inceptus clamor frustratur hiantis
- Thread starter nuxlac
- Start date
It's accusative plural of a present participle (hiantīs, i-stem) used as a substantive and functioning as the direct object of the deponent verb frustror,-ari.
Oh frustratur is deponent? When I looked it up it said that it was passive for frustro. But I'm going to go with deponent because it makes much more sense here. And yeah the -is ending can be the accusative plural ending for third declensions, it's just pronounced longer.
Thanks!
Thanks!
A non-deponent form apparently also exists, but the deponent form is the norm.
While we're at it, do you know about the -im acc. sing. ending of 3rd decl. i-stems (rather than the more common -em)? -im was in fact the original ending, and in classical Latin can still be found in vim, turrim, securim, Tiberim and a few other words.
Yes I know some words have their accusative in -im, though I don't really know what an i-stem is. I mean, how do we know that in turris the stem is turri- and not turr-?
Pacis Puella, one of the main endings for the 3rd declension masculine singular is -s. From words like turri-s or flo-s, to more obscure words like rex (regs), to words where the s is now dropped off entirely mater (maters). So of you take the s off of a word and there is an i in the stem, it is an i-stem. Things get a little more complicated of course (thanks to the evolution of Latin and whatnot), but this website might help. http://www.slu.edu/colleges/AS/languages/classical/latin/tchmat/grammar/whprax/w14istem.html
That's not so simple... As all genitives singular end in -is! Ex: in mater, which is not an i-stem, how can you guess that it is matr-is and not matri-s? But now I think I understand better thanks to John's link. Thank you. But seeing the examples given there, it seems that not all i-stems have an accusative singular in -im.
There are only six nouns (apart from the names of rivers) with i-stems so you simply have to memorize them and thus won't have to agonize whether mater is an i-stem or not.
Only? And all present participles too. And adjectives?
No, there are more than six nouns! In John's link already they give five of them. + turris, vis, etc mentionned above. Or when you say only six, you only mean those who compulsorily take -im in acc. sg?
No, there are more than six nouns! In John's link already they give five of them. + turris, vis, etc mentionned above. Or when you say only six, you only mean those who compulsorily take -im in acc. sg?
There are definitely more than six i-stem third declension nouns. Civis, nubes, mare, nox, arx, ars, exemplar, for example. John's link is a good one; neuter nom/voc/acc plural and genitive plural will do the trick in identifying them, as they have that extra 'i'. But if you had 'turris' on a text, you wouldn't be able to tell with certainty if it was an i-stem without looking up all of its forms. There are some patterns, however, as John's link shows.
That's what I meant. But now I know that if there are two consonants before -is, it's very likely to be an i-stem. But which of the i-stems necessarily have an acc. sg. in -im? The six Maleolus talks about maybe? Because, as far as I know, many of i-stems have it in -em, like noctem, arcem, artem, at least in their classical form.
As Aurifex mentioned earlier, I think it's just an older or alternative form. Probably like how 'is' is sometimes used for accusative plural in the third declension and 'um' used for genitive plural for the second declension (you'll see Vergil sometimes have 'deum' for 'deorum' for example when he wants to be all cool and archaic).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin#Third_declension_.28c.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Latin#Third_declension_.28c.29
I am afraid Latin grammar books somehow seem to deviate from each other because there is a clear differentiation between pure i-stems and mixed i-stems (declined in the singular like consonant stems, in the plural like i-stems , under which category nouns like civis, nubes,nox, arx, ars fall). Those mixed i-stems have -em in the accusative and -e in the ablative singular, -ium in the genitive plural.
Nevertheless, I do aoplogize for having been a tad vague concerning the words sitis, puppis, turris, febris, vīs, secūris . What I meant to say was that all of these nouns are i-stems of feminine gender carrying the accusative -im. Sorry again.
Thus, you wouldn't have any difficulty in telling that turris is an i-stem.(because your teacher made you learn them by heart)
To Pacis puella.
The grammar of the 3rd declension is not only awful, but moreover described according to different principles in the French grammars and in the English ones. If French speaking Latin learners never hear of "i-stem", "imparisyllabiques" and "parisyllabiques" are not very popular in English speaking countries either.
The grammar of the 3rd declension is not only awful, but moreover described according to different principles in the French grammars and in the English ones. If French speaking Latin learners never hear of "i-stem", "imparisyllabiques" and "parisyllabiques" are not very popular in English speaking countries either.
A masculine or feminine 3rd decl. noun being parisyllabic or imparisyllabic is a pretty good determiner of whether it will be i-stem, but this isn't an exceptionless rule and it doesn't apply to neuters. The concept of i-stems is far greater than that nice little distinction.
I consider any noun or adjective with a genitive plural in -ium to be i-stem. It may be somewhat of a misnomer, but that's how the term is consistently applied in English grammars. On the other hand, I've never found a consistently applied definition for "mixed i-stem", so I don't find it a very useful term.
There are basically three 'levels' of i-stem nouns and adjectives. On the first level, every i-stem will at the very least have -ium in the genitive plural, and -ia in the neuter nom./acc. plural (where applicable). So, too, may any such noun or adjective have -īs instead of -ēs for the masc./fem. accusative plural according to whether that rule is applied.
On the second level, some i-stems will also have -ī in place of -e as their ablative singular. This applies principally for neuter noun i-stems, of which only a small minority ever have -e in their ablative singular, as well as for all i-stem adjectives* (except participles, which usually have -e but may have -ī when used as pure adjectives without any verbal force). On the other hand, most masculine and feminine i-stem nouns have always -e in ablative singular (these form the group of what is usually called "mixed i-stems"), but those which end with -is or -ēs in their nominative singular forms may have -ī instead of -e in the ablative singular, but there's no consistent rule. Therefore both igne and ignī exist as ablative singulars, with ignī being the older form that is more often applied in formulaic expressions, like aquā et ignī interdicere, and used by those authors who have a tendency for conservatism in their language (Sallust, for example). Cicero and other classical authors are often inconsistent, but -e is eventually established as the norm.
The final level is a small subset of masculine/feminine nouns ending with -is in the nominative which have already been named above. These will will either consistently (as vis, sitis, and names of rivers) have -im instead of -em as their accusative singular and -ī instead of -e as their ablative singular, or only usually have them (as securis, turris, etc.)
*adjectives are almost universally i-stem. There are only a few exceptions, such as vetus, which has ablative singular vetere, genitive plural veterum, and neuter nominative/accusative plural vetera, as well as all the comparative forms (abl. sing. -iore, gen. pl. -iorum, neut. nom./acc. -iora).