Quaestiones discipuli

[efilzeo]

I hope I wrote "student's questions" in the title, I'd like to post here all my ignorant questions along my road to read Lucretius in Latin.

1. Do somehow all adverbs (or many of them) in Latin have an "E" at the end of them (facile, libenter, optime ...)?

Pardon me if this is a stupid question but errando discitur and fabricando fit faber.

 

[Arca Defectionis]

All 1st and 2nd declension adjectives become adverbs by taking a long 'e' after the stem. Liber-e, aequ-e, pulchr-e. This also means that all superlative adverbs end in a long 'e,' since they're all 1st/2nd adjectives. Felicissim-e, pulcherrim-e, optim-e. Note that bene and male have short e's for some reason. Facile is also an exception and its 'e' is short. There is also a regularly formed faciliter (see below)

Not all adjectives end in 'e,' of course; you posted libenter as one of your examples, so that should be clear. 3rd declension adjectives take -iter after the stem. Acr-iter, felic-iter, trist-iter. But adjectives with stems ending in -nt just take -er instead of -iter. Libent-er, sapient-er, ingent-er. The comparative adverb is irregular. Though it should end in -oriter, instead you just use the neuter comparative adjective adverbially: facil-ius, pulchr-ius, mel-ius. You can do this with some normal adjectives as well (solum, verum, etc.)

There are also adverbs not derived from verbs, which end in all sorts of letters. Iam, diu, cras, etc.

 

[Imber Ranae]

All 1st and 2nd declension adjectives become adverbs by taking a long 'e' after the stem. Liber-e, aequ-e, pluchr-e.

Well, most. Some form adverbs with the accusative or ablative neuter, like sōlum or crebrō or certō (though certē also exists with a slightly different nuance), and others are formed completely irregularly, like magnopere (actually a contraction of magnō opere).

This also means that all superlative adverbs end in a long 'e,' since they're all 1st/2nd adjectives. Felicissim-e, pulcherrim-e, optim-e. Note that bene and male have short e's for some reason. Facile is also an exception and its 'e' is short. There is also a regularly formed faciliter (see below)

Technically the adverb facile is neuter accusative in origin, so it's not the same as bene or male which are just the result of iambic shortening (originally these had -ē). faciliter is very rare and lately attested.

Not all adjectives end in 'e,' of course; you posted libenter as one of your examples, so that should be clear. 3rd declension adjectives take -iter after the stem. Acr-iter, felic-iter, trist-iter. But adjectives with stems ending in -nt just take -er instead of -iter. Libent-er, sapient-er, ingent-er. The comparative adverb is irregular. Though it should end in -oriter, instead you just use the neuter comparative adjective adverbially: facil-ius, pulchr-ius, mel-ius.

The i isn't actually part of the stem. With these words the "regularly formed" comparative adverbs would be *faciliuster, *pulchriuster, and *meliuster. The stem in -ius (originally -iōs) can be seen from diminutive comparatives like meliusculus "somewhat better" and minusculus "rather less, smallish".

 

[efilzeo]

Thanks.

2. Why the phrase "Quid arbitramini de fabellis insanis?" is translated as "what do you think about crazy stories?"? Isn't "arbitramini" the passive form of the verb? Why doesn't is use the active form of it like: quid arbitratis fabellis insanis?

 

[cinefactus]

From arbitror, a deponent verb.

 

[Godmy]

Which means that only the passive forms of the given verbs are in use and they are mostly understood and translated like they were active and some of them even take direct objects (thus behaving fully as an active verb).
That means that they are passive in all possible forms (all tenses of indicative, subjunctive, infinitives = ending on "í" (the present ones)...)

But you can never make "a semantic" passive from a deponent verb (because it will mean active anyway) and you have to use a different verb to do that.

 

[Arca Defectionis]

With the caveat that the gerundive is still passive. Patiendus, which must be suffered.

 

[Acsacal]

My grammar gives phrases to "replace the missing passives" of some intransitive verbs:

• odisse (hate) => in odio esse;
• admirari (admire) => admirationem movere;
• suspicari (suspect) => in suspicionem venire;
• uti (use) => usui esse;
• vendere (sell) =>venire (<venum-ire); and
• perdere (lose) => perire.

 

[Arca Defectionis]

Not a bad list, but I have a few concerns:

Why not 'osus esse' as the passive of 'odisse'?

'Mirari' COULD be the passive of 'mirare,' but I think the former is much more common in the active meaning.

Why not 'suspectari' for 'to be suspected'?

And why can't 'vendere' and 'perdere' be made passive regularly ('vendi,' 'perdi')?

 

[Pacifica]

Yeah, indeed it seems that your book suggests to replace a few "missing passives"... which are not missing, Acsacal!
Of course I am not saying that the expressions proposed are not right, they are, and maybe they are more usited than their corresponding "true passives". But still it is strange to call "missing" something that isn't...

 

[Godmy]

Well with some of them (based on the reasearches) we really can securely say that for example: perdor, perderis, perditur, perdimur, perdimini, perduntur or "vendor, venderis... etc" seem strange to a classical Roman who would consciously use a synonym in that kind of construction.

So you are right: the passives are not missing (and there are few attested examples for "perditur" (for instance) ), but there was a real existing tendency not to use them in the place where they are semantically expected.
Ergo the thing Acsacal's book was talking about is a tendency, which we should probably respect and use it in the same way in our own speech so it is as similar as possible.

Same with some supines: Some verbs miss supines and supines of other verbs are used in their stead. So of course, if you instead created supines of your own for those few verbs using your knowledge of the Latin morphology (= to create them in an expected way any latinist would), you would be understood, but you would sound strange... and that's it, probably

 

[Aurifex]

A supplement to Godmy's response:
osus sum etc, a collateral perfect active form besides odi, is occasionally to be met with.
The active form miro is an ante-classical collateral form of miror.
suspectari, the passive of suspecto, will in some circumstances serve as a translation of "to be suspected", though strictly speaking it is frequentative in form.
veneo is the classical "passive" of vendo, but from Seneca onwards passives formed regularly from vendo can be found.
The only instance in classical Latin where the present passive of perdo is found instead of pereo occurs here:
Horace, Sat. II, 6, 59: perditur haec inter misero lux non sine votis

Additional info.
A "regular" present passive, oditur etc, is occasionally found in late Latin.
Godmy's remark about tendency (i.e. actual usage) is the most pertinent one here; classical usage, like it or not, has the strongest status as standard Latin, and since Latin is a dead language (for the time being, at any rate) that state of affairs is not likely to change any time soon.

 

[Pacifica]

Some verbs miss supines and supines of other verbs are used in their stead.

Mind, I wonder by what strange mechanism some verbs happened to have no supine. That's strange when you think.

 

[Acsacal]

Well with some of them (based on the reasearches) we really can securely say that for example: perdor, perderis, perditur, perdimur, perdimini, perduntur or "vendor, venderis... etc" seem strange to a classical Roman who would consciously use a synonym in that kind of construction.

So you are right: the passives are not missing (and there are few attested examples for "perditur" (for instance) ), but there was a real existing tendency not to use them in the place where they are semantically expected.
Ergo the thing Acsacal's book was talking about is a tendency, which we should probably respect and use it in the same way in our own speech so it is as similar as possible.

Same with some supines: Some verbs miss supines and supines of other verbs are used in their stead. So of course, if you instead created supines of your own for those few verbs using your knowledge of the Latin morphology (= to create them in an expected way any latinist would), you would be understood, but you would sound strange... and that's it, probably

My book is Grammaire latine complète by Lucien Sausy. It was first edited in the early fifties and intended to be the only grammar book to be used by a secondary school pupil from the age of 11 to the age of 18. In the introduction the author presents the book as a set of safe guidelines for the pupils to translate French into Latin and admits that the reality of Latin classical texts may not exactly comply. The word tendency doesn't appear in the above-quoted paragraph but is implied by the introduction.