This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Latin conjugation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
It would be nice to have a more complete description of the standard conjugations here. -- Tb 05:45 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Are you sure about that ? Their common ancestor is quite distant (3000-4000 years) and most often used words change very fast. -- Taw
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)
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)
15:21, 22 October 2004 Poccil (→Conjugation tables - replace with list)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Someone needs to change all the "principle"s erroneously used as adjectives to "principal"s. Rintrah 12:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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?
Where did y'all learn Latin? Infinitive is definitely a mood:
Rwflammang ( talk) 16:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
The following paragraph from the section on gerunds seems a bit harsh on the Romans:
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)
I must say that you make many good points, but I think I would disagree with the Romans. My reasoning is thus: there is no clear, absolutely grammatically supported reason for a change from gerund to gerundive once an object is introduced that I have seen in my research. Also, just because something is preferred by a language's native speakers does not mean it must be correct. English has many great examples of this. Most of our language's speakers would employ a construction such as, "You are better than him," when they undoubtedly mean, "You are better than he (is)." It makes sense to me that the construction be kept constant with or without an object simply because it is not logical to make a change if one is not required, especially regarding something that is generally a tool for communication. It's just not "user-friendly" to do so, whereas the majority of the most ingenious or celebrated tools are "user-friendly". -- Der Winter brennt für mich ( talk) 07:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
If you have access to E.C. Woodcock's A New Latin Syntax, I recommend that you take a look §206 (page 160 in my edition), where he gives one possibility for why the gerundive is preferred over the gerund when an object is introduced. And, at any rate, I really don't think that you can say that a construction used by native speakers is wrong, unless you're a die-hard prescriptivist. And in the case of Latin it's extremely hard to hold a prescriptivist point of view, seeing how there are no native speakers of the language. We have to content ourselves with a descriptivist grammar. Arnsholt ( talk) 12:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The opening definition for this article has:
"Conjugation is the creation of derived forms of a verb from one basic form."
Although I appreciate that a verb like amō forms all its principal parts (amō, amāre, amāvī, amātum) from one basic root (i.e., AM-), it's confusing to state that we can derive the whole conjugation from one basic form. When conjugating any verb in Latin we look to several forms within its vocabulary to form our conjugation. We look to the 1st principal part for the present stem, the third for the perfect active stem, and the fourth for the perfect passive--to name a few. In fact, it is impossible to conjugate ferō from a one basic form (since its principal parts are irregular and not derived from a single root) and yet we speak of conjugating ferō and the verb "to be". We could change the sentence to read "Conjugation is the creation of derived forms of a verb from it's basic forms" and that would work, but the student is going to have to immediately come to grips with the concept of principal parts anyway so why not use the term?
Therefore, I'm suggesting changing to: Conjugation is the creation of derived forms of a verb from it's basic forms or principal parts.
Also, I will to set the term principal parts to point to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_parts
Mlloyd57 ( talk) 13:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Mlloyd57
Just to clear up any possible confusion: The edit in question changed ĭ (i with breve) to ī (i with macron). The macron indicates a long vowel, while the breve is to explicitly indicate a short vowel. Since the passage referred to the class of third conjugation verbs with a stem ending in short i (like capio), the i with breve is the correct letter, not i with macron. Arnsholt ( talk) 22:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the explanation of its meaning correct? I think that gerundivum in Latin always means or implies some sort of obligation. Please correct me if I am wrong. Svato ( talk) 04:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The convention in Latin and Greek grammar, at least in the grammars I've seen, is to phrase combinations of tense and mood as tense-mood (present subjunctive) rather than as mood-tense (subjunctive present). Is there a specific reason why the article doesn't use the more common word order? — Eru· tuon 21:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Under gerundive, it says "The gerundive is the passive equivalent of the gerund, and much more common in Latin. It is a first and second declension adjective, and means, “(the verb) being done”." Is this in any way true? All the examples (both here and at the gerundive article) indicate that it's a kind of participle rather than a passive gerund, and means "that ought to have (the verb) done to it". Victor Yus ( talk) 07:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure sum/esse/fui/futurus and fero/ferre/tuli/latus are suppletive. Please add a note for that. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! ( BOOM!) 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
In re the section titled ‘Irregular future active participles’, looking at the table I should think this section should be called ‘Irregular supines’.
Also, it would be nice to know how old the various verb forms are (approximately) and how they came about. Some are really old (I once read that the præsens forms may derive from PIE suffices) while others to me resemble contractions with esse and I would assume them more recent. But my guesses are just that. Is anything known about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 ( talk) 23:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this page would greatly benefit from a section or sub-page on the etymology of the various forms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 ( talk) 19:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
According to Gildersleeve and Lodge, 3rd ed. (1903), §33 Remark 3, and Allen and Greenough (1903), §49a, the locative singular of second declension nouns ends in -ī (and not -ō). Even en.wiktionary.org says so: wiktionary:Appendix:Latin second declension. This means that the locative case of the gerund should end in -ī. — Leendert Meyer 2001:838:305:0:0:0:0:3 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The text says the 2nd person plural imperative future I passive voice doesn't exist ("The second person plural is absent here").
So there should be some further explanations or annotations in the article. - 84.161.13.210 ( talk) 23:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
C. G. Zumpt mentions some older forms, e.g. ladarier as infinitive present instead of laudari. He also states that this form was still used by poets in the classical time. In his dictionary, Karl Ernst Georges mentions those forms too and states they're paragogic. Those forms should be mentioned too, especially when they were still used in Classical Latin. - 84.161.13.210 ( talk) 23:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
In the overview table (the big one), shouldn't it be laudaveramus for 1st person plural Pluperfect act ind.? Now it's laudavimus, which is perfect tense, isn't it? TUBS ( talk) 09:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)✓
For terrere the 1st pl Pluperfect is also wrong. Should be terruerāmus. ✓ TUBS ( talk) 13:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Guess what, it should be ēgerāmus in the Pluperfect 3rd Pl. Plz check all forms in that line of the overview table. They all might be wrong. TUBS ✓( talk) 13:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Thx. Same table. Shouldn't it be "captus, -a,-um erās" instead of "captus, -a,-um erām" for 2nd S Pass Ind PluPerfect. TUBS ( talk) 11:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Further below. Same column, future. It should be "captī, -ae, -a erimus" instead of "captī, -ae, -a erāmus" TUBS ( talk) 11:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)✓
Thx. Same table imperfect subj active. I suppose that laudāreēs is incorrect. I guess it should be laudārēs? TUBS ( talk) 08:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)✓
Thx. Same table, some more:
I'm not quite sure about that. I used some secondary resources to validate my claims. However, please check thoroughly before editing. --
TUBS (
talk)
11:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Why verbs are divided in -āre, -ēre, -ĕre and -īre? Were originally verbs in -āre transitive, in -īre intransitive and so on?-- Manfariel ( talk) 01:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe these terms are used incorrectly in the article as it now stands. The Present and Future tenses in Latin can have a perfective meaning, as understood in modern linguistics. It would be better to adopt another term, such as "present system" tenses for example. Kanjuzi ( talk) 12:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
"o-aspect stems" etc. is not a standard term. You can't just invent your own terminology in a Wikipedia article, but you have to use the standard terms. The solution is to use the traditional terms infectum and perfectum, I suggest. Kanjuzi ( talk) 18:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I found the table that was recently removed very helpful. Could we discuss? -- Macrakis ( talk) 19:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Why include an example like Arma haec facillima laudātū erant 'These arms were very easy to praise' instead of a real one from a Latin author? Not only does the supine laudatu not occur in any author, but the meaning of the sentence itself is so absurd and improbable that it could only belong in a school book. Is this article about the real Latin language as used by Latin authors, or the artificial made-up Latin of school books? Kanjuzi ( talk) 04:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
In the Regular conjugations section, one set of verbs is used (amo, video, duco, capio, audio), while in the Non-finite forms section, another set of verbs is used (laudo, terreo, peto, capio, audio).
I'm assuming the verbs are currently different because rewriting an entire section would be more trouble than it's worth, but is there a reason two different sets were originally chosen? -- Guypeter4 ( talk) 13:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
@Kanjuzi, @Macrakis, @Burzuchius, @Mlloyd57, @Sprocedato, @Iblardi, @Blurrzuki, @Gerbrant, @Rintrah,
Would you all agree to split this article into two? One for the verb paradigms (present indicative, future indicative...) and one for the verb classes (1st conjugation, 2nd conjugation...). This would make the structure of the two articles much more clear. For instance, the former can have one subsection per tense-mode option and the latter can have one subsection per verb class.
Please suggest names. If you agree, I shall go for: "Latin verb paradigms" ("Latin conjugations" redirect here), "Latin verb classes". Of course, I'll link one article to the other at the beginning.
If enough of you agree, I can make the change during Week 21 of 2023. I write this on thursday in Week 20 of 2023. Daniel Couto Vale ( talk) 14:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Kanjuzi, I see no informative gain about number of conjugations in your new paragraph about deponents and semi-deponents. It is also strange to talk about this ignoring the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs and other voice auxiliaries such as “agit”, “habet”, “dat” and the like. Should we restrict the scope of the section to the facts about the number of conjugations? 2003:F0:F12:4000:8CCA:5738:939E:A054 ( talk) 17:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Latin conjugation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
It would be nice to have a more complete description of the standard conjugations here. -- Tb 05:45 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Are you sure about that ? Their common ancestor is quite distant (3000-4000 years) and most often used words change very fast. -- Taw
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)
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)
15:21, 22 October 2004 Poccil (→Conjugation tables - replace with list)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Someone needs to change all the "principle"s erroneously used as adjectives to "principal"s. Rintrah 12:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
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?
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)
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)
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)
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?
Where did y'all learn Latin? Infinitive is definitely a mood:
Rwflammang ( talk) 16:46, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
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)
The following paragraph from the section on gerunds seems a bit harsh on the Romans:
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)
I must say that you make many good points, but I think I would disagree with the Romans. My reasoning is thus: there is no clear, absolutely grammatically supported reason for a change from gerund to gerundive once an object is introduced that I have seen in my research. Also, just because something is preferred by a language's native speakers does not mean it must be correct. English has many great examples of this. Most of our language's speakers would employ a construction such as, "You are better than him," when they undoubtedly mean, "You are better than he (is)." It makes sense to me that the construction be kept constant with or without an object simply because it is not logical to make a change if one is not required, especially regarding something that is generally a tool for communication. It's just not "user-friendly" to do so, whereas the majority of the most ingenious or celebrated tools are "user-friendly". -- Der Winter brennt für mich ( talk) 07:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
If you have access to E.C. Woodcock's A New Latin Syntax, I recommend that you take a look §206 (page 160 in my edition), where he gives one possibility for why the gerundive is preferred over the gerund when an object is introduced. And, at any rate, I really don't think that you can say that a construction used by native speakers is wrong, unless you're a die-hard prescriptivist. And in the case of Latin it's extremely hard to hold a prescriptivist point of view, seeing how there are no native speakers of the language. We have to content ourselves with a descriptivist grammar. Arnsholt ( talk) 12:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The opening definition for this article has:
"Conjugation is the creation of derived forms of a verb from one basic form."
Although I appreciate that a verb like amō forms all its principal parts (amō, amāre, amāvī, amātum) from one basic root (i.e., AM-), it's confusing to state that we can derive the whole conjugation from one basic form. When conjugating any verb in Latin we look to several forms within its vocabulary to form our conjugation. We look to the 1st principal part for the present stem, the third for the perfect active stem, and the fourth for the perfect passive--to name a few. In fact, it is impossible to conjugate ferō from a one basic form (since its principal parts are irregular and not derived from a single root) and yet we speak of conjugating ferō and the verb "to be". We could change the sentence to read "Conjugation is the creation of derived forms of a verb from it's basic forms" and that would work, but the student is going to have to immediately come to grips with the concept of principal parts anyway so why not use the term?
Therefore, I'm suggesting changing to: Conjugation is the creation of derived forms of a verb from it's basic forms or principal parts.
Also, I will to set the term principal parts to point to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_parts
Mlloyd57 ( talk) 13:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Mlloyd57
Just to clear up any possible confusion: The edit in question changed ĭ (i with breve) to ī (i with macron). The macron indicates a long vowel, while the breve is to explicitly indicate a short vowel. Since the passage referred to the class of third conjugation verbs with a stem ending in short i (like capio), the i with breve is the correct letter, not i with macron. Arnsholt ( talk) 22:03, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the explanation of its meaning correct? I think that gerundivum in Latin always means or implies some sort of obligation. Please correct me if I am wrong. Svato ( talk) 04:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
The convention in Latin and Greek grammar, at least in the grammars I've seen, is to phrase combinations of tense and mood as tense-mood (present subjunctive) rather than as mood-tense (subjunctive present). Is there a specific reason why the article doesn't use the more common word order? — Eru· tuon 21:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Under gerundive, it says "The gerundive is the passive equivalent of the gerund, and much more common in Latin. It is a first and second declension adjective, and means, “(the verb) being done”." Is this in any way true? All the examples (both here and at the gerundive article) indicate that it's a kind of participle rather than a passive gerund, and means "that ought to have (the verb) done to it". Victor Yus ( talk) 07:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure sum/esse/fui/futurus and fero/ferre/tuli/latus are suppletive. Please add a note for that. Hill Crest's WikiLaser! ( BOOM!) 15:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
In re the section titled ‘Irregular future active participles’, looking at the table I should think this section should be called ‘Irregular supines’.
Also, it would be nice to know how old the various verb forms are (approximately) and how they came about. Some are really old (I once read that the præsens forms may derive from PIE suffices) while others to me resemble contractions with esse and I would assume them more recent. But my guesses are just that. Is anything known about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 ( talk) 23:53, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I think this page would greatly benefit from a section or sub-page on the etymology of the various forms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.81.0 ( talk) 19:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
According to Gildersleeve and Lodge, 3rd ed. (1903), §33 Remark 3, and Allen and Greenough (1903), §49a, the locative singular of second declension nouns ends in -ī (and not -ō). Even en.wiktionary.org says so: wiktionary:Appendix:Latin second declension. This means that the locative case of the gerund should end in -ī. — Leendert Meyer 2001:838:305:0:0:0:0:3 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The text says the 2nd person plural imperative future I passive voice doesn't exist ("The second person plural is absent here").
So there should be some further explanations or annotations in the article. - 84.161.13.210 ( talk) 23:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
C. G. Zumpt mentions some older forms, e.g. ladarier as infinitive present instead of laudari. He also states that this form was still used by poets in the classical time. In his dictionary, Karl Ernst Georges mentions those forms too and states they're paragogic. Those forms should be mentioned too, especially when they were still used in Classical Latin. - 84.161.13.210 ( talk) 23:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
In the overview table (the big one), shouldn't it be laudaveramus for 1st person plural Pluperfect act ind.? Now it's laudavimus, which is perfect tense, isn't it? TUBS ( talk) 09:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)✓
For terrere the 1st pl Pluperfect is also wrong. Should be terruerāmus. ✓ TUBS ( talk) 13:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Guess what, it should be ēgerāmus in the Pluperfect 3rd Pl. Plz check all forms in that line of the overview table. They all might be wrong. TUBS ✓( talk) 13:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Thx. Same table. Shouldn't it be "captus, -a,-um erās" instead of "captus, -a,-um erām" for 2nd S Pass Ind PluPerfect. TUBS ( talk) 11:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Further below. Same column, future. It should be "captī, -ae, -a erimus" instead of "captī, -ae, -a erāmus" TUBS ( talk) 11:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)✓
Thx. Same table imperfect subj active. I suppose that laudāreēs is incorrect. I guess it should be laudārēs? TUBS ( talk) 08:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)✓
Thx. Same table, some more:
I'm not quite sure about that. I used some secondary resources to validate my claims. However, please check thoroughly before editing. --
TUBS (
talk)
11:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Why verbs are divided in -āre, -ēre, -ĕre and -īre? Were originally verbs in -āre transitive, in -īre intransitive and so on?-- Manfariel ( talk) 01:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I believe these terms are used incorrectly in the article as it now stands. The Present and Future tenses in Latin can have a perfective meaning, as understood in modern linguistics. It would be better to adopt another term, such as "present system" tenses for example. Kanjuzi ( talk) 12:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
"o-aspect stems" etc. is not a standard term. You can't just invent your own terminology in a Wikipedia article, but you have to use the standard terms. The solution is to use the traditional terms infectum and perfectum, I suggest. Kanjuzi ( talk) 18:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I found the table that was recently removed very helpful. Could we discuss? -- Macrakis ( talk) 19:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Why include an example like Arma haec facillima laudātū erant 'These arms were very easy to praise' instead of a real one from a Latin author? Not only does the supine laudatu not occur in any author, but the meaning of the sentence itself is so absurd and improbable that it could only belong in a school book. Is this article about the real Latin language as used by Latin authors, or the artificial made-up Latin of school books? Kanjuzi ( talk) 04:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
In the Regular conjugations section, one set of verbs is used (amo, video, duco, capio, audio), while in the Non-finite forms section, another set of verbs is used (laudo, terreo, peto, capio, audio).
I'm assuming the verbs are currently different because rewriting an entire section would be more trouble than it's worth, but is there a reason two different sets were originally chosen? -- Guypeter4 ( talk) 13:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
@Kanjuzi, @Macrakis, @Burzuchius, @Mlloyd57, @Sprocedato, @Iblardi, @Blurrzuki, @Gerbrant, @Rintrah,
Would you all agree to split this article into two? One for the verb paradigms (present indicative, future indicative...) and one for the verb classes (1st conjugation, 2nd conjugation...). This would make the structure of the two articles much more clear. For instance, the former can have one subsection per tense-mode option and the latter can have one subsection per verb class.
Please suggest names. If you agree, I shall go for: "Latin verb paradigms" ("Latin conjugations" redirect here), "Latin verb classes". Of course, I'll link one article to the other at the beginning.
If enough of you agree, I can make the change during Week 21 of 2023. I write this on thursday in Week 20 of 2023. Daniel Couto Vale ( talk) 14:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Kanjuzi, I see no informative gain about number of conjugations in your new paragraph about deponents and semi-deponents. It is also strange to talk about this ignoring the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs and other voice auxiliaries such as “agit”, “habet”, “dat” and the like. Should we restrict the scope of the section to the facts about the number of conjugations? 2003:F0:F12:4000:8CCA:5738:939E:A054 ( talk) 17:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)