"Is iuris civilis custos esto."

[Michael Zwingli]

Hi, all. This one should be quick and easy...a verification, really.

In A&G section 449.2, one will find the following sentence: Is iuris civilis custos esto. I have a couple of points that I would like verified about this, and one question.This section has to do with the future imperative. I believe this sentence to be an example of third person future imperative, am I correct about that? Also, I believe that is is in the nominative case here (indeed, as is custos), right again? The final point is a question: the reference given for this example is Legg. 3.8; what the heck is Legg.?

 

[Pacifica]

I believe this sentence to be an example of third person future imperative, am I correct about that?

Yes.

Also, I believe that is is in the nominative case here (indeed, as is custos), right again?

Yes.

what the heck is Legg.

Cicero's De Legibus: https://latin.packhum.org/search?q=Is+iuris+civilis+custos+esto

 

[Michael Zwingli]

Cicero's De Legibus

Aaah.. I was looking for it, but the doubled "g" threw me; I was looking for something with a doubled "g"...beginning "Legg...".

Even though is...custos we're obviously nominative, I found myself second guessing because an unspoken "you" can almost appear to be the subject of this sentence: "(You) let him be the guardian of the civil law". I think that the third person imperative can be a bit deceptive in that way.

Well, Pacifica, that was alot easier than the verba timendi issue, eh? (I'm not always a "high maintenance" disciple.) Thanks much.

EDIT: I have noted that the second and third person future imperative forms seem always to coincide. I suppose that such is to allow the verb to apply to the person being addressed (the heretofore mentioned unspoken "you"), and at the same time to the subject of the sentence in cases of the third person future imperative?

 

[Pacifica]

an unspoken "you" can almost appear to be the subject of this sentence: "(You) let him be the guardian of the civil law".

Just checking: do you now realize how the above statement is true of the English sentence but not at all of the Latin?

 

[Pacifica]

I have noted that the second and third person future imperative forms seem always to coincide.

They are identical in the singular. Not in the plural. I don't know how this state of affairs came to be.

 

[Glabrigausapes]

The consensus seems to be that this -tō (which is seen in G -τω & also in Vedic -ता) was a separable particle which eventually was attached to a verbal stem (much like the so-called 'augment'). Roughly in the way the augment said to the speaker psst, this word is in the (narrative) past!, even so did the -tō say (0:14):

And so, any termination to distinguish one person from the next had to be a 'back-formation'. Hence the general plural -n.

And even if the particle were added to finite stems (which it shouldn't have been), we would have *probably gotten:
es + -to = esto 2nd sg.
est + -to = esto 3rd sg.
sunt + -to = sunto 3rd pl.
And that kind of 'syncretism' in an important verb such as this could be ruinous for the rest of the lot.

*Of course, in Latin the usual reflex of *-tt > -ss, such as *(s)mit-tos > missus, *wont-to-s > -ōsus (denasalized), or **-dt- > *-tt- *ləd-tos > lassus)