Latin Exercises

[Pacifica]

It is not part of the indirect statement, hence why it wasn't mentioned in Ignis Umbra's post.

 

[R. Seltza]

"Marcus tells Publius that Claudia has gone to Rome."

Marcus – Singular Noun – A Guy’s Name – Marcus (of course…)
Tells – 3rd Person Singular Active Indicative Present Tense Verb - Dicit
Publius – Indirect Object - Publio
That – Connecting Word – Indirect Statement Present – Gets Dropped
Claudia – Singular Noun - Indirect Statement Subject (Accusative Case) – Claudiam
Has Gone – Indirect Statement AcI Construction – Perfect Tense - Vasisse
To Rome – Indirect Object (Dative Case) - Romae

“Marcus Publio dicit Claudiam vasisse Romae.”

May the thrashing of my response ensue...

 

[Dantius]

vado wouldn't be the most likely verb here (eo is the best word for "to go"). "To Rome" is not an indirect object. It's a phrase expression motion towards something. Normally, this would be done with ad + acc. However, cities, towns, and small islands just use the accusative without ad.

 

[R. Seltza]

"Marcus tells Publius that Claudia has gone to Rome."

Marcus – Singular Noun – A Guy’s Name – Marcus (of course…)
Tells – 3rd Person Singular Active Indicative Present Tense Verb - Dicit
Publius – Indirect Object - Publio
That – Connecting Word – Indirect Statement Present – Gets Dropped
Claudia – Singular Noun - Indirect Statement Subject (Accusative Case) – Claudiam
Has Gone – Indirect Statement AcI Construction – Perfect Tense - Vasisse
To Rome – Indirect Object (Dative Case) - Romae

“Marcus Publio dicit Claudiam vasisse Romae.”

Has Gone – Indirect Statement AcI Construction – Perfect Tense - Isse
To Rome – Phrase of Motion (Accusative Case) - Romam

“Marcus Publio dicit Claudiam isse Romam.”

 

[Pacifica]

That's correct.

 

[R. Seltza]

Can we work on Latin morphological derivation? How could we tale a word like sonorus ("noisy/loud") & convert it into comparative & superlative adverbs ("noisier/louder" & "noisiest/loudest")?

 

[Bitmap]

sonorius, sonorissime.

 

[R. Seltza]

Is it grammatically correct to take those endings (relative to gender of course) & apply that to any word or are there some restrictions?

 

[Pacifica]

In theory, you can form comparatives and superlatives from almost any adjective or adverb (not any word). However, some comparatives and superlatives are unattested, and it's sometimes better to go with something more usual then.

Some adjectives and adverbs form their superlatives a bit differently from others, too. For example, pulcher has pulcherrimus rather than *pulcherissimus (adjectives that end in -er usually all behave pulcher, which is just an example), and facilis has facillimus rather than *facilissimus.

 

[Bitmap]

There are also adjectives/adverbs which form their comparative with magis and their superlative with maxime. That's usually the case with adjectives ending in -us with a preceding vowel, e.g.:

ideoneus -> magis idoneus -> maxime idoneus
noxius -> magis noxius -> maxime noxius
arduus -> magis arduus -> maxime arduus

Just to be clear: the feminine and neuter forms follow the same pattern of course.

 

[R. Seltza]

Aside from the comparative/superlative adverbs, what are all the other ways in which morphological derivation could be used in Latin?

For example, let's use the word "glory", a noun.

Common English conversions would be:
Adjective - Glorious
Adverb - Gloriously
Verb – Glorify
Verb back to Adjective – Glorifiable
Noun (Agent) – Glorifier

There are more that I haven’t added (which occur in other contexts than cannot be exemplified with the word "glory"). Does Latin have regularized affixes for these?

 

[Bitmap]

Aside from the comparative/superlative adverbs, what are all the other ways in which morphological derivation could be used in Latin?

For example, let's use the word "glory", a noun.

That's a bit of a weak example considering the English noun along with all the forms you mentioned comes from Latin.

 

[R. Seltza]

That's a bit of a weak example

Yeah, it was the 1st thing that came to mind. It was just meant to try & get my idea across.

considering the English noun along with all the forms you mentioned comes from Latin.

So Latin does have it. Are there regularized affixes to remember whenever I want to convert a word's part of speech on the fly or are there some words with affixes that convert differently?

 

[Dantius]

It's probably worth reading from here (§227), to around §267. That should help with the formation of words, though you'll notice that there are not so many regular patterns as there are in English, and it's generally best to just learn those things on a case-by-case basis.

 

[R. Seltza]

Hey guys,

The meanings for 1st person singular active indicative conjugations would be (using the verb "to love"):
Present - I love / I am loving
Imperfect - I was loving
Future - I will love
Perfect - I loved / I have loved (or I've loved)
Pluperfect - I had loved
Future Perfect - I will have loved

What would these be for passive conjugations? Are they as follows?:
Present - I am loved / I am being loved
Imperfect - I was being loved
Future - I will be loved
Perfect - I have been loved
Pluperfect - I had been loved
Future Perfect - I will have been loved

Also, for the passive completed aspects, you'd need to use the participle amatus + the corresponding conjugation of sum. Why is it like that instead of just having more conjugations of amo itself?

Can the completed aspects of sum ever be used by itself or is it only ever used as a part of other passive completed verbs?

 

[Bitmap]

What would these be for passive conjugations? Are they as follows?:
Present - I am loved / I am being loved
Imperfect - I was being loved
Future - I will be loved
Perfect - I have been loved
Pluperfect - I had been loved
Future Perfect - I will have been loved

Yes. Perfect can also be 'I was loved'.

Also, for the passive completed aspects, you'd need to use the participle amatus + the corresponding conjugation of sum. Why is it like that instead of just having more conjugations of amo itself?

That's how the Latin language developed.

Can the completed aspects of sum ever be used by itself or is it only ever used as a part of other passive completed verbs?

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you give me an example?

 

[R. Seltza]

I'm not sure what you mean. Can you give me an example?

By "completed aspects", I'm referring to the completed conjugations of the verb such as perfect, pluperfect, & future perfect tenses (opposed to the continuous aspects of it such as present, imperfect, & future tenses).

I guess another way for me to clarify this would be to do the same outline above, but for sum:
Present - I am
Imperfect - I was
Future - I will be
Perfect - ???
Pluperfect - I had been?
Future Perfect - I will have been?

The last 2 descriptions I've typed sound like the passive voice, but sum doesn't have passive versions. What would the last 3 be?

 

[Bitmap]

Perfect - ???
Pluperfect - I had been?
Future Perfect - I will have been?

The last 2 descriptions I've typed sound like the passive voice, but sum doesn't have passive versions. What would the last 3 be?

Perfect - I have been / I was
Pluperfect - I had been
Future II - I will have been

Of course you can find these tenses with sum as a main verb.

 

[R. Seltza]

That's interesting. I've never really seen those forms used by themselves as a main verb before. I guess I just need to read some more Latin literature, lol.

 

[Bitmap]

Well, the perfect is usually used to look at a past action as a whole (historic perfect) ... and it works that way with sum as with any other verb ...

an example of the pluperfect:
From Ovid, met. 1,87f.:

sic, modo quae fuerat rudis et sine imagine, tellus
induit ignotas hominum conversa figuras.

Thus, the earth, that had a moment earlier been unshaped and without image, was changed and put on the unknown shapes of humans.