GENWiki

Premier IT Outsourcing and Support Services within the UK

User Tools

Site Tools

Problem, Formatting or Query -  Send Feedback

Was this page helpful?-10+1


archive:fun:latin.stu

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 <dell@wiretap.spies.com>
 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
  1. us -a -um
  2. i -ae
  3. o -ae
  4. um -am
  5. o -a
  6. e -a

magn- +

  1. i -ae
  2. orum -arum
  3. is -is
  4. os -as
  5. 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:

  1. o,-m I -mus we
  2. s you -tis you
  3. 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:

  1. or I am [being] -mur we are [being]
  2. ris [-re] you are [being] -mini you

are [being]

  1. 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?" © "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 ©. (B) is not asking whether he's gone, but which way he went; © 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?) © "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
  1. i -eram -ero
  2. isti -eras -eris
  3. it -erat -erit

3rd prin. part +

  1. imus -eramus -erimus
  2. istis -eratis -eritis
  3. 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: FFL00DAG@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU 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
  1. i -eram -ero
  2. isti -eras -eris
  3. it -erat -erit

3rd prin. part +

  1. imus -eramus -erimus
  2. istis -eratis -eritis
  3. 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 © 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 _.

© 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

   _______________________________________________________.

© 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.)

© "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).)

© "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).)

© "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..".

© "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-

/data/webs/external/dokuwiki/data/pages/archive/fun/latin.stu.txt · Last modified: 1999/08/01 17:07 (external edit)