![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
The accusative supine in Latin can only be used with verbs of movement. I'll change it if there are no objection. Vegfarandi 19:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't pretend to be an expert, but as I've learned it, the fourth principle part of the verb is the participal, and only ends in -um in the neuter; also, it's used in constructing the perfect and pluperfect passive indicative, not just the future passive infinitive. Purplezart ( talk) 23:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone clarify what it means that the second supine is derived from the ablative "or the dative"?
Does this mean that (1) scholars are uncertain whether it came from the dative or the ablative, or (2) scholars believe it somehow came from both the ablative and the dative?
I can believe that proto-Latin really had a full fourth-declension verbal noun. (There are several fourth declension nouns that are of this form -- sensus, actus, etc.) And it makes sense that the ablative of these nouns would "become" the second supine.
But I've never heard of a variant supine mirabile dictui, and I don't see any reference to a dative supine in Bennett or any other source. So I will remove the "dative" mention unless someone can either explain it or give a source for it. — Lawrence King ( talk) 11:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. — Lawrence King ( talk) 11:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Is this true? Isn't it the total compound form, like har spist (has eaten), that is called perfektum, while just spist is a form of the perfect participle which is called perfektum partisipp? Is there any Norwegian verb for which the form used with ha (have) is not a form of the perfect (past) participle, but a unique form? (In Swedish this is the case for strong verbs). 85.228.97.169 ( talk) 08:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if there are other forms, but to the best of my knowledge adfuerunt is the 3rd plural aorist/perfect of adesse, which means to be present, not to come. The proper word would be venerunt, other wise the sentence means "the gladiators were present to fight". Grammatically correct, but awkward, and improperly translated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.165.192 ( talk) 03:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a 'dubious' mark and no discussion section about it.
I believe one can find a reference saying that most probably this is true (i.e. that -t originates from the supine). Expected ending from the Common Slavic infinitive form is -ť (palatalized t) or -ti. Expected ending from the CS supine is -t. Indeed, in Czech there is an archaic form -ti in use with the same sense as -t. Linguiloce ( talk) 17:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
"More archaic forms are pirktun and pirktum." These forms are reconstructed (unattested), it isn't correctly just to say they are more archaic.-- Ed1974LT ( talk) 13:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
§ Infinitive and supine says
But what does it mean? The first and third examples illustrate purpose, the reason for going; the second might also, but since it's an idiom the original literal meaning of the supine cannot be unambiguously determined.
![]() | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
The accusative supine in Latin can only be used with verbs of movement. I'll change it if there are no objection. Vegfarandi 19:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't pretend to be an expert, but as I've learned it, the fourth principle part of the verb is the participal, and only ends in -um in the neuter; also, it's used in constructing the perfect and pluperfect passive indicative, not just the future passive infinitive. Purplezart ( talk) 23:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone clarify what it means that the second supine is derived from the ablative "or the dative"?
Does this mean that (1) scholars are uncertain whether it came from the dative or the ablative, or (2) scholars believe it somehow came from both the ablative and the dative?
I can believe that proto-Latin really had a full fourth-declension verbal noun. (There are several fourth declension nouns that are of this form -- sensus, actus, etc.) And it makes sense that the ablative of these nouns would "become" the second supine.
But I've never heard of a variant supine mirabile dictui, and I don't see any reference to a dative supine in Bennett or any other source. So I will remove the "dative" mention unless someone can either explain it or give a source for it. — Lawrence King ( talk) 11:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. — Lawrence King ( talk) 11:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Is this true? Isn't it the total compound form, like har spist (has eaten), that is called perfektum, while just spist is a form of the perfect participle which is called perfektum partisipp? Is there any Norwegian verb for which the form used with ha (have) is not a form of the perfect (past) participle, but a unique form? (In Swedish this is the case for strong verbs). 85.228.97.169 ( talk) 08:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if there are other forms, but to the best of my knowledge adfuerunt is the 3rd plural aorist/perfect of adesse, which means to be present, not to come. The proper word would be venerunt, other wise the sentence means "the gladiators were present to fight". Grammatically correct, but awkward, and improperly translated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.165.192 ( talk) 03:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a 'dubious' mark and no discussion section about it.
I believe one can find a reference saying that most probably this is true (i.e. that -t originates from the supine). Expected ending from the Common Slavic infinitive form is -ť (palatalized t) or -ti. Expected ending from the CS supine is -t. Indeed, in Czech there is an archaic form -ti in use with the same sense as -t. Linguiloce ( talk) 17:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
"More archaic forms are pirktun and pirktum." These forms are reconstructed (unattested), it isn't correctly just to say they are more archaic.-- Ed1974LT ( talk) 13:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
§ Infinitive and supine says
But what does it mean? The first and third examples illustrate purpose, the reason for going; the second might also, but since it's an idiom the original literal meaning of the supine cannot be unambiguously determined.