Talk:Latin conjugation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Latin conjugation article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about languages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
language Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

It would be nice to have a more complete description of the standard conjugations here. --Tb 05:45 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Note that the similarity between English is and Latin est is not a mere coincidence, but rather one of the consequences of them having a distant common ancestor

Are you sure about that ? Their common ancestor is quite distant (3000-4000 years) and most often used words change very fast. --Taw

Look in any etymological dictionary and you will see that it is correct. There are many other examples of Latin words which still resemble their English cognates (mater & mother, or sex & six, for example). Some words don't change much even over such long periods of time. --Zundark, 2001 Dec 6
That's right. The most commonly used words are actually the least likely to change, because they are used so often that changes to them can cause catastrophic misunderstandings. It's thought that the Northwest Caucasian languages diverged from the Indo-European languages about 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, and Ubykh (Northwest Caucasian) and English (Indo-European) still share a couple of cognates, notably t'qw'a, two. To use another example: It's not likely that the word can't (I know, originally two words, but now it's basically just one word) would begin to be pronounced with the short vowel of duck, even though that phonetic change is very slight. I won't explain why; the page would get pulled down. :S thefamouseccles 00:52 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The closest relations in English (not counting direct borrowings) are borrowings from Old French, I'm pretty sure. By the way, why is there a stub message in here? The article is way too long to be a stub, I think. - Gwalla 22:47, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
My 2 cents re common words. It is the most common words that change the most. Just look at the verb 'to be' in Latin, French, Spanish, and Italian. Then look at another less frequently used word like 'city', for example: city, cite', ciudad (dad in Spanish is the same as 'ty' in English), citta. If you don't like that try, felicity, felicite', felicidad. They are a lot easier to pick out as the same words than I am, ego sum, je suis, yo soy, and io sono. Pronouns and commonly used adverbs and conjunctions seem to change faster than anything. Father and mother are special words, which is why they don't change as much but still they change more than less used words. NB This is a purely subjective comment based on personal experience with language and not meant to be in any way definitive or quotable.
It is certainly true that the forms of 'to be' are irregular; but that's because these are all Indo-European languages, not because 'to be' is a common verb. The etymologies are perfectly clear, in fact, and happen often because a phonological change forces disambiguation and then forms are borrowed from other related verbs. For example, why is "eres" there? soy, es, somos, son, these are all regular formations from the old athematic pattern. Well, Spanish turned Latin's T ending on 3rd person verbs into D, and then later dropped it, so you get "tenet" -> "tened" -> "tiened" -> "tiene". (The E -> IE change is a regular palatalizing rule in Spanish.) But est doesn't have a vowel before the T (because it's the athematic pattern) so it became just "es" right away with no stop at "esd". Latin's "es" (2nd person) would then get confused. So people simply borrowed the Latin future "eras" to serve, and eventually that became regular, under the form "eres".

This page is one the one hand very long and complex because of the tables and because it bizarrely includes the entire text of its former stub article at the end, and on the other hand seriously incomplete because it's missing three conjugations and discussion of irregular verbs. I've sliced out the stub text that was duplicated in the tables, but it is likely that this will need to be separated out into separate pages for each of the different conjugations, with brief descriptions and a link to each from this page. - courier

How could we seperate the page, and which verbs do we need to conjugate? - ChristopherWillis

I think that individual pages for each case would work the best. Postscript2010 02:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Tables anyone?

Just a thought: maybe prudent use of tables could greatly improve the overall clarity of this article. Apart from that, I am also able to reproduce the forms of ferre from my "stock knowledge" (and I can check using my notes). Also I think it might be a sensible idea to add the Latin names of the various forms. They are sometimes a bit different and still in widespread use. Valete, Shinobu 21:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

StradivariusTV has tabulated part of this article and I think it looks much better. If no outcries against this are heard then I (or someone else) will tabulate this whole article (the bits where tables are useful that is). Shinobu 11:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

If you look into the history of this article and its historical snapshots, it used to be tabular until little more than a year ago. It was finely formatted, with diakritics and boldface emphasising suffixes. Then it was explicitly converted to the most simplistic list form:

15:21, 22 October 2004 Poccil (→Conjugation tables - replace with list)

In fact, this is my first visit to this page, and I know of no history of what was happening here at all (and this page, as you see, keeps no records). First thing I saw was how much better the table looked than the lists; I dug down the page history out of pure curiosity.
I have not a glimpse of a hint of an idea why the flattening was done. I can try to contact the user User:Poccil who made this change, but I wanted to ask here first, in hope that anyone is around from back then who knows why the tables were ditched. Otherwise, there is a risk of investing into new tabular formatting and then having to scrap it — yet for the same mysterious reason. (personally I would have resurrected the old format) —66.92.34.249 21:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why he did that, but I can make a wild guess: Suppose he clicked edit, saw an HTML table, and one that used a most horrible size fixing thingy, he either decided he didn't like that, or that he didn't like HTML (the "it should all be wikitext" argument). Not knowing wikitext table syntax he just axed it. I've added the difflink to your reference. That way it's easier to check if anything has been lost. These are his combined edits: diff. The current version uses wikitext tables and shouldn't offend Poccil, I hope. Shinobu 07:01, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I really don't mind the switch to tables; it turns out to be neater in the end. Peter O. (Talk) 06:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Ressurrect the tables! The lists are eyesores. They just look like arbitary Latin words strung together. The tables are divine. Rintrah 13:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicates

Similar conjugation tables can be found at Latin grammar. Shouldn't we (re)move one of these? I have changed the tables, but feel free to revert if the linear format is better. Googlpl 22:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This page

I've just replaced the old table with a very ugly table generated in Excel on the principle that it's better to be accurate than to look nice. If anyone can improve either table it would be really good. I'll try to but I've not got much time and this isn't exactly something I know much about. Once we have an attractive and accurate standard we need to start moving the other conjugations over to the tabulated style. I've also removed lots of duplicated information. I'd like to remove the word "radical" - I've only ever seen it for "root" in things written in French and things translated from foreign languages so I don't think it's standard but perhaps I'm wrong - can anyone elaborate?--Lo2u 20:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Tables

I am making new tables for the conjugations. Previously, I had used different tables from this topic. Now, I have borrowed and altered the tables from the Spanish conjugation topic.

Also, will someone please remove the irregular verbs here, and create another topic titled Irregular Latin Verbs so that he put them there. Thanks. --Blurrzuki 20:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, that's some really impressive work you're doing. I've wanted to do that for ages and just haven't got round to it. I hope you didn't mind me replacing your table - couldn't work out how to put another column in and I knew you could get the old one in the history to work on. To be honest I'm not sure splitting the page is a good idea - some people still want to merge this with other Latin grammar pages and we'd probably find a merge notice within days. Also irregular verb conjugations are still conjugations so kind of belong here. In order to split we'd have to move this page to something like "Regular Latin verb conjugations" and turn this into a disambiguation page, which may be more trouble than it's worth. --Lo2u (T • C) 21:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portandī can mean "of loving."

Really? As a novice, IMMHO, "amandi" means "of loving", and so "portandi" would mean "of carrying" or so. -- Leendert Meyer, 23:39 13 august 2006 (CEST)

Fixed. Stupid of me... Amāre and portāre tend to be the friendliest verbs, and I had confused the two throughout editing. I just didn't catch that one. Thanks for bringest this to attention. —Blurrzuki t - c 21:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third Conjugation

What does this mean: Their principle parts are all irregular? I know what the principal parts means, but not what "irregular" means in relation to it. I am trying to learn present, perfect, and future tenses for third conjugation verbs, in active, indicative form; but there are so many variations that its so difficult to group them easily for my purposes — e- stem, o-stem, and that other paradigm. Declensions were easier to learn.

Just remember that the perfect, pluperfect and future perfect always use the same method regardless of a verb's conjugation. Just remove the -ī on the third principal part and so on.—Blurrzuki t - c 23:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to change all the "principle"s erroneously used as adjectives to "principal"s. Rintrah 12:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Shinobu 09:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I resolved my conjugation problem, but can someone please answer the question?
I haven't god a clue what it means, but, if it's any comfort, it's not in the article anymore ;-) Shinobu 09:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fourth Conjugation

There are some mistakes in the fourth conjugation that I would like to correct, but I don't know how to generate a macron (long vowel mark) in Wikipedia. Can anyone tell me how?

  • Below the editing text box, you can find a large group of characters that you can input into the text box by clicking on them.—Blurrzuki t - c 23:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future tense

Notice that the second person singular for portāre and terrēre are portāberis and terrēbiris instead of the supposed portābiris and terrēberis. The former inflections are used to ease pronunciation.

Reconcile this with the table? —66.251.24.86 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moods

Some keeps stating that infinitive, supine, participle, gerund and gerundive aren't moods. Well they are!!! There called non-finite moods. My mother tongue is Dutch and in Dutch one says that amare, amari, amaturus esse, amatum iri, amavisse and amatus esse are Onbepaalde wijzen; with the word wijs meaning mood; you can't even say what these forms are without using the word mood, so not calling them moods in English doesn't make sense at all. 86.39.64.75 16:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't compare Latin to Dutch. Just because some words are similar, doesn't mean they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.168.133 (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Searched for Supinum on the Latin wikipedia, first sentence is Supinum est modus verbi, definitely a mood! Or is English a special language and does mood mean something else? I don't think so!

http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supinum

86.39.64.75 16:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Compare Wikipedia's grammatical mood article: "Currently identified moods include conditional, imperative, indicative, injunctive, negative, optative, potential, subjunctive, and more. Infinitive is a category apart from all these finite forms, and so are gerunds and participles." Or Bradley's Arnold: Latin Prose Composition: "The functions of the Latin moods are as follows:— The Indicative.... The Imperative.... The Subjunctive....". AJD 16:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Then the article is not complete, it's Wikipedia for God's sake, not the Bible!

Furthermore it just sounds wrong, if the infinitive not be a mood, how do I have to call it in Dutch? I speak Dutch, and it's **** called "onbepaalde wijs" or "indefinite MOOD". Or should I speak English when I want to use the word infinitive in Dutch?

I guess you should probably say "onbepaalde wijs" if you want Dutch speakers to understand you. But you should probably not say "indefinite mood" if you want English speakers to understand you. This is English Wikipedia, so we have to try to use accepted English terminology (not translated from Dutch, or even from Latin). Unfortunately, there are different terminological traditions in Latin grammar for English speakers. See AJD's references above, for example, but then Allen & Greenough include the infinitive as a fourth mood, while the four participles, the gerund, and the supine are called "Noun and Adjective Forms" of the verb. Keep in mind that this grammar is over 100 years old and probably does not reflect current standard terminology. If it turns out that there is no consensus in reliable modern sources, then I think we should continue to call the non-finite forms "forms". (Note that there is consensus for calling tenses "tenses" and voices "voices", and the indicative, subjunctive, and imperative are definitely "moods" — the idea is to use a more neutral term in obviously controversial cases.) CapnPrep 21:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit conflict] I initially got confused when I was commenting on anonymous user's previous statement. As is witnessed by three extensive (German) grammars that I randomly picked from the shelves here, Latin is supposed to have only three moods: indicative, subjunctive and imperative. However, the infinitive could arguably be called a mood if its Latin name, modus infinitivus, is used as a standard (hence my confusion). See also [1] and [2]. Apart from that, at least one Dutch school grammar actually lists the infinitive under "modi" in its introductory section. Be that as it may, the supine, participle etc. are definitely not "moods". Iblardi 21:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I just found an English Latin grammar on my shelf (Gildersleeve and Lodge, unfortunately also over 100 years old). They also say three moods, and then "Outside of the Finite Verb, and akin to the noun, are the verbal forms called Infinitive, Supine, Participle, Gerund" (§112.5). CapnPrep 22:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dīxerīmus vs dīxerimus

The thematic vowel is short in indicative future perfect dīxeris, dīxerimus, dīxeritis and long in subjunctive perfect dīxerīs, dīxerīmus, dīxerītis. BUT... in many grammars you still find short -i- also in the subjunctive. I don't know which one is correct. In either case, there are tons of mistaken (or inaccurate) grammars out there! I wonder how it is possible. Can someone cite a Latin verse to show the actual length of the subjunctive -i-? Sprocedato 09:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have found this verse (Aeneid VI 513-514):

Namque ut supremam falsa inter gaudia noctem
egerimus, nosti: et nimium meminisse necesse est.

To be read:

Námqu' ut súprēmám | fals' ínter gáudia nóctem
ḗgerimús, nōst': ét | nimiúm meminísse necésse 'st.

You know in what deluding joys we pass'd
The night that was by Heav'n decreed our last:
(Translation by John Dryden)

http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/verg.html http://classics.mit.edu/Virgil/aeneid.html

This is conjunctive perfect ēgerimus, from agō, with short i ! What then? Did both forms exist? The older one with long ī, as we would expect from etymology? Are there any proofs? Sprocedato 10:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to Rubenbauer and Hofmann (Lateinische Grammatik, p. 70, footnote) both forms are permissible, at least in poetical Latin: "In classical poetry, the i, both of the conjunctive perfect and of the indicative future perfect, is represented either short or long according to the exigencies of the verse." ("In der klass. Dichtung wird das i sowohl des Konj. Perf. als auch des Ind. Fut. II je nach Versbedürfnis kurz oder lang gebraucht.") Iblardi 22:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
So it is true: there was not a clear distinction between ind. fut. perfect and subj. perfect, except in the 1st singular person. Of the two forms one was probably felt as archaic (in 1st c. CE), the one with the long ī in my opinion. It would be nice to know the opinion of a Latin grammarian of those times. I think that the article deserves a note on this subject, as such it's misleading. People will use it as a reference, as I was doing myself when noticed the problem. Sprocedato 07:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Gerund/gerundive English-language bias

The following paragraph from the section on gerunds seems a bit harsh on the Romans:

The preposition ad can be used with a gerund in the accusative singular case to indicate purpose. For example, ad oppugnandum is translated as "to attack". However, when an object is introduced, Romans usually converted the gerund to a gerundive, agreeing with the accusative object. For example, "to attack the enemy" would become ad hostes oppugnandos, which, while technically grammatically wrong, was the normal way of using this construction. The gerundive is said to be "attracted" into the case of the noun, and occurred because Romans (mistakenly) thought that the gerund(ive) and the object should be in the same case.

It seems rather odd to claim that the native writers of a language were "technically grammatically wrong" when they were using the "normal way of using the construction," and also that they "mistakenly" believed in some sort of word agreement that we modern non-native writers find weird. This smacks of an overreaching grammatical prescriptivism that is perhaps more insidious when English is trying map itself onto Latin than the traditional kind where grammarians tried (and still try) to map Latin onto English. It's sort of like having a Latin writer (one of the few left) in the 21st century write, "Americans often split up verb forms. For example, 'to go boldly' would become 'to boldly go,' which, while technically grammatically wrong, was a normal way of using this construction. The infinitive is said to be 'split' into two parts, and occurred because Americans (mistakenly) thought that the infinitive verb form actually was composed of two separable English words." Even though infinitives have been split in English since the earliest years when "to" became the sign of the infinitive in English, people are still trying to argue that the usage is simply wrong. (I personally think that split infinitives are often imprecise, and I avoid them in formal writing, but trying to say that they are "wrong" ignores the way the English language has worked for hundreds of years.)

Perhaps the split infinitive question is a pet peeve among some people, so that may not be the best example. Perhaps it would be better to compare it to a Latin writer complaining about the lack of proper uses of the subjunctive mood in English.

In any case, I've known about this form for a long time, and I've often heard it referred to as though it were some weird grammatical anomaly. Even good grammar books sometimes like to pretend that it was some weird aberration of educated classical writers, while somehow the grammatically "purer" gerund construction eked its way through among the common people, in speech, and ultimately in vulgar Latin to emerge as gerund+object constructions in Romance languages. Unfortunately for this argument, there seems to be scant evidence of preferred gerund+object constructions in archaic Latin, and a number of usage scholars have argued that the gerundive is an older construction in general (and that the confusion existed when people started trying to substitute gerunds for gerundives, and not the reverse).

The thing is -- this usage is not "technically grammatical wrong" nor is the gerundive agreement "mistaken," since this is the preferred use of the gerundive. It's only grammatically "wrong" in any sense if English speakers mistakenly believe that the gerundive is some sort of future passive participle... which it isn't. That's why it's called a _gerundive_ and not a participle. This usage is one of the primary reasons that gerundives exist, and it's a usage specific to this verb form in Latin, so how can it be "wrong" or "mistaken"? If anything, textual evidence seems to indicate that the use of the gerund in such constructions is the aberration -- only used in certain cases to create a certain kind of clarity -- and the fact that the gerund+object form appears to be closer to how we understand English grammar certainly doesn't mean that the native writers of Latin misunderstood the forms of their own language. 24.91.135.21 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)