Te rogo ut hoc facias (p.441, no. 26); facias= jussive noun?

[john abshire]

p.441
exercises for chap. 36, no. 26
14) Te rogo ut hoc facias. "I ask you to do this."
16) A me petebant ne bellum facerem. "They kept begging me not to make war."
18) Vos oramus ut discipuli acerrimi fiatis. "We beg you to become very keen pupils."

In each of the sentences above, the highlighted verbs are called a "jussive noun", according to the textbook. [in this part of the assignment, we were supposed to "explain the syntax of the words (those highlighted)".]
But, It seems to me that each of the above sentences are more like a "purpose clause". For example, sentence no. 14) Te rogo ut hoc facias. If the translation were "I ask you, "let's do this", then I would say this is jussive (command). But, "I ask you to do this.", sounds more like a purpose clause, with "to do this" being the purpose for "I ask you".
Could someone explain why facias, facerem, and fiatis are "jussive nouns" instead of being part of "purpose clauses"?

 

[Clemens]

My grammar calls this "volitive subjunctive in substantive clauses." It distinguishes these from "volitive subjunctive in clauses of purpose," in that the first one shows an expressed wish, counsel, or request, and that the second shows for which reason an action (in the main clause) was done. If we translate literally number 14, we get, "I ask you that you do this," which is expressing a request. A clause of purpose would be more like Augustine's Credo ut intellegam, "I believe (in order) that I (may) understand."

 

[Pacifica]

Let's be clear: facias, facerem and fiatis aren't nouns per se—they're verbs—but the ut clauses in which they're being used are substantive clauses, as Clemens suggested. A substantive clause is a clause that works like a noun. It can be the subject or object of a verb like a noun would. Here for instance, the ut clauses are the objects of the verbs rogo, petebant and oramus (with rogo and oramus, they're second objects in addition to te and vos). Although it isn't the case here, a subjunctive verb can on its own constitute a substantive clause, like in the sentence volo audias (I want [that] you listen, I want you to listen). Audias alone is a substantive clause object of volo.

 

[cinefactus]

It seems like it is a lot easier to understand the meaning than to understand the grammar

 

[Pacifica]

In my view, so long as you understand the meaning, you're good. Understanding the grammar and knowing all the terminology is just a bonus.

 

[john abshire]

Let's be clear: facias, facerem and fiatis aren't nouns per se—they're verbs—but the ut clauses in which they're being used are substantive clauses, as Clemens suggested. A substantive clause is a clause that works like a noun. It can be the subject or object of a verb like a noun would. Here for instance, the ut clauses are the objects of the verbs rogo, petebant and oramus (with rogo and oramus, they're second objects in addition to te and vos). Although it isn't the case here, a subjunctive verb can on its own constitute a substantive clause, like in the sentence volo audias (I want [that] you listen, I want you to listen). Audias alone is a substantive clause object of volo.

Te rogo ut eas.
“I ask you to go.”
I am not sure if this is right, but I am trying to make a one word (verb) object (“go”) after “te rogo ut”, a subjunctive clause, like audias is in volo audias.
??
Secondly, I didn’t read a defense of “jussive noun”, but after reviewing my book some more, this must be short for “jussive noun clause”.

 

[Pacifica]

Te rogo ut eas.
“I ask you to go.”
I am not sure if this is right, but I am trying to make a one word (verb) object (“go”) after “te rogo ut”, a subjunctive clause, like audias is in volo audias.
??

The object in rogo ut eas is the clause (both words) ut eas. But you can shorten it to one word and just say rogo eas.

“jussive noun clause”.

That makes more sense. It's kind of weird to shorten it to "jussive noun", though.

 

[cinefactus]

Sounds like something my mum would have said

 

[john abshire]

The object in rogo ut eas is the clause (both words) ut eas. But you can shorten it to one word and just say rogo eas.
That makes more sense. It's kind of weird to shorten it to "jussive noun", though.

Why isn’t “ut” required in rogo ut eas.? Or the infinitive ire? As rogo ire?

 

[Pacifica]

Many verbs of asking and the like, including rogo, can take an ut clause or a bare subjunctive clause (i.e., a subjunctive verb without ut). Those are just alternatives.

Rogo ire doesn't make much sense as a translation of "I ask you to go". You could, at a stretch, say rogo te ire, but it's an unusual construction.

I can't exactly say why things are as they are. But that's the way usage is.