred before the action of the main verb -- it we already
understood the dangers, then there would be no reason for him to
be speaking. Therefore the tense of the subjunctive is present.
In the second sentence, the result of an activity or state can
never be prior to the event or the state. Consequently, a result
clause, just a purpose clause, can never be prior to the action
of the main verb of the sentence. Therefore, "veniant" is a
present subjunctive, showing time contemporaneous or subsequent
to the main verb "est" in primary sequence.
Now let's change the sequence of these sentences from primary to
secondary by changing the tense of the main verb to one of the
secondary tenses: the imperfect. What will happen to the tense
of the subordinate subjunctives?
1. Haec dicebat ut pericula ____________________.
2. Via ita longa erat ut ad urbem numquam ____________________.
The temporal relationships of the subordinate subjunctive and the
main verb are still the same: they're both still showing time
contemporaneous or subsequent. But now we're in secondary
sequence, so the tense of the subjunctive must change to the
imperfect, since the imperfect subjunctive shows time
contemporaneous or subsequent in subordinate subjunctives in
secondary sequence. The forms will be "comprehenderemus" and
"venirent". You'll see many more examples of this soon.
INDIRECT QUESTIONS
The title of this section tells it all: just as statements can be
the object of a verb -- becoming "indirect" statements -- so also
direct questions can be objects of verbs -- becoming indirect
questions. Here are some example of how this is done in English.
Rewrite these direct questions as indirect questions after the
leading verb "I wonder".
DIRECT QUESTIONS:
(a) "What are you doing"?
(b) "Why are they here"?
(c) "Are you coming"?
(d) "How is this done"?
INDIRECT QUESTIONS:
(a) I wonder _________________________________________________.
(b) I wonder _________________________________________________.
(c) I wonder ________________________________________________.
(d) I wonder _________________________________________________.
Notice the the original direct question is changed very little
when we make it indirect. The only change we make in English is
to "uninvert" the subject and verb: from "what are you doing" to
"what you are doing". Let's look at some more complicated
examples of indirect question in English, because sometimes more
of a change is required to go from direct to indirect questions.
Let's your native English sensitivities guide you in the
following examples.
DIRECT QUESTIONS:
(a) "Did you see her"?
(b) "When will he come to help us"?
(c) "How many times have they told you this"?
(d) "What kind of trouble were they in"?
INDIRECT QUESTIONS:
(a) I wanted to know
_______________________________________________________.
(b) She asked
_______________________________________________________.
(c) They couldn't say
_______________________________________________________.
(d) They don't remember
_______________________________________________________.
As you can see, when the tenses start varying, the original
direct question is often reshaped when it becomes indirect.
Notice also that there is a variety of verbs which can introduce
indirect question -- not just verbs which are asking a question
like "to ask" to "inquire" etc.
In Latin, as in English, an indirect question is a finite
construction -- that is, the verb of the indirect question has
person. This is unlike the indirect statement in Latin, where
the original finite verb becomes an infinitive, and the original
nominative subject becomes the accusative subject of the
infinitive. The mood of the original verb, however, changes from
the indicative to the subjunctive. Here are some simple examples
to show you how this works.
Dir. Quest.: Cur venis? (Why are you coming?)
Indir. Quest.: Nescio cur venias. (I don't
know why
you're
coming.)
Dir. Quest.: Veniuntne nostri amici? (Are our
friends
coming?)
Indir. Quest.: Rogat veniantne nostri amici. (He is asking
whether our
friends are
coming.)
Dir. Quest.: Quanta pericula sunt? (How great are the
dangers?)
Indir. Quest.: Video quanta pericula sint. (Now I see how great
the dangers are.)
OBSERVING SEQUENCE OF TENSE IN INDIRECT QUESTION
As you can see, a sentence with an indirect question embedded in
it is essentially a complex sentence, with a subordinate
subjunctive in a dependent clause. The part of the sentence
which introduces the indirect question is the main clause, and
the indirect question itself is a subordinate clause, in which
the verb happens to be in the subjunctive verb. So, because this
question involves a dependent subjunctive, the rules of the
sequence of tenses come into play.
You remember that the tense of the main verb determines the
sequence of the sentences, and hence determines the tenses
subordinate subjunctives in the sentence can be in. If the main
verb is in one of the primary tenses, then the sentence follows
the primary sequence: the subordinate subjunctives can be in the
present or perfect tenses. If the main verb is in one of the
secondary tenses, then the sentence follows the secondary
sequence: the subordinate subjunctives can be in the imperfect or
pluperfect tenses. Now let's apply these rules to indirect
questions.
TIME CONTEMPORANEOUS
When the indirect question is depicting an event that is
conceived of as contemporaneous with the action of the main verb,
then the subordinate subjunctive is either in the present tense
(primary sequence) or in the imperfect tense (secondary
sequence).
(a) "Nescio quid facias"? (I don't know what you're doing.)
(b) "Nescivi quid faceres"? (I didn't know what you were
doing.)
(c) "Rogat veniantne nostri amici". (He asks whether our
friends are coming.)
(d) "Rogaverunt venirentne nostri amici"? (They asked whether
our friends were coming.)
TIME PRIOR
When the indirect question is depicting an event that is
conceived of as having been undertaken before the action of the
main verb, then the subordinate subjunctive is either in the
perfect tense (primary sequence) or in the pluperfect tense
(secondary sequence).
(a) "Nescio quid feceris". (I don't know what you did.)
(b) "Nescivi quid fecisses". (I didn't know what you had done
(or did).)
(c) "Rogat venerintne nostri amici". (He asks whether our
friends came.)
(d) "Rogaverunt venissentne nostri amici". (They asked whether
our friends had come (or came).)
TIME SUBSEQUENT (AFTER)
When the indirect question is depicting an event that is
conceived as coming after the action of the main verb, then the
subordinate subjunctive is the active future periphrastic with
the present subjunctive of "sum" in the present tense (primary
sequence) or the active future periphrastic with the imperfect
subjunctive of "sum".
(a) "Nescio quid facturus sis". (I don't know what you will do
(you're going to do).)
(b) "Nescivi quid facturus esses". (I didn't know what you were
going to do (would do).)
(c) "Rogat sintne venturi nostri amici". (He asks whether our
friends will come (are going to come).)
(d) "Rogaverunt essentne venturi nostri amici". (They asked
whether our friends were coming (would come).)
Let's summarize all this in one place:
PRIMARY SEQUENCE
quid facturus sis (what you will do)
Nescio quid facias (what you are doing)
quid feceris (what you did)
sintne venturi nostri amici (whether our friends will
come)
Rogo veniuntne nostri amici (whether our friends are
coming)
venerintne nostri amici (whether our friends came)
SECONDARY SEQUENCE
quid facturus esses (what you would do)
Nescivi quid faceres (what you were
doing)
quid fecisses (what you did)
essentne venturi nostri amici
(whether our friends would come)
Rogavi venerentne nostri amici (whether our friends were
coming)
venissentne nostri amici (whether our friends had
come)
SOME ADDITIONAL WORK
It's going to take some time, and a lot of practice, to master
all the material in this chapter. I suggest you start by working
through Wheelock's answered exercises for this chapter. Read the
entire sentence before you get down to translating it. Pass you
eyes over every word of it, and don't top until you get to the
end of the setnece. Try to size up the architecture of the
sentence. Identify the main clause, the main verb, look for
subordinate clauses and try to identify them as relative,
purpose, result, indirect statement, indirect question, etc.
Once you've seen the entire sentence, and once you have a feel
for where all the parts of it are heading, then you can begin the
work of translating with greater direction. Struggle with the
sentence for a while before you look up the answers. Try to make
them make sense. (And constantly ask youself what sequence of
tense the sentence is following.)
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
cognosco The "-sc-" inserted before the ending of the verb
is call the "inceptive" or "inchoative" infix. It
denotes the sense that the action of the verb is
only in the process of being realized or in the
very beginning stages. "Cognosco," therefore,
means "to get to know" or "to become acquainted
with," not "to know". In the perfect tense, the
verb means "to have gotten to know" or "to have
become acquainted with," and this amounts to our
present tense "to know". Therefore, we translate
"cognovi" not "I knew" but "I know" ("I got
know.").
comprehendo Look at the range of meanings for this verb. All
the meanings are related to the idea of getting
hold of something. Also, check the third
principal part, "comprehendi". Some of the forms
of the perfect tense will be identical to those of
the present tense: "comprehendit" (he grasps), and
"comprehendit" (he grasped); "comprehendimus" (we
grasped), and "comprehendimus" (we grasped).
01/10/93
CHAPTER 31
"Cum with the Subjunctive; Fero"
CUM AS A SUBORDINATING CONJUNCTION
You're already well-acquainted with the preposition "cum" +
ablative case, meaning "with". There is also a word "cum" which
is not a preposition at all, but a subordinating conjunction.
Even though "cum" the conjunction looks exactly like "cum" the
preposition, the two words actually have different histories.
They are not the same word at all. The difficulty with
translating the conjunction "cum" is that it has a wide variety
of meanings and can take either the indicative or the subjunctive
mood in its clause.
Even though we can distinguish some broad classes of meanings, it
is still difficult sometimes to tell just which one of them "cum"
is using in a given sentence, and therefore which of our several
English conjunctions will best translate it. In this respect,
"cum" is is similar to our conjunction "as", which has quite a
range of meanings, and at times seems to be using many of them
all at once. For example,
"As I was coming in the door, I saw my friend".
Does this sentence mean "I saw my friend because I was coming in
the door" or does it mean "I saw my friend while I was coming in
the door". It's hard to say, and in fact both could be true at
the same time. For if I hadn't been coming in the door at that
time I wouldn't have seen my friend. This same kind of fusion of
meanings exists for the conjunction "cum", so it will take some
sensitivity to the context for you to come up with an accurate
translation for "cum".
There are two categories of meanings for "cum": (a) strictly
temporal (when); (b) circumstantial (as, whereas, since, because,
although). When "cum" is temporal, the mood of the verb in its
clause is often indicative. It is almost always indicative when
the tense of the verb in the main clause is present or future
tense. When the tense of the main verb is one of the past
tenses, then the mood of the "cum" clause is most often
subjunctive. But when the "cum" clause is circumstantial, then
the mood of its verb is always subjunctive.
A circumstantial "cum" clause can be translated as "since",
"because", and "although". This may seem odd, because "although"
indicates that there is an incompatibility between the
subordinate and main clauses -- that given the circumstances of
the subordinate clause, the event in the main should not take
place. We call a clause like this "concessive". "Because" and
"since", however, indicate a direct causal link between the
subordinate and main clauses. How can the same subordinating
conjunction denote two such disparate relations? And how will
you know which is being represented in a given "cum" clause?
The answer to the first question isn't easy, but perhaps it will
help to remember that a "cum" clause is generally circumstantial
-- it merely sets a backdrop for the the action in the main
clause -- without spelling out what the relationship is between
them. You've already seen in participles and ablative absolute
constructions that Latin tends to be much less insistent about
specifying the exact logical or temporal relationship between
subordinate and main elements in its sentences. The answer to
the second question is that you must rely on context to tell you
which of the relationships is the more plausible. That is,
admittedly, somewhat unsatisfactory, but often that is all we'll
have to go by. Very often, however, Latin will help the reader
along by inserting a "tamen" or some other such word in the main
clause if the "cum" clause is meant to be taken as concessive.
Obviously there's more here than you really need to know to get
started with "cum" clauses -- and there is still more you'll have
to know to read Latin at advanced levels. For your needs, at
your stage in Latin, you should know that "cum" clauses are
either temporal or circumstantial, have a range of possible
meanings which you must consider, and may take the indicative of
the subjunctive mood. But when it does employ the subjunctive
mood, "cum" clauses must observe the sequence of tenses, which
govern the tenses of subordinate subjunctives. Let's look at
several examples of the different "cum" clauses.
(a) "Cum responderit [fut. perf.], omnia intellegetis".
This "cum" clause is temporal, and because the subjunctive
isn't being used, the sequence of tenses doesn't apply. Tr.
"When he answers (will have answered), you will understand
everything".
(b) "Cum respondisset, omnia intellexistis".
Now the "cum" clause is subjunctive, so we have to bring in
the rules governing the tenses of subordinate subjunctives.
Since the sentence is in secondary sequence because of the
tense of the main verb, the pluperfect subjunctive in thhe
"cum" clause show time prior. Tr. "Because he had answered,
you understood everything", or "When he had answered..". or
"Since he had answered..".
(c) "Cum respondisset, non tamen intellexistis".
Here the "tamen" tells us that the "cum" clause is not
causal or temporal but concessive. Tr. "Although he
answered, you still (nevertheless) did not understand".
(d) "Cum responderet, non aderatis".
In secondary sequence -- "ad + eratis" -- the imperfect
subjunctive of the subordinate subjunctive "responderet"
shows contemporaneous time. Tr. "When he was answering, you
were not present".
(e) "Cum responderit, omnia iam intellegitis".
In primary sequence the perfect subjunctive shows time
prior. Tr. "Because he answered, you now understand
everything".
THE IRREGULAR VERB FERO, FERRE, TULI, LATUS
"Fero" is a very widely-used verb in Latin, as its stem shows up
in more than a dozen compound verbs. It's important to master it
thoroughly right now, otherwise it will haunt you for as long as
you read Latin. Just by looking at the principal part of the
verb, you can tell that the verb "fero" is going to be unlike any
verb you've seen before. The verb is third conjugation, so the
stem of the verb in the present system is "fere-", with a short
"-e-" thematic vowel. For the most part, the verb conjugates
just like a regular third conjugation verb.
If you look at the second principal part, however, the thematic
vowel "-e-" is missing: the infinitive ending "-re" is added to
"fer-" not to "fere-". Hence the infinitive form "ferre" instead
of "ferere". This is the main irregularity of the verb "fero".
In the present tense, the thematic vowel is dropped before some
endings. The thematic vowel -- a short "e" -- is dropped before
endings that begin with the letters "r"",s", or "t". Keeping
this in mind, try to write out the present system active and
passive.
I. PRESENT SYSTEM
A. INDICATIVE ACTIVE
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
Did you get them all? As you can see, the irregularity does not
apply at all to the future and imperfect tenses, where the
intervening vowels and tense signs come between the stem and the
personal endings that would have produced the irregularity. Now
the passive voice in the present system indicative.
B. INDICATIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
Once again, the irregularity of the disappeaaring thematic vowel
is restricted to the present tense where there is no tense vowel
between the stem and the personal endings. Let's look now at the
present system subjunctive active.
C. SUBJUNCTIVE ACTIVE
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
The present subjunctive uses the vowel "-a-" as its mood sign, so
the endings are not added directly to the stem. No
irregularities here. It looks just like a normal third
conjugation verb in the present subjunctive. But look at the
imperfect subjunctive. The formula for all imperfect
subjunctives is: stem + "se" + personal endings. The "-s-" of
the mood sign becomes intervocalic and turns to an "-r-" and
"-r-" is one of those consonants the stem vowel doesn't like. So
the base form for the imperfect subjunctive becomes "ferre-".
And that looks just like the active infinitive. Now the present
system of tenses in subjunctive passive.
D. SUBJUNCTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
II. PERFECT SYSTEM
The perfect system, because it is formed from the third and
fourth principal parts, is enitrely regular (except that third
and fourth principal parts are themselves unusual suppletive
forms). For the sake of thoroughness, and to prove to you that
the verb is not so irregular as you may think, write out the
perfect system for the verb "fero".
A. INDICATIVE ACTIVE
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
B. INDICATIVE PASSIVE
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
C. SUBJUNCTIVE ACTIVE
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
D. SUBJUNCTIVE PASSIVE
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
Finally, we should have a look at the imperative, participial,
and infinitive moods.
III. IMPERATIVES
Sing. ____________________
Plur. ____________________
IV. PARTICIPLES
ACTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT ____________________
FUTURE ____________________ ____________________
PERFECT ____________________
V. INFINITIVES
ACTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT ____________________ ____________________
FUTURE ____________________ [____________________]
PERFECT ____________________ ____________________
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
Confero, conferre, contuli, collatus
As I warned you, the verb "fero" is used in a great number
of compound verbs -- prepositional prefixes added to verb
roots. Here the preposition "cum" is prefixed to the root
"fero", rendering the meaning "to bring together", or "to
bring together for comparison". Look at the fourth
principal part of this verb. It's not "conlatus" as you may
expect, but the "-n-" of the prefix assimilates to the "-l-"
of the verbal stem. You've got to be on the look out for
this, because if you saw the form "collatus" in your reading
and tried to look it up under "colfero" you wouldn't find
it. You've got to get good at recognizing the stem "lat-"
from "fero" and then allowing yourself some flexibility at
coming up with the right prefix.
Se conferre
A verb common idiom with the "confero" is to use the
reflexive pronoun to mean "to go" (lit. "to betake
oneself"). So "me confero" means "I go", "te confers" means
"you go", "nos conferimus" means "We go", "Vos contulistis"
means "you went", etc.
Offero, offerre, obtuli, oblatus
It means "to offer", obviously, but look at the third and
fourth principal parts: the prefix has been replaced by
"ob-". You must simply remember this.
01/10/93
CHAPTER 32
"Adverbs: Formation and Comparison; Volo"
ADVERBS
Adverbs, of course, are words which modify verbs; that is, they
tell you something about the way in which, or the conditions
under which, the action of the verb is undertaken: "quickly",
"stupidly", "easily", "suddenly" and so forth. And because they
don't agree with their verb in any way, adverbs don't decline or
take on a variety of endings to match them with their verbs.
The adverbs you've been working with up to now are, shall we say,
"obvious" adverbs. Adverbs like "tamen" or "tum" aren't
morphologically related at all to any other words in any way.
They aren't derived from adjectives or nouns; they are only
adverbs. But if you look at an English adverb like "quickly",
you can clearly see how this is a form derived from the adjective
"quick". To turn it into an adverb, English simply attaches the
ending "-ly".
This may not seem like a monumental discovery, but it does have
an important consequence. Since "quickly" is a form which is
derivable from "quick" according to a rather straight-forward
rule of English grammar, an English dictionary will not list
"quickly" as a separate word. You'll find it mentioned in
passing only under the entry for "quick", which is its ancestor,
so to speak.
Latin also has a set of rules for deriving adverbs from
adjectives, and it is important that you know them -- for the
same reason it's important to know the English rules of creating
adverbs from adjectives: because an adverb which is a derived
form from an adjective will not be given a separate dictionary
listing. To look up a derived adverb, you'll first have
deconstruct it, by undoing the rules that made it an adverb in
the first place. You have to reduce the adverb to the original
adjective; then you can look the adjective up. Once you have the
meaning of the adjective, then you can go back to your sentence
and "adverbize" the meaning of the adjective. Let's get started.
Just as there are three degrees of adjectives, so also there are
three degrees of adverbs. An adverb in the positive degree is
formed off the positive degree stem of the adjective; the
comparative degree of the adverb is formed from the comparative
degree stem of the adjective; and the superlative degree of the
adverb is formed from the superlative degree stem of the
adjective. As a brief refresher, here are the rules for forming
the degrees of adjectives.
COMPARATIVE DEGREE OF ADJECTIVES
stem + -ior, -ius
ADJECTIVE STEM COMPARATIVE DEGREE
longus, -a, -um long- longior, -ius
miser, -a, -um miser- miserior, -ius
pulcher, -chra, -chrum pulchr- pulchrior, -ior
acer, acris, acre acr- acrior, -ius
fortis,-e fort- fortior, -ius
SUPERLATIVE DEGREE OF ADJECTIVES
A. For adjectives whose stem does not end in "-r"
stem + -issimus, -a, -um
ADJECTIVE STEM SUPERLATIVE DEGREE
longus, -a, -um long- longissimus, -a, -um
fortis, -e fort- fortissimus, -a, -um
potens, -ntis potent- potentissmus, -a, um
B. For adjectives whose stem ends in "-r"
stem + -rimus, -a, -um
ADJECTIVE STEM SUPERLATIVE FORM
miser, -a, -um miser- miserrimus, -a, -um
pulcher, -chra, -chrum pulcher- pulcherrimus, -a, um
acer, acris, acre acer- acerrimus, -a, -um
C. For the six exceptions whose stem ends in "-l":
similis, -e; dissimilis, -e; facilis, -e; difficilis,
-e; gracilis, -e; humilis, -e.
stem + -limus, -a, -um
ADJECTIVE STEM SUPERLATIVE FORM
facilis, -e facil- facillimus, -a, -um
similis, -e simil- simillimus, -a, -um
Of course, you mustn't forget the adjectives, most of them very
common, which form their degrees irregularly.
POSITIVE COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE
bonus, -a, -um melior, -ius optimus, -a, -um
magnus, -a, -um maior, -ius maximus, -a, -um
malus, -a, -um peior, -ius pessimus, -a, -um
multus, -a, -um -----, plus plurimus, -a, -um
parvus, -a, -um minor, minus minimus, -a, -um
--------------- prior, -ius primus, -a, -um
superus, -a, -um superior, -ius summus, -a, -um
supremus, -a, -um
ADVERBS IN THE POSITIVE DEGREE
Now let's have a look at how Latin "adverbized" an adjective. In
English, as you know, we can easily turn most adjectives into
adverbs simply by added "-ly" to the stem: "quickly", "speedily",
"ferociously", et cetera. In Latin, to form an adverb in the
positive degree, you start with the stem of the positive degree
of the adjective.
For adverbs derived from adjectives of the first and second
declension, the rule is simple:
stem + -e
For adverbs derived from third declension adjectives:
stem + -iter
For adverbs derived from third declension adjectives whose stem
ends in "-nt-":
stem + -er
This is fairly easy, but let's try a few exercises: Form the
positive degree of the following adverbs.
ADJECTIVE STEM POSITIVE ADVERB
acer, -cris, -re________________________________________
sapiens, -ntis________________________________________
fortis, -e ____________________ ____________________
iucundus, -a, -um________________________________________
liber, -a, -um________________________________________
clarus, -a, -um________________________________________
celer, -is, -e________________________________________
COMPARATIVE DEGREE OF ADVERBS
In English, we compare adverbs by using the word "more" placed in
front of the adverb in the positive degree: "more quickly".
Latin forms a comparative adverb simply by using the comparative
adjective in the neuter accusative singular form. So to say
"more beautifully", or "rather beautifully", or "too
beautifully", Romans said "pulchrius". Let's try a few out.
ADJECTIVE STEM COMPARATIVE ADVERB
acer, -cris, -re________________________________________
sapiens, -ntis________________________________________
fortis, -e ____________________ ____________________
iucundus, -a, -um________________________________________
liber, -a, -um________________________________________
clarus, -a, -um________________________________________
celer, -is, -e________________________________________
SUPERLATIVE DEGREE OF ADVERBS
The English superlative adverb is "most" plus the adverb in the
positive degree. To form the superlative degree of an adverb,
you simply use the stem of the superlative degree of the
adjective and add a "-e". To say "most beautifully", or "very
beautifully", Romans said "pulcherrime". Let's have a look.
ADJECTIVE STEM SUPERLATIVE ADVERB
acer, -cris, -re________________________________________
sapiens, -ntis________________________________________
fortis, -e ____________________ ____________________
iucundus, -a, -um________________________________________
liber, -a, -um________________________________________
clarus, -a, -um________________________________________
celer, -is, -e________________________________________
DRILLS
Write out the positive, comparative and superlative degree
adverbs derived from the following adjectives.
ADJECTIVE POSITIVE COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE
longus, -a, -um ________________________________________________
miser, -a, -um ________________________________________________
pulcher, -chra, -chrum ________________________________
________________
felix, -icis ________________________________________________
potens, -ntis ________________________________________________
facilis, -e ________________________________________________
DEGREES OF ADVERBS FROM IRREGULAR ADJECTIVES
As you know, there are some common adjectives which form their
degrees irregularly. We would hope that the adverbs would just
use the irregular stems to form their degrees. And sometimes
that's what happens. But sometimes other irregularities start to
creep in. Let's look at them. Here are some of irregular
adjectives in their three degrees. Try to write them out first
on your own.
IRREGULAR ADJECTIVES
ADJECTIVE POSITIVE COMPARATIVE SUPERLATIVE
bonus, -a, -um____________________________________________________________
malus, -a, -um____________________________________________________________
magnus, -a, -um____________________________________________________________
multus, -a, -um____________________________________________________________
parvus, -a, -um____________________________________________________________
(prae, pro)____________________________________________________________
1. From bonus, -a, -um
Starting with "bonus, -a, -um", if we were to follow the
rules for deriving the positive degree adverb, we'd get a
form like this: "bone". And that's pretty close to the
actual form "ben". The comparative degree of the adjective
is "melior, -ius", so, following the standard rules, what
would be the comparative adverb? The rule says to use the
neuter, accusative singular of the comparative adjective for
the comparative adverb, so the form would be "melius". And
that is in fact the real form. For the superlative, the
form of the adverb would be "optime", and that's what the
real form is. Now fill in the spaces in the table above
with the degree of the adverb derived from "bonus".
2. From malus, -a, -um
The adverbs derived from "malus" are entirely regular --
once you remember the irregular degrees of the adjective
itself. Fill in the next row of blanks.
3. From magnus, -a, -um
The adverbs in the positive and comparative degrees from
"magnus" a very odd: "magnopere" for the positive degree
(not "magne") and "magis" for the comparative degree (not
"maius"). But the superlative degree follows the rules.
Fill them in.
4. From multus, -a, -um
The adverbs from "multus" are odd, too. Just "multum" for
the adverb in the positive degree, "plus" for the
comparative degree, and "plurimum" (not the expected
"plurime") in the superlative degree.
5. From parvus, -a, -um
The adverbs from "parvus" follow the rule, except for the
positive degree, where we have "parum", instead of "parve".
6. From prior, -ius
As you might expect, there is no adverb for "before"; Latin
instead uses a subordinating conjunction and a subordinate
clause for that. The comparative degree of the adverb is
regular; the superlative degree is either "primum" or
"primo", (not "prime").
7. "For a long (longer) (longest) time"
Wheelock also shows you degree of an adverbs which means
"for a long time", "for rather long time", and "for a very
long time". This adverb is not derived from an adjective,
but it does show degrees as if it were. Besides, it's a
very common adverb, so you need to recognize it:
diu diutius diutissime
8. Magnopere, magis, maxime
Wheelock gives you another set of adverbs which are also
derived from the adjective "multus, -a, -um". The meanings
are straight-foward enough -- "greatly, more, and most" --
but there is a fine distinction is usage of these forms from
the other adverbs derived from "multus", "multum, plus, and
plurimum". In the comparative, "plus" is used to compare
amounts of action undertaken: "Video plus quam tu" (I see
more than you). "Magis", however, is used to compare
certain adjectives: "Hoc idoneum est quam illud" (This is
more suitable than that.) This may seem odd, because you
learned in Chapter 26 that comparative adjectives are formed
by adding the suffixes "-ior, -ius" to the stem. This rules
holds except for adjectives whose stem ends in "-e-", as
"idoneus, -a, -um" does. These adjectives use the
comparative adverb "magis" to form their comparative degree.
Similiarly, the superlative degree of these adjectives is
"maxime" plus the positive degree. (You won't see "magis"
or "maxime" much in this book.)
THE IRREGULAR VERB Volo, velle, volui, -----
The verb "to wish" has some irregularities in the present system
of tenses, it has no passive voice in either the present or the
perfect system. (Hence no fourth principal part.) The perfect
system active, however, is entirely regular. Unfortunately,
there isn't any way to predict or explain many of these oddities,
so you simply must memorize them. Basically "volo" is a third
conjugation verb, so you should be noting how it differs from a
regular third conjugation verb. That will give you some standard
against which to compare it. In the following tables, I'll fill
in the irregular forms; you fill in the rest.
I. THE PRESENT SYSTEM
(a) Indicative
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st ____________________________________________________________
2nd vis ________________________________________
3rd vult ________________________________________
1st volumus ________________________________________
2nd vultis ________________________________________
3rd ____________________________________________________________
(b) Subjunctive
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st velim vellem
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
II. PERFECT SYSTEM
(a) Indicative
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st ____________________________________________________________
2nd ____________________________________________________________
3rd ____________________________________________________________
1st ____________________________________________________________
2nd ____________________________________________________________
3rd ____________________________________________________________
(b) Subjunctive
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
III. INFINITIVES
ACTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT ____________________
PERFECT ____________________
FUTURE
IV. PARTICIPLES
ACTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT ____________________
PERFECT
FUTURE
V. IMPERATIVES (No imperative forms)
THE RELATED IRREGULAR VERBS Nolo AND Malo
The two irregular verbs "nolo" (not to want) and "malo" (to
prefer) are derivatives of "volo". "Nolo" is a kind of
contraction of "ne + volo", meaning literally "I don't want", and
"malo" comes from "magis + volo", meaning literally "I wish
more". Because these verbs are so closely related, therefore, to
the irregular verb "volo", Wheelock thinks it right to put them
together in the same chapter. Why not?
Write out the conjugations of these two verbs. Again, I'll put
in the irregular forms; you should be able to produce the forms
that aren't irregular on your own.
Nolo, nolle, nolui, -----
I. THE PRESENT SYSTEM
(a) Indicative
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st ____________________________________________________________
2nd non vis ________________________________________
3rd non vult ________________________________________
1st nolumus ________________________________________
2nd non vultis ________________________________________
3rd ____________________________________________________________
(b) Subjunctive
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st nolim nollem
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
II. PERFECT SYSTEM
(a) Indicative
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st ____________________________________________________________
2nd ____________________________________________________________
3rd ____________________________________________________________
1st ____________________________________________________________
2nd ____________________________________________________________
3rd ____________________________________________________________
(b) Subjunctive
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
III. INFINITIVES
ACTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT ____________________
PERFECT ____________________
FUTURE
IV. PARTICIPLES
ACTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT ____________________
PERFECT
FUTURE
V. IMPERATIVES
SINGULAR noli
PLURAL nolite
Malo, malle, malui, -----
I. THE PRESENT SYSTEM
(a) Indicative
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st ____________________________________________________________
2nd mavis ________________________________________
3rd mavult ________________________________________
1st malumus ________________________________________
2nd mavultis ________________________________________
3rd ____________________________________________________________
(b) Subjunctive
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st malim mallem
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
II. PERFECT SYSTEM
(a) Indicative
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st ____________________________________________________________
2nd ____________________________________________________________
3rd ____________________________________________________________
1st ____________________________________________________________
2nd ____________________________________________________________
3rd ____________________________________________________________
(b) Subjunctive
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
1st ____________________ ____________________
2nd ____________________ ____________________
3rd ____________________ ____________________
III. INFINITIVES
ACTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT ____________________
PERFECT ____________________
FUTURE
IV. PARTICIPLES (No participles)
V. IMPERATIVES (No imperative forms)
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
divitiae, -arum (f) The noun has no singular forms, and students
often confuse this noun with adjective
"dives, divitis (ditis)" meaning "wealthy
rich".
dives, divitis (ditis) This is a third declension adjective of
one termination, which also has two
possible stems: "divit-" or "dit-". You
must work hard to keep the form derived
from the stem "divit-" and the noun for
"riches" ("divitiae, -arum (f)")
distinct.
pauper, pauperis Another third declension adjective of one
termination. It is very often used to mean
"a poor person", or "the poor".
par, paris Once again, a third declension adjective of
one termination. Don't confuse this with the
noun "pars, partis (f)". "Par" means "equal"
and takes the dative case: "equal to".
(Remember the parisyllabic (equal syllable)
rule?)
honor, -oris (m) It very often means "public office"; a
position with the government.
lex, legis (f) Wheelock reminds you to contrast (c.p.)
"lex", which means a written law, with "ius",
which means "right, justice" Not all rights
become written law, and justice is often not
entirely recognized in law. "Leges" attempt
to codify "iura", but they don't always
succeed.
01/10/93
CHAPTER 33
"Conditions"
To understand conditions and conditional sentences, we need
some specialized terminology. There is no easy way to do this,
so you're going to have to spend some time up front getting
familiar with them. After a basic introduction to conditional
sentences, we'll look at conditional sentences in Latin and their
formulae.
CONDITIONAL STATEMENTS IN ENGLISH
A conditional sentence has two parts: the subordinate "if"
clause, called the "protasis" (PRAH ta sis) of the condition, and
the main "then" clause, called the "apodosis" (a PAH da sis) of
the condition. The protasis states the condition under which the
main clause will be (will not be), is being (is not being), or
was (was not), fulfilled:
PROTASIS APODOSIS
If it is raining outside then the grass is wet.
If you saw him yesterday then he must have been here.
There are basically two kinds of conditional sentences,
categorized by the expectation the speaker has concerning the
possibility of the fulfillment of the condition stated in the
protasis:
OPEN OR SIMPLE CONDITIONS
A. The speaker may be making no implication as to whether the
condition was (not), is (not) being, or will (not) be,
fulfilled. These conditions are called "open" or "simple"
conditions.
1. "If x approaches 0, then the value of f(x) approaches
infinity."
(Notice that the speaker is not implying that it is doubtful
that x is approaching 200, but if it is, then the apodosis
holds true.
2. "If you saw him yesterday, then he was here."
(The speaker is not doubting or suggesting that you did not
see him yesterday, but if you did, then he was here.)
3. "If you come tomorrow, I will be happy."
(Again, the speaker is not saying that it is unlikely that
you will come tomorrow, but if you do, then... When a
simple or open condition applies to a future event, it is
often called the "future-more-vivid," or the "future real"
condition.)
UNREAL CONDITIONS
B. The speaker may be implying or explicitly stating that the
condition stated in the protasis will not be, is not, or was
not fulfilled. These category of conditions are sometimes
called the "unreal" conditions, and are further broken down
into the time to which the conditions are being applied.
1. When the protasis applies to a future event, these
conditions are called "future-less-vivid," "future
unreal" or "should-would" condition.
"If you should come (or were to come) tomorrow, then I would
be happy."
(The speaker doubts that you will come, but if you should,
then he would be happy.)
2. When an unreal condition pertains to a present
condition that is not being fulfilled, it is called the
"present contrary-to-fact" condition.
"If you were eight and a half feet tall, you would be a
great basketball player."
(But you are not eight feet tall, so you are not a great
basketball player. But if you were...)
3. When an unreal condition pertains to a past condition
that was not fulfilled, it is called the "past
contrary-to-fact" condition.
"If George had been there, we would have won the game."
(But he was not there, so we did not win the game. But if
he had been there...)
Let's summarize the basic formulae for English conditional
sentences. Notice that it is the change in tense and mood in the
protasis which indicates the kind of condition of the sentences.
I. Simple or Open Conditions
PROTASIS APODOSIS CONDITION
pres. indic. fut. indic. FUTURE MORE VIVID
pres. indic. pres. indic. PRESENT SIMPLE
past. indic. past indic. PAST SIMPLE
II. Unreal (and Contrary to Fact) Conditions
PROTASIS APODOSIS CONDITION
should, were to would FUTURE LESS VIVID
imperf. indic. would PRESENT CONTRARY TO FACT
plperf. indic. would have PAST CONTRARY TO FACT
REVIEW
Classify the following conditional statements:
1. I will be most appreciative if you try your best on the
exam. [We often omit the "then" of the apodosis.]
_________________________
2. If Captain Kangaroo said it, it must have been true.
_________________________
3. If the bendix drive is bent, the car will not start.
_________________________
4. If the song were in the key of G flat minor, then you would
be singing the right note.
_________________________
5. Had I known that the teacher would be back next term, I
would not have written such acidic comments on the course
review.
_________________________
CONDITIONAL STATEMENTS IN LATIN
The same classification of conditional sentences which you
just learned for English conditions applies to Latin conditions
as well. Here is a table of the formulae for standard Latin
conditions.
I. OPEN OR SIMPLE CONDITIONS
PROTASIS APODOSIS CONDITION
future indic. future indic. FUTURE MORE VIVID
present indic. present indic. PRESENT OPEN
past indic. past indic. PAST OPEN
II. UNREAL CONDITIONS
PROTASIS APODOSIS CONDITION
present subj. present subj. FUTURE LESS VIVID
imperf. subj. imperf. subj. PRES. CONTRARY TO FACT
plpf. subj. plpf. subj. PAST CONTRARY TO FACT
One feature you should notice about these formulae is that
the simple conditions all have the indicative mood in the
protasis, whereas all the unreal conditions have the subjunctive
mood in the protasis. If you can remember this, you'll be better
able to untangle conditional sentences when you're reading.
If the mood of the verb in the protasis is in the
indicative, then the condition is one of the simple or open
conditions. Further refinement of the condition is then
determined by the tense of the verb in the protasis. For
example, if the mood of the verb in the protasis is indicative
and in the future tense, then the condition is future more vivid.
If the mood of the verb in the protasis is in the subjunctive,
then the condition is one of the unreal conditions. Again,
further classification of the condition is determined by the
tense of the verb in the protasis. For example, if the mood of
the verb is subjunctive and its tense is present, then the
condition is future less vivid. Let's look at some examples.
1. "Si hoc faciet, beatus ero."
(Because the protasis is the indicative mood, it is a simple
condition -- one that does not imply any doubt about the
fulfillment of the condition stated in the protasis.
Because the tense of the protasis is future, the condition
is a "future open" -- a condition which is also called a
"future real," or "future-more-vivid." Tr. "If he does this,
then I will be happy." Notice that in the Latin future-
more-vivid, the protasis is future, whereas the English is
present.)
2. "Si hoc facit, beatus sum."
(Present simple or open. Tr. "If he is doing this, then I
am happy.")
3. "Si hoc fecit, beatus eram."
(Past simple or open. Tr. "If he did this, I was happy.")
4. "Si hoc faciat, beatus sim."
(Now the mood of the protasis is subjunctive, so you have
one of the unreal conditions. Since the tense is present,
the condition is a future less vivid, and is represented in
English with "should-would." Tr. "If he should do this [I
doubt he will], I would be happy.)
5. "Si hoc faceret, beatus essem."
(The mood isk subjunctive and the tense is imperfect, so
this is a present contrary to fact condition. Tr. "If he
were doing this [but he is not], I would be happy [but I'm
not].")
6. "Si hoc fecisset, beatus fuissem."
(Pluperfect subjunctive in the protasis, so this is a past
contrary to fact condition. Tr. "If he had done this [but
he did not, I would have been happy [but I wasn't]."
REVIEW
To establish the kind condition in a Latin conditional sentence,
follow these simple steps:
1. Find the protasis.
2. Establish whether the mood is subjunctive or indicative.
a. If the mood of the verb in the protasis is indicative,
then you have one of the simple or open conditions;
find the tense.
i. If it is future, the condition is future-more-
vivid (also called the future real).
ii. If it is present tense, the condition is present
simple or open.
iii. If it is a past tense, the condition is the past
simple or open.
b. If it is subjunctive, find the tense.
i. If the tense is present, the condition is future-
less-vivid (also called "should-would" or future
unreal).
ii. If the tense is imperfect, the condition is
present contrary-to-fact.
iii. If the tense is pluperfect, the condition is past
contrary-to-fact.
I strongly suggest that you go to Wheelock's self-help
tutorial on pages 315-6 and work through the list of conditional
sentences. The only way to internalize these rules is to
practice applying them constantly. Ask yourself what kind of
condition the sentence is before you translate a single word.
Also, practice writing out the basic formulae for the Latin
conditional sentences until you have them thoroughly memorized.
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
quis, quid When the indefinite pronoun "aliquis,
aliquid" is preceded in the sentence by
"si," "nisi," "num," or "ne," then the
"ali-" drops off, leaving just the
inflected endings "quis, quid."
Consequently, "si quis" means "if
someone," "nisi quid" means "unless
something," etc. The way I remembered
the rule was this little jingle:
"After si, nisi, num, and ne
Then the ali- falls away."
01/10/93
CHAPTER 34
"Deponent Verbs; Ablative with Special
Deponents"
DEPONENT VERBS
There are many verbs in Latin which have almost no active
forms but which nevertheless must be translated as if they were
active. These verbs are called deponent, from "de + pono,"
because they have "set aside" their active forms. In short, a
deponent verb is a verb which is passive in form but passive in
meaning.
There is a tendency for beginning students of Latin to
assume that a deponent verb is so thoroughly exceptional that
nothing they have learned about Latin verbs applies. This is a
mistake. Deponent verbs are unusual only in this respect: they
drop most of their active forms, and its passive forms must be
translated as if they were active. Aside from this, deponent
verbs follow the rules of inflection and conjugation to the
letter.
Imagine that the verb "laudo" had only passive forms. What
would the dictionary entry look like? The first dictionary entry
of any verb is always the first person singular, present
indicative. If "laudo" had no active forms, then the first entry
would be passive instead of active: "laudor" instead of "laudo."
The second entry of any verb is the present infinitive from
which you deduce the conjugation of the verb by dropping the
infinitive ending. If "laudo" had no active forms, the present
infinitive would be passive: "laudari" instead of "laudare."
Although you're working only with passive forms, by dropping the
ending infinitive ending "-ri," you could still tell that verb
belongs to the first conjugation.
The third entry of any verb is the third principal part,
from which is derived the perfect system active. But because
we're imagining that "laudo" has only passive forms, there would
be no third principal part listed. The third principal part is
used to produce the perfect system active, and there is no active
voice for "laudor."
The fourth entry of any verb is the fourth principal part,
the perfect passive participle, which is used with the verb "sum"
to form the perfect system passive. Hence the fourth entry of
the "laudo," if it had no active forms, would still be
"laudatus."
Taken together, then, the dictionary entry of "laudo" with
its active forms removed would look like this:
laudor, laudari, -----, laudatus
Write out the dictionary entries for the paradigm verbs of
the other conjugation without their active forms.
2. moneo ________________________________________
3. duco ________________________________________
3i. capio ________________________________________
4. audio ________________________________________
In each of these cases, you can still see to which conjugations
each of these verbs belong even if they had no active forms.
A deponent verb is a verb which in fact lacks most of its
active forms, so the dictionary entry for it will have to rely
only on its passive forms. Here is the dictionary entry for the
deponent verb "to urge."
"hortor, -ari, hortatus sum"
>From the first entry you can tell the verb is deponent because
the dictionary is giving you the passive first person singular
instead of the active. The verb has no active voice. Looking at
the second entry, you can tell that the verb belongs to the first
conjugation, because "-ari" is what the passive infinitive of a
first conjugation looks like. Therefore, the stem from which
you'll build the present system of tenses is "horta-."
The third entry is the perfect passive participle with a
conjugated form of the verb "sum." Instead of listing a blank
where the perfect active is normally listed in a non-deponent
verb, the entry for a deponent verb skips over it and goes
directly to the participal and adds "sum" to show that this is
the perfect system. But the participle "hortatus" is entirely
predictable, since first conjugation verbs form their perfect
passive participle by adding "-tus" to the stem of the first
principal part -- in this case "horta-."
There are deponent verbs belonging to all four conjugations.
Examine this list of deponent verbs and write down their
conjugation.
1. egredior, -i, egressus sum __________
2. sequor, -i, secutus sum __________
3. patior, -i, passus sum __________
4. experior, -iri, expertus sum __________
5. fateor, -eri, fassus sum __________
6. loquor, -i, locutus sum __________
7. utor, -i, usus sum __________
8. nascor, -i, natus sum __________
9. morior, -i, mortuus sum __________
10. proficiscor, -i, profectus sum __________
11. conor, -ari, conatus sum __________
12. arbitror, -ari, arbitratus sum __________
It is important not to forget that deponent verbs conjugate
in ways that are entirely consistent with other verbs of their
conjugation. The only difference is that deponent verbs have
"set aside" their active finite forms and the remaining passive
forms are translated as it they are active. Just to give you
more confidence about this, let's spend some time conjugating
deponent verbs.
I. FIRST CONJUGATION DEPONENT VERB:
arbitror, -ari abritratus sum (to think)
A. PRESENT SYSTEM INDICATIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd aribtraris _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st _______________ aribtrabimur _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ arbitrabamini
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
B. PRESENT SYSTEM SUBJUNCTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st arbitrer _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ arbitaretur
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
C. PERFECT SYSTEM INDICATIVE PASSIVE
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ arbitratus eris _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st arbitrati sumus _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ arbitrati erant
D. PERFECT SYSTEM SUBJUNCTIVE PASSIVE
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
1st arbitrati simus _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ arbitrati essent
E. PARTICIPLES
ACTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT ____________________
PERFECT ____________________
FUTURE ____________________ __________________
F. INFINITIVES
ACTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT ____________________
PERFECT ____________________
FUTURE ____________________
G. IMPERATIVES
SING. _______________
PLUR. _______________
II. SECOND CONJUGATION DEPONENT VERB:
fateor, -eri, fassus sum (to confess)
A. PRESENT SYSTEM INDICATIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd fateris _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st _______________ fatebimur _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ fatebamini
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
B. PRESENT SYSTEM SUBJUNCTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st fatear _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ fateretur
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
C. PERFECT SYSTEM INDICATIVE PASSIVE
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ fassus eris _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st fassi sumus _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ fassi erant
D. PERFECT SYSTEM SUBJUNCTIVE PASSIVE
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
1st fassi simus _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ fassi essent
E. PARTICIPLES
ACTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT ____________________
PERFECT ____________________
FUTURE ____________________ __________________
F. INFINITIVES
ACTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT ____________________
PERFECT ____________________
FUTURE ____________________
G. IMPERATIVES
SING. _______________
PLUR. _______________
III. THIRD CONJUGATION DEPONENT VERB:
utor, uti, usus sum (to use)
A. PRESENT SYSTEM INDICATIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd uteris uteris _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st _______________ utemur _______________
2nd utimini _______________ utebamini
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
B. PRESENT SYSTEM SUBJUNCTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st utar _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ uteretur
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
C. PERFECT SYSTEM INDICATIVE PASSIVE
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ usus eris _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st usi sumus _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ usi erant
D. PERFECT SYSTEM SUBJUNCTIVE PASSIVE
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
1st usi simus _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ usi essent
E. PARTICIPLES
ACTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT ____________________
PERFECT ____________________
FUTURE ____________________ __________________
F. INFINITIVES
ACTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT ____________________
PERFECT ____________________
FUTURE ____________________
G. IMPERATIVES
SING. _______________
PLUR. _______________
IIIi. THIRD CONJUGATION I-STEM DEPONENT VERB:
patior, pati, passus sum (to endure, permit)
A. PRESENT SYSTEM INDICATIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd pateris _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st _______________ patiemur _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ patiebamini
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
B. PRESENT SYSTEM SUBJUNCTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st patiar _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ pateretur
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
C. PERFECT SYSTEM INDICATIVE PASSIVE
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ passus eris _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st passi sumus _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ passi erant
D. PERFECT SYSTEM SUBJUNCTIVE PASSIVE
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
1st passi simus _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ passi essent
E. PARTICIPLES
ACTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT ____________________
PERFECT ____________________
FUTURE ____________________ ____________________
F. INFINITIVES
ACTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT ____________________
PERFECT ____________________
FUTURE ____________________
G. IMPERATIVES
SING. _______________
PLUR. _______________
IV. FOURTH CONJUGATION DEPONENT VERB:
experior, -iri, expertus (to try)
A. PRESENT SYSTEM INDICATIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd experiris _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st _______________ experiemur _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ experiebamini
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
B. PRESENT SYSTEM SUBJUNCTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERFECT
1st experiar _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ experiretur
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
C. PERFECT SYSTEM INDICATIVE PASSIVE
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ expertus eris _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________
1st experti sumus _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________ experti erant
D. PERFECT SYSTEM SUBJUNCTIVE PASSIVE
PERFECT FUTURE PERFECT PLUPERFECT
1st _______________ _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ _______________
1st experti simus _______________
2nd _______________ _______________
3rd _______________ experti essent
E. PARTICIPLES
ACTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT ____________________
PERFECT ____________________
FUTURE ____________________ __________________
F. INFINITIVES
ACTIVE PASSIVE
PRESENT ____________________
PERFECT ____________________
FUTURE ____________________
G. IMPERATIVES
SING. _______________
PLUR. _______________
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
utor, uti, usus sum The verb takes the ablative case to
complete its meaning. "Usus sum
multis libris" (I used many books.)
Wheelocks remark that the ablative
is really an ablative of means is
pure speculation.
audeo, -ere, ausus sum A handful of verbs are regular in
the present system, but become
deponent in perfect system. As you
can see by this dictionary entry,
the verb "audeo" skips over the
perfect system active entirely and
goes directly to the participle
"ausus." This is telling you that
in the perfect system this verb is
deponent, hence "ausus sum" means
"I dared." These verb are called
semi-deponent.
DRILLS
Try a few easy drills before you turn to Wheelock's self-help
tutorial. Translate the following.
1. loquitur ____________________
2. sequemini ____________________
3. secuti eramus ____________________
4. usus ero ____________________
5. naturus ____________________
6. conabimini ____________________
7. patitur ____________________
8. secuturum esse ____________________
9. morieris ____________________
10. moreris ____________________
01/10/93
CHAPTER 35
"Dative With Special Verbs; Dative With
Compounds"
There is nothing conceptually challenging in this chapter, but
that doesn't make it any easier. Chapter involves a lot of very
precise memorization, and a little advice. There's not much help
I can give you.
DATIVE WITH SPECIAL VERBS
You see before that Latin sometimes conceives actions differently
from the way we with English as native language might expect.
For example, remember the verb "careo, -ere, carui, cariturus"?
For us it means "to lack", and when we use the verb "to lack" in
English, it is followed by the direct object case. We might be
tempted to assume, therefore, that the Latin verb "careo" will
also take the accusative case. But it doesn't. "Careo" is
construed with the ablative case in Latin. Similarly, our verb
"to use" is followed by a direct object, but the Latin
equivalent, "utor, uti, usus sum", takes the ablative case,
obviously because Latin simply doesn't conceive of the action of
using something in quite the same way we do in English. So the
point of all this is that you got to be careful not to rely to
heavily on your English instincts as you try to feel your way
through Latin constructions. But you've known that for some time
now.
In this chapter, you're presented with several very common verbs
which take the dative case instead of the accusative case, as we
might expect simply by examining their English translations.
There is no connection between the kinds of actions represented
in these verbs and the fact that they take the dative case.
There is no rule we can concoct in advance that will tip you off
whether a certain verb in Latin will take the dative case. You
simply must memorize, as you've been doing before, the case the
verb takes when you learn the verb itself. The only helpful
advice is that you memorize the verbs with a definition which
will make the dative case object obvious. Here's the list:
credo (3) credidi creditus "to believe in" (not
"to trust)
ignosco (3) ignovi ignotus "to grant pardon to"
(not "to forgive")
impero (1) -avi -atus "to give order to"
(not "to order")
noceo (2) nocui nocitus "to do harm to" (not
"to harm"
parco (3) peperci parsurus "to be lenient to
(not "to spare")
pareo (2) parui -------- "to be obedient to
(not "to obey"
persuadeo (2) -suasi -suasus "to be persuasive to
(not "to persuade")
placeo (2) placui placitus "to be pleasing to
(not "to please")
servio (4) -ivi -itus "to be a slave to
(not "to serve")
studeo (2) studui ------- "to be eager for"
(not "to study")
COMMENTS:
(1) Now obviously, the translations Wheelock offers (e.g. "to be
eager for) are only to aid memorization of the case
structures these verbs take. They're only crutches, which
should be discarded when you're actually finishing off a
translation. You wouldn't translate "Adulescentes litteris
Graecis studebant" as "The youths were eager for Greek
literature." But if in your mind you think "studebant --
they were eager for" as you're reading the sentence, you'll
know immediately what case "litteris Graecis is in and why.
Then you can smooth out the English: "The youths used to
study Greek literature."
(2) This is quite a list of verbs, but as you can see, almost
all have clear English derivatives, which gives you some
insight into their meanings. "Pareo" and "ignosco are going
to be a little tricky, especially "ignosco", since it looks
like it ought to be "not to recognize" (from a negative
prefix + "nosco"). Actually, this can be used to your
advantage, if you think of it this way: "forgive and forget
(i.e. "to put out of mind").
(3) Another aid to memorizing these verbs might be to cluster
them together into groups of actions and their opposites, or
into groups of related ideas. Something like this:
I. command, obey, serve
II. harm, forgive, spare
III. persuade, trust, please
(because you trust in and are persuaded by what you
find pleasing)
(4) Wheelock omits an important detail about these verbs: none
of these verbs can be used in the passive voice. Only verbs
which are truly transitive (i.e. take an accusative object)
can be used both in the active and in the passive voices.
To say "he is trusted" in Latin, consquently, it would be
wrong to say "Creditur." Instead, Latin uses the verb
impersonally: "Trust is shown to him," which would be "Ei
creditur." Similarly for all these verbs. Here are some
examples:
Nobis non parebitur. We will not be obeyed
(lit. Obedience will not
given to us).
Eis ignotum est. They were forgiven.
Militibus imperatum est... The soldiers were
ordered...
DATIVE WITH COMPOUND VERBS
The point of this section is simple: sometimes root verbs alter
their configuration of objects when prefixes are added. And
that's all really that can be said. You've seen already that
root verbs can pick up prefixes which slightly change the meaning
of the verb. Most of these changes have been trivial:
capio: recipio (take back); accipio (accept)
Sometimes, however, the addition of a prefix will substantially
change the way a verbal root has to be understood. Look at some
English examples of this phenomenon:
refer, defer, prefer, differ, infer
revoke, invoke, prevoke
And we could go on like this for days. Latin is similiarly able
to change the meaning of a root verb with its differing prefixes;
furthermore, sometimes the change of meaning also involves a
change in contruction. The verb "sum", as you know, means "to
be", and is instranstive. But add the preposition "prae" to it,
and it means "to be in command of" and it takes the dative case.
For example, "Dumnorix equitatui praeerat" means "Dumnorix was in
charge of the cavalry." Further, add the preposition "ad", and
"sum" means "to support" and takes the dative case (not, as we
might expect from the English equivalent, the accusative case):
"Caesar amicis aderat" means "Caesar supported his freinds.
Wheelock gives you a list of examples on page 170 where you
can see the change of meaning and change of object prefixes often
create in verbs. You should look them over, but it will not be
necessary for you to memorize them. As you gather more
experience reading Latin, you'll begin to recognize compound
verbs like this which take the dative case. For your purposes
now, you should simply think about this. If you're reading a
sentence which seems to lack a needed direct object for a verb,
check to see whether the verb you're considering is compound
(made up of a root and a prefix). If it is, then look for a
dative case, since this may be one of those occasions where the
meaning of the verb has been altered by the prefix and now calls
for a dative case.
VOCABULARY PUZZLES
antepono (3), -posui, -positus Obviously this is a compound
of the verb you already know
"pono" and the preposition
"ante": "to place before",
hence to prefer. The meaning
is completed with an
accusative direct object and
the dative: "Antepono
veritatem pecuniae" (I place
truth before money = I prefer
truth to money).
-END-
.
|
|