Inflection in Latin
- Thread starter ajp120
- Start date
Why are participle endings given as such: amätürus, -a, -um? And not just -turus?
At first, I assumed the -a and -um would be respective case endings added on, but that would include the rest of the cases nor, would it make sense of the fact that they are declined after after having the participle added to the stem, anyways.
At first, I assumed the -a and -um would be respective case endings added on, but that would include the rest of the cases nor, would it make sense of the fact that they are declined after after having the participle added to the stem, anyways.
So mis- is the present stem of mittere?
I'm not sure. Generally for third conjugation verbs the best strategy is just to memorize.
Here's my best guess: many third conjugation verbs add an -s to get the perfect stem. But mitts- was hard to pronounce so it got contracted.
Probably because "What sent you" (1) sounds incredibly archaic, and (2) could be misinterpreted, as Modern English has lost most of its case endings, as "What thing (nominative) sent you (accusative)"?
Quid misisti? <------- so misisti directly translates closer to "you sent?"
English and Latin just work differently here, in that English uses auxiliary/supporting verbs in questions (do, did, etc. in addition to the "important" verb that contains the crucial information), whereas Latin doesn't. Same thing in negative sentences; English says "doesn't", "didn't", etc. in addition to the "important verb", while Latin uses no such supporting verbs.
So in Latin you say:
Quid misisti?
Misistine litteras?
Non misi litteras.
Which are, more or less word for word:
What sent you?
Sent you the letter?
I sent not the letter.
But of course in normal contemporary English the translations will be:
What did you send?
Did you send the letter?
I didn't send the letter.
So in Latin you say:
Quid misisti?
Misistine litteras?
Non misi litteras.
Which are, more or less word for word:
What sent you?
Sent you the letter?
I sent not the letter.
But of course in normal contemporary English the translations will be:
What did you send?
Did you send the letter?
I didn't send the letter.
Thanks to the above help!
Also, another inquiry:
Et factum est ita
Factum is acting as a verbal adjective, I can intuitively assume, but I cannot reverse engineer how it was formed from facere, and parse it to be PPP, accusative supine, or something else +um that makes a verb into an adjective.
Also, another inquiry:
Et factum est ita
Factum is acting as a verbal adjective, I can intuitively assume, but I cannot reverse engineer how it was formed from facere, and parse it to be PPP, accusative supine, or something else +um that makes a verb into an adjective.
Factum is here the PPP in the neuter singular nominative. Together with present forms of the verb esse, the PPP forms the perfect passive; like here factum est = literally "it-is having-been-done" = "it was done" or "it has been done".
The form factum can also be the accusative supine, but it isn't that here.
The form factum can also be the accusative supine, but it isn't that here.