Latin Textbook (Based on Wheelock’s Latin)
\nSTUDY GUIDE TO WHEELOCK LATIN<\/p>\n
by
\nDale A Grote
\nUNC Charlotte<\/p>\n
[This copy FTP’d from milton.u.washington.edu, 19-Jan-93]<\/p>\n
From FFL00DAG@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU Tue Jan 19 18:15:19 1993
\n Date: Tue, 19 Jan 93 21:08:32 EST
\n From: FFL00DAG@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU
\n Subject: Re: Latin Textbook
\n To: Thomas Dell <\/p>\n
Thomas,<\/p>\n
I call the guides “Study Guide to Wheelock,” and have made them
\n available for free use to anyone who’d like use them. I think
\n the answer to your question, therefore, is “Yes.” I sent them
\n up so they could get some good beta-testing. So far as I’m
\n conncerned they can be copied and sent anywhere.<\/p>\n
Dale A. Grote
\n FFL00DAG@UNCCVM.BITNET
\n Department of Foreign Languages
\n UNC Charlotte
\n Charlotte, NC 28223
\n 704-547-4242<\/p>\n
—<\/p>\n
12\/30\/92<\/p>\n
PREFACE TO MY COLLEAGUES<\/p>\n
Wheelock’s Latin is now, and probably will be for sometime in the future, the
\nmost widely used introductory Latin book used in American colleges and
\nuniversities. And with good reason. His exclusive emphasis on the details
\nof Latin grammar squares with the general expectation that students
\nacquire a rudimentary, independent reading ability in real Latin after only
\ntwo semesters of study. Surely Wheelock has its drawbacks and limitations,
\nbut it is still the best text around.<\/p>\n
A growing difficulty with the book has become apparent in recent
\nyears, a problem that is entirely external to the text itself: students are
\nless and less able to understand his explanations of Latin grammar because
\ntheir grasp of English grammar is becoming more tenuous. This
\nobsolescence hardly comes as a surprise, since the main outlines of
\nWheelock’s grammar were set down in the forties and fifties, when it was
\nsafe to assume that college students were well versed in at least the
\nbasics of English grammar. We may lament this change, write heated letters
\nto school boards and state legislatures, but all this is of little help when
\nconfronted as we are with classrooms filled with beginning Latin students
\nwho have never learned the difference between a participle and a pronoun,
\nor who have never heard the word “case” in their lives.<\/p>\n
As the years went by, I found that I was required to dedicate
\nunacceptable amounts of class time to discussions of elementary
\ngrammatical concepts and to redrafting Wheelock’s explanations into forms
\nmy students could understand, leaving less time for actually confronting
\nLatin in the classroom. The results were predictable: it became nearly
\nimpossible to complete the forty chapters of grammatical material in two
\nsemesters. The third semester had to be called into the service of the
\nbasic grammar of the language, thus reducing the reading we could do and
\ndelaying the feeling of mastery and independence that drives students on
\nto read more.<\/p>\n
Slowly, I began to compile a rather extensive body of notes and
\nexercises designed to teach the basic grammatical concepts to students of
\nLatin, as they needed them, while learning Latin from Wheelock, and to slow
\ndown and recast Wheelock’s treatment of the grammar into language which
\nthey could understand on their own. My intention for these notes was to
\nget the repetitive transfer of basic information out of the classroom, so
\nthat we could spend more class time reviewing, translating, and drilling.
\nThese notes, therefore, represent nothing more than what I found myself
\nrepeating year after year in front of a class. By setting them into a
\nwritten text, however, and removing it from the daily classroom agenda,
\nthere is no doubt that I have greatly increased the productivity of class
\ntime. Whereas I previously struggled to finish twenty chapters in a
\nsemester, my first semester class now easily finishes twenty-seven
\nchapters in the first semester, with time left over for some connected
\nreadings. In the second semester, we have time to do considerable amounts
\nof extended reading after the forty chapters of grammar have been
\ncovered.<\/p>\n
There is really nothing miraculous about this increased productivity.
\nIn fact, it was to be expected. Previously, students, who could make
\nneither heads nor tails of Wheelock, relied on my in-class presentations to
\nexplain Latin grammar to them. After the grammar was explained, they would
\nreview their classroom notes, and begin the chapter exercises, without
\never having read Wheelock, which had been replaced by my lectures. In
\nessence, then, I was doing their homework for them, but I was doing it in
\nclass, not outside of class. By removing basic grammar from the class by
\nputting it into a workbook, I only transferred the time spent on learning
\nLatin grammar outside the class, and freed up time in class for drilling and
\ntaking specific questions.<\/p>\n
An unexpected, and admittedly self-interested, advantage I reaped
\nfrom these printed notes was that students who tend to fall behind, or to
\nmiss class (and fall behind), had a body of notes which they could use on
\ntheir own to catch up, and — perhaps more importantly — to which I could
\nrefer them when they came knocking at my door to find out “if they’d missed
\nanything important in class.” Previously this presented a real moral bind.
\nEither I spent hours reteaching the class (or classes) for them, in the
\n(usually vain) hope that they would reform once they had been set up on a
\nsure foundation, or I sent them away uninformed, knowing that things would
\nonly get worse for them because they couldn’t possibly draw the
\ninformation they needed from Wheelock by themselves. Now, I refer them to
\nmy notes, express my willingness to answer their specific questions after
\nthey’ve worked through them, and send them on their way, hoping for the
\nbest.<\/p>\n
Here’s how I’ve incorporated these notes into my syllabus and
\nclassroom routine. In the first place, going through my notes for each
\nchapter is entirely optional. I make no assignments from them, nor do we
\nuse class time to go over any of the exercises they contain. Instead, I
\nmerely assign the Practice and Review sentences of, say, Chapter 5, for the
\nnext class period. How the students learn the material in Chapter 5 is
\nentirely their affair, though I do recommend they read my notes. If,
\nhowever, a student can understand Wheelock perfectly, then s\/he is under
\nno obligation to read my presentation of the chapter. Most students do
\nread my notes instead of Wheelock. After reading my notes, I recommend
\nthat they read Wheelock’s chapter, which provides a compressed “review” of
\nwhat I leisurely set out in my chapter notes. For an added review and
\ntranslation exercises, I also recommend that students work through
\nWheelock’s Self-Help Tutorials before turning to the specified assignment.
\nAfter so much preparation, students regularly find the sentences quite
\nstraight-forward. In class, then, after a verbal review of the important
\nconcepts in the chapter, we work quickly through the sentences, then, in the
\ntime remaining, we sight read either from the Sententiae Antiquae, or from
\nthe book 38 Latin Stories designed to go along with Wheelock. My class
\ncovers three chapters per week — one chapter per day, since we meet MWF
\nfor an hour and half. Classes meeting five times per week, of course, would
\ndivide the material differently.<\/p>\n
I would like to stress again that I don’t claim to have created
\nanything new, revolutionary, or destined to reshape the way Latin is
\ntaught for the next 25 years. Perhaps I do have one claim to originality,
\ninsofar as my book combines a grammar text and workbook, but I hardly think
\nthat’s worthy of much note. I merely believe that I have put together a
\nstudy guide which will help teach Latin from Wheelock more efficiently by
\nmaking more classroom time available for direct contact with the language
\nitself. The text is not meant to intrude directly on classroom work. It is
\nfor students use at night, by themselves, to prepare for classes and exams.
\nI myself designate the book as an optional purchase and make it available
\nat a nearby copy store, and at first a substantial fraction of my class
\ndoesn’t buy it. After three weeks, however, nearly all of them have a copy.
\nMy students, at least, find the book very helpful, and frequently make
\nremarks about it on their course evaluations. For what it’s worth, here
\nare their remarks from last semester.<\/p>\n
“The book the instructor made that goes along with Wheelock’s book
\n provided a much better understanding of Latin.”<\/p>\n
“His notebook that went along with the Wheelock book was also
\n immensely helpful. The explanations were thorough and easy to
\n understand.”<\/p>\n
“The workbook that he created to go along with the text helped a lot
\n in the understanding of the work.”<\/p>\n
“Dr. Grote’s handbook for the class is a great teaching tool and
\n helped students be prepared for class.”<\/p>\n
“Grote’s handbook — especially helpful.”<\/p>\n
“He supplies a handbook written by him that helps a great deal in
\n learning Latin.”<\/p>\n
“Dr. Grote’s book was very helpful! His explanations are elaborate
\n and very clear. I’d vote for publication!!” [Emphases in the original]<\/p>\n
I’m providing you draft of my book for the usual reasons. I would
\nappreciate your making the text available to your students — as I do — at
\na copy shop and calling their attention to it. Would you please take note of
\ntheir reactions, positive and negative, and send them along to me during or
\nat the end of the semester. I would greatly value, of course, any remarks
\nyou would care to make about my presentations. Since I’m preparing the copy
\nmyself, any corrigenda you spot would save me a lot of embarrassment. If
\nyou have any questions I’ve left unanswered, please don’t hesitate to
\ncontact me.<\/p>\n
Dale A. Grote
\nUNC Charlotte
\nDepartment of Foreign Languages
\nCharlotte, NC 28223
\n(704) 547-4242
\nFFL00DAG@UNCCVM.BITNET<\/p>\n
12\/30\/92<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 1<\/p>\n
“First and Second Conjugation Verbs: Indicative,
\n Imperative, and Infinitive”<\/p>\n
VERBS: THE BASICS OF CONJUGATION<\/p>\n
Let’s start simply: a verb is a word which indicates action or state of
\nbeing. Everyone ought to know that. Look at some of the different forms of
\na simple verb in English, the verb “to see”:<\/p>\n
GROUP I GROUP II GROUP III<\/p>\n
I see. I saw. I am seen.
\n I do see. I was seen.
\n I am seeing. I will be seen.
\n I will see. I should have been seen.
\n I should be seeing.
\n I would see.
\n See.
\n I want to see.<\/p>\n
And so on; there are several left out. Look at the first group for now. You
\ncan detect something interesting going on here. You have a basic form of
\nthe verb — “see” — and it’s undergoing changes. One kind of change is that
\ndifferent words are put before it, another is the “-ing” suffix attached to
\nthe end, and another is the addition of a suffix “-s” when you want to say
\n“he\/she\/it sees”.<\/p>\n
You can see that the verb “to see” has a basic form, which is being
\nmodified slightly to show that the verb is being used in a different way.
\nThis modification of a verb to show different aspects or conditions of the
\naction is called “conjugation” (kahn juh GAY chion), and a verb is said to
\n“conjugate” (KAHN juh gate) when it’s modified to exhibit these different
\nconditions. A verb, therefore, has a basic form or set of forms, which then
\nconjugate in order to change the way its meaning is to be understood in a
\nparticular context. These basic forms contain the core meaning of the
\nverb, but the way the action is being applied and the circumstances under
\nwhich the action is changing.<\/p>\n
Now look at the second group — it’s really a group of one. Here you
\nhave an entirely different form: “saw”. How do you know that it’s a part of
\nthe verb “to see?” From your experience with English, of course. This form
\nof the verb is an entirely different stem, yet it’s still just a variation of
\nthe basic verb “to see”. So a verb can change its form entirely and still be
\na part of the same family of meaning. So also with the third group. “Seen”
\nis another stem of the basic verb “to see”, and your native English sense
\ntells you it’s merely a variation of a verb you already know: “to see”.
\nAgain, we can put all kinds of words in front to conjugate it, but with this
\nstem, no changes actually affect the stem itself. There’s no such form as
\n“seening”, for example.<\/p>\n
Now let’s try an experiment. Suppose you’re not an English speaker
\nand you come across the word “saw” while you’re reading something. You
\ndon’t know what it is, so you try to look it up in the dictionary just as it
\nis: “saw”. Unless you have a very unusual dictionary you won’t find it. Why
\nnot? Because “saw” is a variation of a more basic form. In the same way,
\nwould you expect to find an entry in a dictionary for the word “stones?” Of
\ncourse not, because “stones” is just the plural form of “stone”, a form you
\ncan easily deduce from the basic form “stone”, if you know the rules of
\nEnglish grammar. So before you can use a dictionary, you already have to
\nknow something about the language. And that’s entirely understandable.
\nHow big would a dictionary have to be to list all the possible varieties of
\nevery word in the language? Consequently, before you look up a word in a
\ndictionary, you must first reduce it to a form under which the dictionary
\nwill list it, and that often takes patience and some mental effort.<\/p>\n
Let’s go back to the verb “to see”. It has three different stems in its
\nconjugation — “see, saw, seen” — and to use the verb intelligently you
\nmust know them all and you must know the rules governing their use. We call
\nthese forms, the “principal parts” of the verb. You’ll notice in English the
\nway these principal parts are conjugated is by piling up all kinds of words
\nin front of them. These words change the aspect of the action. To sum up,
\nto use any verb fully, you must know two things: (1) all the principal parts
\nof the verb, and (2) the rules governing the conjugation of English verbs.
\nThis is also true of Latin verbs.<\/p>\n
LATIN VERBS: THE BASICS<\/p>\n
As you may have guessed, Latin verbs have different rules governing the
\nway they conjugate. For the most part — almost exclusively — Latin
\nverbs conjugate by attaching endings to the stems themselves, without all
\nthe separate helping words put in front of the stem as in English to tell
\nyou how to understand the action. So for a Latin verb, you must learn two
\nthings: (1) the stems, and (2) how the stems are modified at their ends to
\nshow different conditions under which the action is occurring. Let’s look
\nat English again. Here is the conjugation of the verb “to see” in the
\npresent tense.<\/p>\n
SINGULAR PLURAL<\/p>\n
I see we see
\n you see you see
\n he, she, it, sees they see<\/p>\n
With the exception of the form “sees”, the differences among these forms is
\nmade by the preceding word. In this instance, the change is in the person
\nwho is performing the action. Now look at the Latin translation for the
\nverb English verb “to see” with these modifications.<\/p>\n
LATIN ENGLISH<\/p>\n
1st video I see
\n 2nd vides you see
\n 3rd videt he\/she\/it sees<\/p>\n
1st videmus we see
\n 2nd videtis you see
\n 3rd vident they see<\/p>\n
As I told you before, Latin conjugates its verbs by attaching endings to
\nthe root of the verb itself, and here you can see it happening. The common
\nfeature of the verb “to see” in Latin is the stem “vide-” and to show
\nchanges in person and number, Latin adds a suffix. These suffixes are
\ncalled the “personal endings”, because they indicate the person and the
\nnumber of the conjugated form of the verb. Let’s set these personal
\nendings out:<\/p>\n
1st person -o = I
\n 2nd person -s = you (singular)
\n 3rd person -t = he, she, it<\/p>\n
1st person -mus = we
\n 2nd person -tis = you (plural)
\n 3rd person -nt = they<\/p>\n
Now try your hand at conjugating some other Latin verbs. The verb
\nmeaning “to warn, advise” in Latin has the stem “mone-“; the verb meaning
\n“to be strong” in Latin has the stem “vale-“; and the verb meaning “to owe,
\nought” in Latin has the stem “debe-“. Translate the following into Latin.<\/p>\n
we owe, ought debemus<\/p>\n
they see ____________________<\/p>\n
she advises ____________________<\/p>\n
you (pl.) are strong ____________________<\/p>\n
they warn ____________________
\n you (sg.) are strong ____________________<\/p>\n
I owe, ought ____________________<\/p>\n
we see ____________________<\/p>\n
CONJUGATIONS OF LATIN VERBS<\/p>\n
You now know the single most important characteristic of Latin nouns: they
\nconjugate by adding suffixes to a stem. You also now know the most common
\nkind of suffix: the personal endings. Next you need to know something more
\nabout the stems. There are four groups of Latin verbs, called
\n“conjugations”, determined by the final vowel attached to the end of the
\nstem. The verbs you’ve been working with have stems which end in “-e”.
\nVerbs whose stems end in “-e” are called “2nd conjugation” verbs. If,
\nhowever, the stem of the verb ends in “-a” then it’s called a “1st
\nconjugation” verb. Verbs whose stem ends in short “-e” are called “3rd
\nconjugation”. And verbs whose stem ends in “-i” are called “4th
\nconjugation”. Like this:<\/p>\n
1st 2nd 3rd 4th<\/p>\n
lauda- vale- duc- veni-
\n ama- vide- ag- senti-
\n cogita- mone- carp- audi-<\/p>\n
The first several chapters of Wheelock are concerned only with the first
\nand second conjugations, so for now we’ll postpone any further discussion
\nof the third and fourth conjugation. But for now, you need to recognize
\nthat the principal difference between the four conjugations of Latin verbs
\nis in the vowel that comes between the stem and the personal endings. All
\nfour conjugations follow the same rules for conjugating: stem (which
\nincludes the characteristic stem vowel) + personal endings.<\/p>\n
You have already worked with second conjugation verbs. Now let’s
\nhave a look at an example of a first conjugation verb. We’ll use the verb
\n“to love” as the example, which has the stem “ama-“. So “ama-” means “love”
\nbut to use it in a sentence, we have to add the personal endings. The
\nstem of the verb is “ama-“, so to conjugate it, we just add the personal
\nendings to it, following the same rules that apply to second conjugation
\nverbs. Fill in the stem and personal endings in the blanks on the following
\nchart but hold off filling in the conjugated forms for now.<\/p>\n
STEM + PERSONAL ENDING = CONJUGATED FORM<\/p>\n
1st ________ + __________ = _______________<\/p>\n
2nd ________ + __________ = _______________<\/p>\n
3rd ________ + __________ = _______________<\/p>\n
1st ________ + __________ = _______________<\/p>\n
2nd ________ + __________ = _______________<\/p>\n
3rd ________ + __________ = _______________<\/p>\n
Now for the conjugated forms. If you follow the rules of conjugation that
\napply for second conjugation verbs, you should write the form “amao” for
\nthe first person singular. But listen to how easily the two vowels “a” and
\n“o” can be simplified into a single “o” sound. Say “ao” several times quickly
\nand you’ll see that the two sounds are made in the same place in the mouth.
\nOver time, Latin simplified the sound “ao” to just “o”. The final written
\nform is “amo”, not “amao”. So write “amo” for “I love”. Aside from this small
\nirregularity, however, the personal endings are attached directly to the
\nstem without any alteration or loss of the stem vowel. Fill in the rest of
\nthe conjugated forms. (If you’re unsure of yourself, check your work
\nagainst the paradigm on page 3 of Wheelock.)<\/p>\n
Now conjugate another paradigm of a second conjugation verbs: “mone-”<\/p>\n
STEM + PERSONAL ENDING = CONJUGATED FORM<\/p>\n
1st ________ + __________ = _______________<\/p>\n
2nd ________ + __________ = _______________<\/p>\n
3rd ________ + __________ = _______________<\/p>\n
1st ________ + __________ = _______________<\/p>\n
2nd ________ + __________ = _______________<\/p>\n
3rd ________ + __________ = _______________<\/p>\n
THE ENGLISH PRESENT TENSES<\/p>\n
Look at the following conjugated forms of the English verb “to see”.<\/p>\n
I see.
\n I am seeing.
\n I do see.<\/p>\n
Each of these forms refers to present time — and are therefore present
\ntenses — but each is different. We’re so accustomed to these different
\npresent tenses in English that we can hardly explain what the different
\nmeanings are, even though we’re instantly aware that there is a distinction
\nbeing made. Try to explain the differences among “I see”, “I am seeing” and “I
\ndo see”. It’s difficult, but these different present tenses are essential to
\nthe way we speak. In reality English is one of the few languages which has
\nthese three present tenses, and it’s very hard to foreign students of
\nEnglish to learn how and when to use them. “I see” is called the Simple
\nPresent tense; “I am seeing” is called the Present Progressive; and “I do
\nsee” is called the Present Emphatic. Now try to come up with the
\ndifferences. The point of this is that Latin has only one present tense. So,
\nwhen we see “laudas”, for example, it can be translated into English as “you
\npraise”, “you do praise”, or “you are praising”. We have to let our native
\nsense of the simple present, the present progressive, and the present
\nemphatic tell us which to use.<\/p>\n
THE IMPERATIVE<\/p>\n
Another conjugated form of Latin verbs is the “imperative” mood, or the
\ndirect command. Its name is its definition. It’s how you turn a verb into a
\ndirect command: “Look here”, “Watch out”, “Stop that”, etc. To form the
\nimperative mood of any Latin verb, follow these rules:<\/p>\n
Second Person Singular stem
\n Second Person Plural stem + te<\/p>\n
Form the imperative mood of the following Latin verbs:<\/p>\n
lauda-<\/p>\n
singular ____________________<\/p>\n
plural ____________________<\/p>\n
mone-<\/p>\n
singular ____________________<\/p>\n
plural ____________________<\/p>\n
THE INFINITIVE<\/p>\n
Verb forms which specify no person — 1st, 2nd, or 3rd — we call “infinite”
\nor “infinitive”, which means, literally, “without boundary”. That is to say,
\nthe form is not bounded by or limited to a certain person. Theoretically,
\nthere are many verb forms which are “infinite”, but in common usage the
\nword “infinitive” is generally limited to forms which are translated into
\nEnglish as “to x” (where “x” is the meaning of the verb). To form the
\ninfinitive, a “-re” suffix is added to the stem.<\/p>\n
lauda + re = laudare (to praise)
\n mone + re = monere (to warn)<\/p>\n
DICTIONARY CONVENTIONS FOR VERBS<\/p>\n
As you can see, each verb has at least six different forms (there are many,
\nmany more which you’ll learn later), and, for obvious reasons, it would be
\nimpossible for a dictionary to list all six of these possibilities under
\nseparate entries. That is, you can’t look up “laudant” just as it’s here,
\nanymore than you could look up “they are saying” under “they” in an English
\ndictionary. You have to strip the conjugated form of the verb down to the
\nform under which the dictionary will give it to you. For the English “they
\nare saying”, obviously, you would look up “say”, because you know the
\nconventions an English dictionary uses for listing an English verb. What
\nare the conventions for a Latin dictionary? If you see a form like
\n“laudant” in a text you’re reading and want to look it up, how do you do it?
\nWhat is its “dictionary” form?<\/p>\n
The dictionary form for a Latin verb is not the stem, but the first
\nperson singular. This means that when you want to look up “laudant” you
\nhave to look it up under the conjugated form “laudo”, not under its raw stem
\n“lauda-“. What you have to do to look up a Latin verb, therefore, is to
\nimagine what the verb looks like in the first person singular and look it up
\nunder that. There is no reason it has to be like this; Latin dictionaries
\ncould have adopted any other of a number of different conventions for
\nlisting verbs, but this just happens to be the way it is. A consequence of
\nthis is that the first personal singular of a verb is considered to be the
\nbasic form of the verb. So, I’ll say, for example, “The Latin verb for “to
\nsee” is “video”, which is really saying “The Latin verb for “to see” is ‘I
\nsee.'” Again, this is just conventional, but it’s how it’s done. To repeat, in
\norder to look a verb up in the dictionary, you first have to reduce it to its
\nfirst person singular form. In the case of the conjugated form “laudant”
\nyou would follow this process.<\/p>\n
(1) The “-nt” suffix is the third person plural personal ending, so
\n you take it off; that leaves you with “lauda-“.
\n (2) You remember that verbs conjugate by adding personal endings
\n to the stem, so “lauda-” is the stem. But you can’t look it up
\n under the stem alone, because a dictionary lists verbs under
\n the first person singular. You must reconstruct the first
\n person singular to look this verb up.
\n (3) Next ask yourself what the conjugation of a verb like “lauda-”
\n is going to be, first or second conjugation? Since the final
\n vowel of the stem is “-a-“, the verb you’re looking at is a first
\n conjugation verb. And what does the first person singular or a
\n first conjugation verb look like? It’s “lauda + o = laudo” (since
\n the “a” and the “o” contract to just “o”). So we say that
\n “laudant” is from “laudo”, just as we might say in English “seen”
\n is from “to see”.
\n (4) Now you’ve simplified the verb to something you can look it up
\n under — “laudo” — and the translation is “to praise”.
\n (5) The second entry for a verb in the Latin dictionary is its
\n infinitive form. After “laudo”, therefore, you see “laudare”.
\n Since you know that an infinitive is the stem plus the ending
\n “-re”, you can easily see the true stem of the verb simply by
\n dropping off the final “-re” infinitive ending. This confirms the
\n fact that the verb you’re looking up is a first conjugation
\n verb.
\n (6) Now translate “laudant”. With the personal ending brought back
\n in the translation is “they praise” (or “they are praising”, or
\n “they do praise”).<\/p>\n
I know this may seem tedious at first, but concentrate on
\ninternalizing each one of these steps. You’ll benefit immensely when the
\ngrammar becomes more complicated. The moral of all this is that you should
\nnever go browsing around in the dictionary hoping to find something that
\nmight match the word you’re looking up. You must think carefully about what
\nyou’re looking for before you turn the first page of the dictionary. (You’ll
\nhear me say this repeatedly.)<\/p>\n
VOCABULARY PUZZLES<\/p>\n
debeo, debere This verb has an apparently odd combinations of
\n meanings — “to owe; should, must, ought” — until we
\n remember that our English verb “ought” is really an
\n archaic past tense of the verb “to owe”. As with the
\n English verb “ought”, the Latin verb “debeo” is often
\n followed by an infinitive to complete its meaning: “I ought
\n to see” = “Debeo videre”. An infinitive which completes
\n the meaning of another verb is called a “complementary
\n infinitive”.
\nservo, servare Despite its appearance, this verb doesn’t mean “to serve”.
\n Be careful with this one.<\/p>\n
12\/31\/92<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 2<\/p>\n
“Cases; First Declension; Agreement of Adjectives”<\/p>\n
CASES AND INFLECTION<\/p>\n
Consider the following sentence: “The girl saw the dog”. How can
\nyou tell that this sentence does not mean that the dog is seeing
\nthe girl? The answer is obvious to an English speaker. “Girl”
\ncomes before the verb, and “dog” comes after it, and this
\narrangement tells us that the “girl” is performing the action of
\nverb, and the “dog” is receiving the action. We say that the one
\nwho is performing the action of the verb is the “subject” of the
\nverb. So “girl” is the “subject” of “saw”. The dog, however, is
\nthe “object” of the verb, since it’s the object of the action.
\nAnd in English, we generally show these functions — subject and
\nobject — by position relative to the verb. The subject of the
\nverb tends to come before the verb, the object tends to come
\nafter it.<\/p>\n
But position isn’t the only way we show which word is the
\nsubject and object of a verb. Now consider this sentence: “Him I
\nlike, them I despise”. Obviously this sentence has an usual
\narrangement for rhetorical purposes, but how can you tell who is
\ndoing what to whom? Even though English grammar shows
\ngrammatical relationship between words in a sentence mainly by
\nposition, in many instances a change in the word itself provides
\nyou additional help. The word “him”, although it comes first in
\nthe sentence, is not the subject because its form — “him”
\ninstead of “he” — is not the one used to indicate that it’s the
\nsubject of the verb. We use the form “he” to show that.
\nFurthermore, the word “I” is the form we use when the first
\nperson is subject of the verb. Hence, the words “he” and “I”
\nchange their forms as their grammatical function in the sentence
\nchanges. The change in form of a word to show grammatical
\nfunctions is called “inflection”.<\/p>\n
The English personal pronouns change quite a lot to show you how
\nthey’re being used in the sentence. Watch.<\/p>\n
FORM FUNCTION<\/p>\n
I subject
\n my possessor (it owns
\n something
\n me object (something is
\n being done to it)
\nFirst Person Pronoun
\n we subject
\n our possessor
\n us object<\/p>\n
you subject
\n your possessor
\n you object
\nSecond Person Pronoun
\n you subject
\n your possessor
\n you object<\/p>\n
he,she,it subject
\n his,her,its possessor
\n him,her,it object
\nThird Person Pronoun
\n they subject
\n their possessor
\n them object<\/p>\n
This inflection (change of form to show grammatical
\nfunction) in the pronouns is very useful for helping us to
\nunderstand each other — although, as you can see, the second
\nperson pronoun “you, etc” doesn’t inflect nearly so much as the
\nfirst and third. The plural forms are even identical to the
\nsingular forms. We can still get by.<\/p>\n
In English, inflection is rather limited, and we rely on
\nposition mainly to tell us what the words in the sentence are
\ndoing to each other. The only grammatical functions that involve
\na change in form for all nouns is the possessive case and the
\nplural forms, where we attach an “-s” to the end of the word.
\n(In written English we even include an apostrophe “‘” mark to
\nhelp us see the difference between a pluralized noun and a noun
\nthat’s in the possessive case.) For example<\/p>\n
SINGULAR PLURAL<\/p>\n
apple subject apples subject
\n apple’s possessor apples’ possessor
\n apple object apples object<\/p>\n
Watch how we combine position with inflection in English to make
\nsense to one another. As you can see, position is the principal
\nguide.<\/p>\n
“These apples’ [plural, possessor] cores are hard, but
\n apples [plural, subject] are usually soft. When you
\n [singular, subject] buy apples [plural, object], you
\n [singular, subject] should first pick up each apple
\n [object, singular] and bounce it [singular, object] off
\n the floor several times. Then check its [singular,
\n possessor] skin. If it [singular, subject] is bruised,
\n discretely put it [singular, object] back with the
\n other apples [plural, object], making certain that no
\n one [singular, subject] is watching you [singular,
\n object]”.<\/p>\n
Unlike English, languages which rely primarily on inflection of
\nwords to show grammatical relationship are called “inflected”
\nlanguages. English, though it has some inflection, is not an
\ninflected language. Latin, however, is an inflected language,
\nbecause it relies almost entirely on changes in the words
\nthemselves to indicate their grammatical function in a sentence.<\/p>\n
The different grammatical functions a word can have in a
\nsentence is called “case”. In English there are three
\nrecognizable different cases, that is grammatical functions, a
\nword can have: the subjective case, the possessive case, and the
\nobjective case. So we say there are three cases in English. In
\nLatin there are six difference cases. Here are the Latin cases.
\n(Don’t try to memorize them all at once here. Just read through
\nthe list; there will be plenty of time to firm up your
\nfamiliarity of them.)<\/p>\n
LATIN APPROXIMATE ENGLISH EQUIVALENT<\/p>\n
Nominative (Subjective)
\n Genitive (Possessive Case)
\n Dative (Object of words like “to” or “for”)
\n Accusative (Objective Case)
\n Ablative (Adverbial Usages: “by”, “with”)
\n Vocative (Direct Address)<\/p>\n
We’ll look at the way these cases are used in Latin in the next
\npart of these notes, although some of them won’t be difficult at
\nall: the nominative, genitive, and accusative cases are almost
\nthe same as their English counterparts. The ablative, dative and
\nvocative will need some explanation. Before then, however, let’s
\nlook at how a Latin noun inflects to show all these different
\ncases.<\/p>\n
Let’s look at some English pronouns which inflect to show
\nthe three different cases. Do you remember “they, their, them?”
\nThe pronoun is inflecting through its different cases, but we can
\ndefinitely spot a pattern of similarity among the three forms.
\nThere is a definite root of the word. The root (that is, the
\npart of the word that contains the meaning of the word) is “the-”
\nto which then the endings “-y”, “-ir” and “-m”. So we could say
\nthat the word is inflecting by adding certain case endings to a
\nstem. The stem contains the core of the meaning of the word, and
\nthe endings merely inflect or alter its grammar.<\/p>\n
This is precisely how Latin nouns show their different
\ncases: they add additional letters to the end of the basic form
\nof the word. This basic form that does not change throughout its
\ninflection is called the “stem”. There are, consequently, two
\nparts of a Latin word that you must note: the stem and the case
\nending. The stem contains the meaning of the word and its gender
\n(masculine, feminine, or neuter). The case ending will tell you
\n(1) how the noun is being used in its sentence, and (2) whether
\nthe noun is singular or plural. Let’s watch a the Latin noun
\n“puella” (girl) as it inflects through its different cases:<\/p>\n
SINGULAR APPROXIMATE ENGLISH TRANSLATION<\/p>\n
NOMINATIVE puella girl
\nGENITIVE puellae of the girl
\nDATIVE puellae to\/for the girl
\nACCUSATIVE puellam girl
\nABLATIVE puella by\/with the girl
\nVOCATIVE puella girl<\/p>\n
PLURAL<\/p>\n
NOMINATIVE puellae girls
\nGENITIVE puellarum of the girls
\nDATIVE puellis to\/for the girls
\nACCUSATIVE puellas girls
\nABLATIVE puellis by\/with the girls
\nVOCATIVE puellae girls<\/p>\n
The stem of the Latin word is clearly visible. It’s
\n“puell-” to which different endings are being attached. The
\nendings are:<\/p>\n
SINGULAR PLURAL<\/p>\n
NOMINATIVE -a -ae
\nGENITIVE -ae -arum
\nDATIVE -ae -is
\nACCUSATIVE -am -as
\nABLATIVE -a -is
\nVOCATIVE -a -ae<\/p>\n
There are many other nouns in Latin which follow this same
\npattern of case endings when they inflect. This pattern of
\nendings is called the “first declension” (deh CLEN shion) and you
\ncan see the strong presence of an “-a-“. There are four other
\ndeclensional patterns in Latin, but a noun will belong to only
\none of them. Hence we can say that “puella” is a first
\ndeclension noun. The other declensions are called, not
\nsurprisingly, the second, third, fourth and fifth declension, and
\nare distinguished form one another in part by the thematic, or
\ncharacteristic, vowel that appears in its endings.<\/p>\n
REVIEW<\/p>\n
This is a lot of information to absorb in one sitting. Stop now
\nfor a while, then read through this review statement before
\nstarting on the next section of this chapter.<\/p>\n
A language whose nouns show their grammatical function in the
\nsentence by changes in the noun itself, and not by position, is
\ncalled an inflected language. The different grammatical
\nfunctions a language recognizes are called cases. In English,
\nthere are three cases. They are the subjective, the possessive,
\nand the objective. In Latin there are six cases. They are the
\nnominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative and vocative
\ncases. A Latin noun has two parts which you must note: it has a
\nstem, which contains the noun’s basic meaning and its gender; and
\nit also has a case ending which tells you the noun’s case and its
\nnumber. A pattern of endings which are added to the end of a
\nnoun to show its grammatical function is called a declension.
\nEach noun in Latin belongs to one declension. The declensions
\nare called the first, second, third, fourth and fifth
\ndeclensions.<\/p>\n
THE FIRST DECLENSION<\/p>\n
Let’s have a look at another first declension noun: “pecuni-”
\n(money).<\/p>\n
SINGULAR<\/p>\n
STEM + CASE ENDING = INFLECTED FORM<\/p>\n
N\/V. pecuni + -a = _______________<\/p>\n
GEN. pecuni + -ae = _______________<\/p>\n
DAT. pecuni + -ae = _______________<\/p>\n
ACC. pecuni + -am = _______________<\/p>\n
ABL. pecuni + -a = _______________<\/p>\n
PLURAL<\/p>\n
STEM + CASE ENDING = INFLECTED FORM<\/p>\n
N\/V. pecuni + -ae = _______________<\/p>\n
GEN. pecuni + -arum = _______________<\/p>\n
DAT. pecuni + -is = _______________<\/p>\n
ACC. pecuni + -as = _______________<\/p>\n
ABL. pecuni + -is = _______________<\/p>\n
Let’s try a few more paradigms. Decline the noun “patri-”
\n(fatherland) and vit-” (life).<\/p>\n
SINGULAR
\n patri- vit-<\/p>\n
N\/V. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
GEN. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
DAT. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
ACC. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
ABL. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
PLURAL<\/p>\n
N\/V. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
GEN. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
DAT. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
ACC. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
ABL. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
GENDER<\/p>\n
All Latin nouns possess what is called “gender”. That is, a noun
\nwill be masculine, feminine, or neuter. Don’t confuse this kind of
\ngrammatical gender with biological gender. There is nothing
\nbiologically feminine about nouns which are grammatically feminine,
\nnothing biologically masculine about nouns which are grammatically
\nmasculine, and nothing biologically neuter about nouns which are
\ngrammatically neuter. It’s just that nouns have a feature which we
\ncall gender by convention. And this is a feature which cannot
\nchange in a noun. A noun may change its case or number, but a noun
\nwill never change its gender. This is a fixed feature, and you
\nmust be told what gender a noun is when you look it up in the
\ndictionary. This is important to remember, because although the
\nvast majority of first declensions nouns are feminine, not all of
\nthem are. You must memorize the gender of each noun as you would
\nlearn its meaning.<\/p>\n
DICTIONARY CONVENTIONS FOR GENDER AND DECLENSION<\/p>\n
The dictionary therefore must tell you many things about a noun
\nyou’re looking up — and you must know how the dictionary tells you
\nwhat you need to know. Latin dictionaries follow the following
\nconventions for listing nouns.<\/p>\n
(1) The first entry in the dictionary is the noun in the
\n nominative case.
\n (2) The second entry is the genitive singular ending. This
\n is essential, because many of the declensions have
\n identical nominative singular endings. There is no way
\n to be certain, therefore, to which declension a noun
\n belongs simply by looking at the nominative singular.
\n But in all declensions, the genitive singular endings are
\n different. The genitive singular ending of the first
\n declension is “-ae”, that of the second declension is
\n “-i”, that of the third is “-is”, that of the fourth is
\n “-us”, and that of the fifth is “-ei” If you know the
\n genitive singular of a noun you know what declension the
\n noun follows. Another reason you must have the genitive
\n singular form given to you is that the stem of the noun
\n is often not visible in the nominative singular.
\n Sometimes the stem changes slightly from the nominative
\n to the other forms. Again, you cannot predict what kind
\n of stem change will occur simply by looking at the
\n nominative. But you will be able to see it in the
\n genitive singular. (This kind of stem change never occurs
\n in the first declension, but it does in the second and
\n the third.)
\n (3) The last entry is the gender of the noun, which cannot be
\n deduced even if you know everything else about the noun.
\n You must be given it.<\/p>\n
Put all this together, and typical dictionary entries for first
\ndeclension noun will look like this:<\/p>\n
patria, -ae (f)
\n pecunia, -ae (f)
\n poeta, -ae (m)
\n agricola, -ae (m)<\/p>\n
Now look up the following nouns in your dictionary and write out
\nthe grammatical information you are given.<\/p>\n
ENGLISH FULL ENTRY DECLENSION STEM<\/p>\n
band _________________________ _____ __________<\/p>\n
brother _________________________ _____ __________<\/p>\n
care _________________________ _____ __________<\/p>\n
city _________________________ _____ __________<\/p>\n
day _________________________ _____ __________<\/p>\n
dread _________________________ _____ __________<\/p>\n
TRANSLATION OF THE CASES<\/p>\n
What I’m going to give you now is just the bare outline of how
\nthese cases can be translated into English. There will be plenty
\nof time for further refinement in the future — and we’ll have to
\ndo some refinement — but for the time being, these guide lines
\nwill get you well on your way.<\/p>\n
NOMINATIVE CASE<\/p>\n
A noun in the nominative case is often the subject of a verb. For
\nexample, in the English sentence “The tree fell on my car”, the
\n“tree” is in the nominative case because it’s the subject of the
\nverb “fell”. If this were a Latin sentence, the word tree would be
\nin the nominative case form. The rule of thumb for now is that if
\nyou see a noun in the nominative case, try to translate it as the
\nsubject of the verb in its sentence.<\/p>\n
GENITIVE CASE<\/p>\n
This case shows that one noun belongs to another noun. The noun
\nwhich is the owner is put into the genitive case. Like this in
\nEnglish: “The car’s door is open”. “Door” is the nominative case
\nbecause it’s the thing which is open — it’s the subject of the
\nverb “is” — and the door belongs to the car, so “car’s” is put
\ninto the genitive case. So for now, every time you see the
\ngenitive case, translate the noun with the English preposition “of”
\nor use the genitive marker “‘s”. For example, if “portae” is in
\nthe genitive case, translate it either as “the door’s” or “of the
\ndoor”.<\/p>\n
DATIVE CASE<\/p>\n
The dative case shows that a noun is indirectly affected by the
\naction of the sentence. Take for example, in the English sentence
\n“George gave the ball to the girl”. George is the subject of “give”
\nand the thing George is giving is the “ball”. So the thing most
\ndirectly affected by George’s action is the ball. It’s the direct
\nrecipient of the action. But George then gave the ball to the
\ngirl, so the girl is also being affected, but only indirectly.
\nTherefore, the girl is the “indirect object” of the action of the
\nsentence. English can also indicate the indirect object simply by
\nposition: by putting the indirect object before the direct object.
\nLike this: George gave the girl the ball. In Latin, the word for
\n“girl” would be in the dative case, and so would have the dative
\ncase ending of the declension to which the word “girl” belongs. So
\nthe form would be “puellae”. Again, a rough rule of thumb: when
\nyou see the dative case, try to translate it with the prepositions
\n“to” or “for” and see which of the two makes the most sense.<\/p>\n
ACCUSATIVE CASE<\/p>\n
The noun which is directly affected by the action of a verb is put
\ninto the accusative case. In English we call this case the “direct
\nobject” which is a little more descriptive of its function. It’s
\nthe direct object of some action. In the example above, the “ball”
\nis in the accusative case because it’s the direct object of
\nGeorge’s action of giving. In Latin, therefore, the word for ball
\nwould have the characteristic accusative case ending attached to
\nits stem. The accusative case is also used after some
\nprepositions, but we’ll look at that later.<\/p>\n
ABLATIVE CASE<\/p>\n
The ablative case is rather complicated. Let’s just say for now
\nthat when you see a noun in the ablative case, translate it by
\nusing the prepositions “with” or “by”. We’ll study the various
\nmeanings of the ablative case separately in later chapters.<\/p>\n
VOCATIVE CASE<\/p>\n
If you want to call someone or something by name to get some
\nattention, then you use the vocative case. “Dog, get out of the
\nhouse!” “Dog” is in the vocative case. The form of the vocative
\ncase — that is, the ending you attach to the stem to form the case
\n— is almost always identical to the nominative form of the word.
\nFor that reason, the nominative and vocative forms are often listed
\ntogether in a declensional pattern, instead of being given separate
\nlistings. The vocative case is very easily distinguished from the
\nnominative case, though, because a noun in the vocative is always
\nset off from the rest of the sentence with commas and is often
\npreceded by in the interjection “O” — the Latin equivalent of our
\n“hey”: “O puellae, date poetae rosas” (Hey girls, give roses to
\nthe poet.)<\/p>\n
So let’s put all this together into a chart you can use when you’re
\ntranslating a Latin sentence. The sooner you’ve memorized this
\nguidelines, the easier it’ll be for you to work through Latin
\nsentences:<\/p>\n
THE CASES<\/p>\n
Nominative the subject of a verb
\n Genitive use “of” or “-‘s” (“-s'”) for the plural
\n Dative use “to” or “for”, or put the noun before the
\n direct object
\n Accusative the direct object of a verb or object of a
\n preposition
\n Ablative use the prepositions “with” or “for”
\n Vocative use the English “hey” or “Oh”<\/p>\n
AGREEMENT OF ADJECTIVES AND NOUNS<\/p>\n
An adjective is a word which modifies or qualifies a noun. “A red
\nleaf:” “leaf” is the noun and “red” is telling you something more
\nabout it. That’s pretty simple. To indicate which noun an
\nadjective is modify we use position in English: i.e., we put the
\nadjective right next to the noun.<\/p>\n
“A red leaf with a brown stem fell off the tall tree onto the
\n flat ground”.<\/p>\n
There is no question about which adjectives are modifying which
\nnouns. No one, except perhaps a deconstructionist, would think the
\nauthor is trying to say that the ground is red or that the stem is
\nflat. Position makes this clear. In Latin, however, where
\nposition is not so important, adjectives have to be put together
\nwith their nouns differently. Instead of using position, Latin
\nadjectives take on some of the characteristics of the nouns they’re
\nmodifying: i.e., they undergo changes to match the noun they’re
\nmodifying.<\/p>\n
So what properties do nouns have in a Latin sentence. Well,
\nthey have case — they have to have case to work in the sentence —
\nand they have number (singular or plural) and they have gender
\n(masculine, feminine, or neuter). Remember this about gender: a
\nnoun can change its number and case, but it can only have one
\ngender; it cannot change its gender. So each noun has number,
\ngender, and case. An adjective has to be able to acquire the
\nnumber, gender, and case of the noun it’s modifying. So how does
\nit do that? It does it by declining. And in this respect it
\nresembles a noun: nouns decline to get different numbers and cases;
\nso do adjectives. But there is an important difference. Latin
\nnouns are either masculine, feminine or neuter, and they can never
\nchange their gender. The noun “porta, -ae (f)” is forever
\nfeminine. The noun “poeta, -ae (m)” is forever masculine, etc.
\nBut for adjectives to be useful, they have to be able to become any
\none of the three genders; i.e., adjectives have to be able to be
\nmasculine, feminine or neuter to match the gender of the noun
\nthey’re modifying. And how do they do that? They accomplish this
\nby using endings from different declensions (and you’ll learn these
\nother declension in the next couple of chapters). So here are two
\ncritical differences between adjectives and nouns: (1) each
\nadjective can have any of the three genders, but each noun can have
\nonly one gender; (2) each noun will belong only to one declension,
\nbut adjectives can span declensions. You’ll see much more of this
\nlater, but for now you need to know that adjectives use endings of
\nthe first declension to become feminine, and, therefore, to modify
\nnouns which are feminine in gender. So try this. Decline the
\nexpression “big rose”:<\/p>\n
magna rosa<\/p>\n
N\/V. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
GEN. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
DAT. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
ACC. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
ABL. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
N\/V. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
GEN. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
DAT. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
ACC. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
ABL. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Now look at these endings for the adjective and the noun.
\nThey look alike, don’t they. But this is dangerously deceptive.
\nGet this in your head: agreement means same number, gender, and
\ncase, not look-alike endings, even though in this limited example
\nand in all the examples in this chapter they do look alike.
\nConsider this problem. The noun for poet is a masculine noun in
\nthe first declension: “poeta, -ae (m)”. Now, for an adjective to
\nagree with it, it must have the same number, gender and case.
\nRight? But adjectives with first declension endings are masculine.
\nSo, will the endings of an adjective modifying the noun “poeta” be
\nthe same as those as “poeta”. I.e., will the pattern for “great
\npoet” look like this?<\/p>\n
SINGULAR
\n magna poeta<\/p>\n
N\/V. magna poeta
\n GEN. magnae poetae
\n DAT. magnae poetae
\n ACC. magnam poetam
\n ABL. magna poeta
\n PLURAL<\/p>\n
N\/V. magnae poetae
\n GEN. magnarum poetarum
\n DAT. magnis poetis
\n ACC. magnas poetas
\n ABL. magnis poetis<\/p>\n
The answer is “no”, because the forms “magna, magnae” etc. are
\nfeminine in gender because adjectives use first declension endings
\nto become feminine in gender but the noun “poeta” is masculine.
\nTherefore the adjective will have to use endings from another
\ndeclension and the forms will not look alike. You’ll see all this
\nin the next two chapters. But remember: agreement means having the
\nsame number, gender, and case, not having the same endings. Okay?<\/p>\n
VOCABULARY PUZZLES<\/p>\n
tua, mea The words “tua”, which means “your” and “mea”, which
\n means “my” are the first and second person singular
\n possessive adjectives, and they consequently must “agree”
\n in number, gender and case with whatever is being
\n possessed. “tu-” and “me-” are the stems of the word,
\n and the “-a” is the adjectival suffix. What causes
\n students concern is that they can’t quite bring
\n themselves to make the adjectival suffix of the singular
\n possessive adjectives plural. For example, they balk at
\n “meae rosae” (my roses), because they assume somehow that
\n the entire word “me-” must become plural. This isn’t
\n necessary. Think of it this way: the “me-” or “tu-” part
\n of these words refer you to the person doing the
\n possessing, the adjectival suffix refers to whatever is
\n being possessed.<\/p>\n
12\/31\/92<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 3<\/p>\n
“Second Declension; Masculine Nouns and Adjectives;
\nWord Order”<\/p>\n
THE SECOND DECLENSION<\/p>\n
A declension is a pattern of endings for the different cases and
\nnumbers which a noun falls through. Latin has five declension,
\nthough the great majority of nouns fall into the first three. In
\nthis chapter, you’ll learn one part of the second declension.
\n(You’ll get the other part of the second declension in Chapter 4.)
\nLet’s look again at a paradigm for the first declension endings and
\ncompare them to endings of the second declension. Decline the noun
\n“puella, -ae (f)”.<\/p>\n
puella, -ae (f) amicus, -i (m)<\/p>\n
Nom. _______________ amicus<\/p>\n
Gen. _______________ amici<\/p>\n
Dat. _______________ amico<\/p>\n
Acc. _______________ amicum<\/p>\n
Abl. _______________ amico<\/p>\n
Voc. _______________ amice<\/p>\n
N\/V. _______________ amici<\/p>\n
Gen. _______________ amicorum<\/p>\n
Dat. _______________ amicis<\/p>\n
Acc. _______________ amicos<\/p>\n
Abl. _______________ amicis<\/p>\n
As you can plainly see, “-a-” is the dominant vowel of the first
\ndeclension. With the exception of the dative and ablative plural,
\nall the case endings have an “-a-” in them. Now let’s compare the
\nfirst declension with the second. Although it’s a little more
\ndifficult to see in places, the dominant vowel of the second
\ndeclension is “-o-“. Once you see this difference between the
\nfirst and second declension, you can detect some of the
\nsimilarities.<\/p>\n
(1) the accusative singular of both declensions adds “-m” to
\n the thematic vowel: “-am” and “-um” (originally “-om”).
\n (2) the ablative singular is just the long thematic vowel:
\n “-a-” and “-o-“.
\n (3) the genitive plural is the ending “-rum” added to the
\n thematic vowel: “-arum” and “-orum”.
\n (5) the dative and ablative plural are formed alike:<\/p>\n
First Declension: “a-” + “-is” = “-ais” = “-is”
\n Second Declension: “o-” + “-is” = “-ois” = “-is”<\/p>\n
(6) the accusative plural in both declensions is the thematic
\n vowel + “-s:” “-as” and “-os”.<\/p>\n
So let’s set out the cases endings for the second declension:<\/p>\n
SINGULAR PLURAL<\/p>\n
Nom. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Gen. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Dat. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Acc. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Abl. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Voc. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
2ND DECLENSION NOUNS IN -ER AND -IR; STEM CHANGES<\/p>\n
As I said, this is the basic pattern of endings for nouns of the
\nsecond declension, and all second declension nouns will basically
\nuse these endings. There are second declension nouns, however,
\nwhich do not follow this pattern precisely, but which use slight
\nvariations of it. To begin with, not all second declension nouns
\nend in “-us” in the nominative singular. Some end in “-er” and one
\ncommon noun ends in “-ir”. So go back to the blank for the
\nnominative singular and add the variant nominative endings “-er”
\nand “-ir”.<\/p>\n
Let’s have a look at a second declension noun that ends in “-er” in
\nthe nominative singular: “puer, -i (m)” (boy). Just to review, how
\ndo you know that this noun belongs to the second declension? The
\nanswer is the genitive singular ending listed as the second entry.
\nIt’s “-i”, the genitive singular ending of the second declension.
\nSo what will the form of “puer” be in the genitive singular?
\nThat’s easy too. It’ll be “pueri”, (stem + “-i). Now let’s decline
\n“puer” through all its cases in both numbers.<\/p>\n
SINGULAR PLURAL<\/p>\n
Nom. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Gen. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Dat. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Acc. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Abl. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Voc. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Let’s try another second declension noun which ends in “-er”
\nin the nominative singular: “ager, agri (m)” (field). The
\nnominative is the “-er” type you saw in “puer”, but look at the
\ngenitive singular. Instead of just giving you an abbreviation for
\nthe genitive singular ending — “-i” — the dictionary is telling
\nyou something more. Here you have a full form, “agri”, for the
\ngenitive entry of the noun. The case ending obviously is “-i”, so
\nthe noun belongs to second declension. If you take off the
\ngenitive singular ending “-i” you’re left with “agr-“, and what’s
\nthat?<\/p>\n
We need to pause here and refine what we mean by a “stem” of
\na noun. As you probably recall, the stem of a noun is the basic
\nform of the noun to which you then add the case endings. But
\ndespite the attractive notion that the “stem” of a noun is the
\nnominative singular minus the case ending, a stem of a noun is
\nreally the form which is the root of all cases except the
\nnominative singular. This is not to say that the nominative
\nsingular will never be the true stem of the word. In some
\ndeclensions it is. But not always. Look at “ager” again. The
\nstem of the word is found not by looking at the nominative entry,
\nbut by dropping the genitive singular ending from “agri”, leaving
\n“agr-“. So the true stem of this word is “agr-“, not “ager-“.
\nHence we say that “ager” is a stem changing noun, or that it has a
\nstem change. This is because the stem is not apparent in the
\nnominative entry. Let’s decline “ager, agri (m)”. Remember, the
\nstem is “agr-“:<\/p>\n
SINGULAR PLURAL<\/p>\n
N\/V. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Gen. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Dat. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Acc. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Abl. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Can you see now why it’s important that a dictionary begin to
\ndecline the noun for you by giving you the genitive singular? If
\nyou weren’t given “agri”, after “ager”, you wouldn’t know the
\ndeclension of the noun, nor would you know that “ager-” is not the
\ntrue stem. If a noun is not a stem-changing noun, then the
\ndictionary will simply put the genitive ending in the second entry.
\nBut if it’s a stem changing noun, the dictionary must indicate
\nthat. Examine the following nouns and see how the dictionary
\nconveys the necessary information.<\/p>\n
ENTRY STEM MEANING<\/p>\n
gener, -i (m) gener- son-in-law
\n magister, -tri (m) magistr- teacher
\n socer, -i (m) socer- father-in-law
\n liber, -bri (m) libr- book
\n vesper, -i (m) vesper- evening
\n signifer, -i (m) signifer- standard bearer<\/p>\n
The noun “vir, -i (m)” represents another class of second
\ndeclension nominative singular endings. Is there a stem change
\nindicated in the genitive singular? No, there isn’t, so it behaves
\njust like “puer”. Decline it.<\/p>\n
SINGULAR PLURAL<\/p>\n
N\/V. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Gen. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Dat. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Acc. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Abl. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
NOUNS ENDING IN -IUS<\/p>\n
Nouns whose stem ends in an “-i-” need a closer look. “Filius, -ii
\n(m)” is a second declension noun and the stem is “fili-” (“filius”
\nminus the “-i” of the genitive singular). But the second entry has
\nan extra “-i”. What’s that all about? Don’t be disturbed. Often
\nwhen a stem ends in an “-i-” the dictionary likes to reassure you
\nthat despite its odd appearance, the genitive singular form really
\nends with two “i’s”: “filii”. Similarly, the dative and ablative
\nplurals: “filiis”. It may look odd, but there was a noticeable
\ndifference in the way the two “i’s” would have been pronounced.
\nThe first is short, the second is long, so “filii”, would have be
\npronounced “FEE leh ee”. But in fact even the Romans weren’t very
\ncomfortable with this arrangement, and often the “i’s” were
\nsimplified to one long “-i-” to “fili” or “filis”. To be
\nconsistent, Wheelock always uses the double “i”.<\/p>\n
In the vocative singular, however, the “i” at the end of the
\nstem does cause a change. “Filius” is an “-us” ending second
\ndeclension noun so the vocative singular should be “filie”. But
\nshort “i” and short “e” are so similar in sound that some
\nsimplification was inevitable. The final form is not “filie” but
\n“fili”. So also in the name “Virgilius”: not “Virgilie”, but
\n“Virgili”. Decline “filius, -ii (m)”.<\/p>\n
SINGULAR PLURAL<\/p>\n
Nom. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Gen. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Dat. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Acc. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Abl. ____________________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Voc. ____________________<\/p>\n
ADJECTIVES<\/p>\n
Let’s review for a moment. You remember that adjectives are words
\nwhich qualify nouns, and that an adjective will “agree” with the
\nnoun it modifies. By “agreeing” we mean that it will have the same
\nnumber, gender, and case as the noun it’s modifying. You also know
\nthat an adjective must be able to modify nouns of all three
\ngenders, and that to modify a feminine noun an adjective uses the
\ncase endings from the first declension. For example, translate and
\ndecline “great wisdom”. “Wisdom” in Latin is “sapientia, -ae (f)”,
\na feminine noun of the first declension, as you can tell from the
\nentry. “Great” is the adjective modifying “wisdom” so it must
\nagree in number, gender and case with “sapientia”. The stem of the
\nadjective is “magn-“, and the case endings you must use are those
\nof the first declension, since “sapientia” is feminine.<\/p>\n
SINGULAR<\/p>\n
great wisdom<\/p>\n
N\/V. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Gen. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Dat. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Acc. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Abl. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
PLURAL<\/p>\n
N\/V. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Gen. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Dat. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Acc. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Abl. _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
What happens when an adjective needs to modify a masculine
\nnoun? To modify a masculine noun an adjective uses the case
\nendings from the second declension. That’s fine and good, but we
\nhave a problem. Which of the three singular nominative forms of
\nthe second declension do they use: “-us”, “-er”, or “-ir?” The
\nanswer is that some adjectives will us “-us” and some will use
\n“-er”. (None use “-ir”.) All the adjectives we’ll be looking at
\nfor the next two chapters use the “-us” ending and decline after
\nthat pattern. In chapter five you’ll get the “-er” type, so I’ll
\npostpone discussion of that kind until then (although there’s
\nnothing really very complicated about it). Let’s suppose you want
\nto modify the noun “poeta, -ae (m) with adjective for “great?”
\nLook up “great” in the dictionary and write down what you see.
\n(Make sure you look it up! I’ll wait right here.)<\/p>\n
great ______________________________<\/p>\n
Now what kind of an entry is this? The convention for listing an
\nadjective is different from that for a noun. The first entry tells
\nyou how an adjective modifies a masculine noun, the second tells
\nyou how it modifies a feminine noun, and the third how it modifies
\na neuter noun (and we’ll learn about that in the next chapter). So
\nlet’s look at the first entry: “magnus” tells you that the
\nadjective uses the “-us” type endings from the second declension to
\nmodify a masculine noun; the “-a”, which stands for the nominative
\nsingular of the first declension, tells you that it uses first
\ndeclension endings to modify feminine nouns; the “-um” tells you
\nwhich endings to use for neuter nouns. Now, how did you find the
\nstem of “-us” type nouns of the second declension? Do you
\nremember? You simply drop off the “-us” ending, and that’s the
\nstem. What’s the stem of the adjective “magnus, -a, -um?” I hope
\nyou guessed “magn-“. So an entry like this is a short-hand way of
\nsaying this:<\/p>\n
MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER<\/p>\n
-us -a -um
\n -i -ae
\n -o -ae
\n -um -am
\n -o -a
\n -e -a
\n magn- +
\n -i -ae
\n -orum -arum
\n -is -is
\n -os -as
\n -is -is<\/p>\n
So decline “great poet”. (WARNING: Remember that agreement means
\nsame number, gender, and case; not form which look alike!)<\/p>\n
SINGULAR PLURAL<\/p>\n
great poet great poets<\/p>\n
Nom. ____________ ____________ ____________
\n____________<\/p>\n
Gen. ____________ ____________ ____________
\n____________<\/p>\n
Dat. ____________ ____________ ____________
\n____________<\/p>\n
Acc. ____________ ____________ ____________
\n____________<\/p>\n
Abl. ____________ ____________ ____________
\n____________<\/p>\n
Voc. ____________ ____________ ____________
\n____________<\/p>\n
APPOSITION<\/p>\n
Consider this English sentence: “Daniel, my brother, you were older
\nthan me [sic]”. You can easily see that “brother” is giving you
\nmore information about “Daniel”; that is, “brother” is modifying or
\nqualifying “Daniel”. In this sense, at least, “brother” is acting
\nlike an adjective. But since “brother” is a noun, not an
\nadjective, it cannot qualify another noun in quite the same way an
\nadjective does. We call this modifying relationship between nouns
\n“apposition”. We would say “brother” is in “apposition” to
\n“Daniel”.<\/p>\n
In Latin also, nouns can be set in apposition to each other
\nfor modification. So one noun is modifying another noun —
\nsomething like an adjective modifying a noun. But, obviously a
\nnoun cannot agree with the noun it’s modifying the same way an
\nadjective does. And why not? Nouns all have gender inherent in
\nthem, so a noun can never change its gender to a agree in gender
\nwith a noun it’s modifying. But it can agree with the noun it’s
\nmodifying in case, and it will. In Latin, when a noun is in
\napposition to another noun, the noun doing the modifying will agree
\nwith the modified noun in case. “Gaium, meum filium, in agris
\nvideo”. (I see Gaius, my son, in the fields.) “Gaium” is
\naccusative because it’s the direct object of the verb “video”.
\nTherefore the word for “son” must also be in the accusative case,
\nsince it’s telling us more about Gaius, and Gaius, as the object of
\nthe verb “to see”, is in the accusative case.<\/p>\n
VOCABULARY PUZZLES<\/p>\n
de + abl.; in + abl. Like English, prepositions in Latin will
\n take the noun they’re governing in a case
\n other than the nominative. We wouldn’t
\n say in English “with I” or “to she:” we
\n say “with me” and “to her”. But in Latin,
\n some prepositions will have to be
\n followed by the accusative case; others
\n by the ablative case. (And some can be
\n followed by both, though the meaning
\n changes slightly.) Therefore, whenever
\n you learn a preposition, you must also
\n memorize the case it takes.<\/p>\n
pauci, -ae This is an adjective, but unlike others
\n adjectives, the word for “few” has no
\n singular forms. (That’s logical.) So
\n the dictionary starts its listing in the
\n nominative plural. As you can see, the
\n “-i” and the “-ae” endings are the second
\n and first declension nominative plural
\n endings. So this adjective declines like
\n “magnus, -a, -um” with the exception that
\n it has no singular forms.<\/p>\n
meus, -a, [-um] The adjective means “my”, and it agrees
\n with whatever is being owned. The stem is
\n “me-“. It has an irregular vocative
\n singular ending. Instead of “mee”, you
\n have “mi”. So it’s “mi amice” for “Hey,
\n my friend”.<\/p>\n
Romanus, -a, [-um] This is an adjective, but it can be used
\n as a noun. Like “American”. It’s an
\n adjective — like “American Pie” — but
\n it can also be used for a person: “she’s
\n an American”, or “The Americans are
\n coming”. Hence, “Romani” can mean “the
\n Romans”, and “Romana” can mean a “Roman
\n woman”. On the other hand, we can also
\n say “Romana patria”: “the Roman
\n fatherland”; or “Romani libri”: “Roman
\n books”.<\/p>\n
12\/31\/92<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 4<\/p>\n
“Neuters of the Second Declension; Summary of Adjectives;
\nPresent Indicative of Sum;
\nPredicate Nouns and Adjectives”<\/p>\n
Despite its lengthy title, you’ll find that much of this chapter
\nonly adds incrementally to concepts you’ve already learned. That’s
\nthe way it’s going to be for most of these chapters. Now that
\nyou’ve learned the basics, the details will be much easier for you
\nto grasp.<\/p>\n
NEUTERS OF THE SECOND DECLENSION<\/p>\n
The second declension is the pattern of cases ending which has an
\n“-o-” for its thematic vowel. The nominative singular has three
\npossible forms — “-us”, “-er”, and “-ir”. Sometimes nouns which
\nend in “-er” in the nominative undergo a stem change from the
\nnominative to the genitive singular. To find the real stem of the
\nnoun, you simply drop off the genitive ending “-i” from the second
\nentry in the dictionary. Finally, you may remember that the vast
\nmajority of nouns ending in “-us”, “-er”, and “-ir” in the
\nnominative singular are masculine.<\/p>\n
What you learned in the last chapter was not the whole story
\non the second declension. The second declension is divided into
\ntwo parts: the part you know, and a set of endings which you’re
\ngoing to learn now. This second part contains only neuter nouns.
\nThis is important to remember. Unlike the first declension and the
\nfirst part of the second, whose nouns could be either feminine or
\nmasculine, all nouns which follow this second part of the second
\ndeclension are neuter. Next, the endings of this pattern are
\nnearly identical to those of the second declension you already
\nknow. The differences are that (1) the nominative singular ending
\nis always “-um”; (2) the stem is found by dropping off nominative
\n“-um” ending and there is never a stem change; (3) the neuter
\nnominative and accusative plural endings are “-a”. You don’t have
\nto worry about the vocative singular; it’s the same as the
\nnominative singular. Remember, the only place in Latin where the
\nvocative differs from the nominative is in the singular of “-us”
\nending second declension nouns and adjectives.<\/p>\n
A dictionary entry for a noun of this type will look like
\nthis: “x”um, -i (n) (where “x” is the stem). Since there is never
\na stem change, the second entry only gives you the genitive
\nsingular ending so that you can see the declension of the noun.
\nThe “-um” of the nominative singular and then the “-i” in the
\ngenitive tell you that the noun is a neuter noun of the second
\ndeclension, and that it therefore fits into the subcategory of the
\nsecond declension. Here are some examples for you to decline and
\na second declension noun of the “us” type for comparison:<\/p>\n
numerus, -i (m) periculum, -i (n) consilium, -ii (n)<\/p>\n
Nom. ______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Gen. ______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Dat. ______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Acc. ______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Abl. ______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Voc. ______________<\/p>\n
N\/V. ______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Gen. ______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Dat. ______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Acc. ______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Abl. ______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
There are a couple of hard and fast rules pertaining to the
\ninflection of all neuter nouns, no matter which declension they
\nbelong to, which you may want to commit to memory: (1) the
\nnominative and accusative forms of neuters nouns are always like
\neach other, and (2) the nominative plural — and hence neuter
\nplural because of rule (1) — is always a short “-a”.<\/p>\n
ADJECTIVES<\/p>\n
You recall that adjectives are words which modify nouns, and that
\nin Latin an adjective must agree with the noun it’s modifying. By
\n“agreeing”, we mean it must have the same number, gender, and case.
\nAn adjective acquires number and case by declining through a
\ndeclension — just like nouns — but how does an adjective change
\ngender? An adjective changes gender by using different
\ndeclensional patterns. If an adjective needs to modify a feminine
\nnoun, it uses endings from the first declension; if it has to
\nmodify a masculine noun, it uses the second declension endings
\nwhich are used by “-us” and “-er” ending nouns. So how do you
\nimagine will an adjective modify a neuter noun? Let’s look at a
\ndictionary entry for a typical adjective: “magnus, -a, -um”.<\/p>\n
The first entry, as you recall, tells you which declension the
\nadjective uses to modify a masculine noun. It tells you by giving
\nyou the nominative singular ending of the declension it uses. The
\nsecond entry is the nominative singular ending of the declension
\nthe adjective uses to modify a feminine noun. The third entry is
\nthe nominative singular of the declension the adjective uses to
\nmodify a neuter noun.<\/p>\n
So how does the adjective “magnus, -a, -um” modify a neuter
\nnoun? It uses the “-um” neuter endings of the second declension,
\nso “magnus”, when it’s modifying a neuter noun, will follow the
\nsame pattern as a noun like “periculum, -i (n). Write out all the
\npossible forms of the adjective “great”. (Check your work against
\nWheelock, p. 18.)<\/p>\n
“magnus, -a, -um”<\/p>\n
MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER<\/p>\n
Nom. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Voc. _______________<\/p>\n
N\/V. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
THE VERB “TO BE”<\/p>\n
As in most languages, the verb “to be” in Latin is irregular
\n— i.e., it doesn’t follow the normal pattern of conjugation of
\nother verbs. Wheelock says it’s best just to memorize the forms by
\nsheer effort and rote. That’s a perfectly acceptable suggestion.
\nBut the verb is actually much more regular than it may first
\nappear. If you wish, you may try to follow my discussion about the
\nverb to get a glimpse behind its seemingly bizarre appearance. If
\nnot, just memorize the forms outright and skip over the paragraphs
\nin between the lines of asterisks.<\/p>\n
****************************************<\/p>\n
For those of you going on with me, let’s recall a couple of
\nthings. A verb conjugates by adding personal endings to the stem
\nof the verb. You find the stem of the verb by dropping of the
\n“-re” ending of the infinitive, and what you’re left with is the
\nstem. The final vowel of the stem tells you the conjugation of the
\nverb: “-a-” for a first conjugation, “-e-” for the second
\nconjugation, etc. So let’s have a look at the infinitive of the
\nverb “to be” to find its stem. The infinitive is “esse”. What
\nkind of an infinitive is this?<\/p>\n
We need to back up a little. Although you were told
\notherwise, the real infinitive ending of a Latin verb is not “-re”
\nat all, but “-se”. Why does the “-se” become “-re”? It’s an
\ninvariable rule of Latin pronunciation that an “-s-” which is
\ncaught between two vowels — we call it “intervocalic” — turns
\ninto a “-r-“. So the reason “laudare” is not “laudase” is that the
\noriginal intervocalic “-s-” became an “-r-“. So let’s look again
\nat the infinitive for the verb “to be”: “esse”. If we drop off
\nthe infinitive ending “-se”, we’re left with the stem “es-” for the
\nverb. But the stem has no final vowel. For this reason we call
\n“esse” an “athematic verb”, because its stem ends in a consonant,
\nnot a vowel, as other verbs do. To conjugate the verb, we should
\ntherefore add the personal endings directly to the final “-s” of
\nthe stem. This is what the formula should be (don’t fill in the
\nconjugated form yet).<\/p>\n
STEM + PERSONAL ENDING = CONJUGATED FORM<\/p>\n
1st es + m = _______________<\/p>\n
2nd es + s = _______________<\/p>\n
3rd es + t = _______________<\/p>\n
1st es + mus = _______________<\/p>\n
2nd es + tis = _______________<\/p>\n
3rd es + nt = _______________<\/p>\n
Try to pronounce the final form for the first person singular
\n“esm”. Do you hear how you’re automatically inserting a “u” sound
\nto make the word pronounceable? It sounds like “esum”. Try to
\npronounce “esmus”. The same thing happens between the “s” and the
\n“m”. You almost have to insert a “u”. Now pronounce “esnt”. Same
\nthing, right? This is what happened to these forms. Over time, a
\n“u” sound became a part of the conjugation of the verb, and the
\ninitial “e-” of the stem of all the forms with this “u” was lost.
\n(I can’t account for that.) Write out the resulting forms. Now
\nlook at the remaining forms. Is there any trouble adding an “s” or
\na “t” to the final “s-” of the stem? No. In fact, in the second
\nperson singular, the “s” of the personal ending just gets swallowed
\nup by the “s” of the stem: “es + s = es”. Where there was no
\ncomplication in pronouncing the forms, the “e-” of the stem stayed.
\nNow write out the remaining forms of “to be” in Latin.<\/p>\n
****************************************<\/p>\n
As with other Latin verbs, the basic form of “to be” is
\nconsidered to be the first person singular, and that’s how the verb
\nwill be listed in the dictionary, followed by the infinitive: “sum,
\nesse”. So when I want to refer to the Latin verb “to be”, I’ll say
\nthe verb “sum”. You can also see why it’s going to be important to
\nmemorize all these forms well. You can’t look up “estis” or “es”.
\nYou must reduce these conjugated forms to a form that will appear
\nin the dictionary: you must know that these forms are from “sum”.<\/p>\n
THE SENTENCE: SUBJECT AND PREDICATE<\/p>\n
We divide sentences into two parts: the subject, which is what’s
\nbeing talked about, and the predicate, what’s being said about the
\nsubject. Basically, the subject is the subject of the verb, and
\nthe predicate is the verb and everything after it. For example, in
\nthe sentence “Latin drives me crazy because it has so many forms”,
\n“Latin” is the subject, and everything else is the predicate. Of
\ncourse, the full story of subject and predicate is more involved
\nthan this, but this will get us by for now.<\/p>\n
PREDICATE NOMINATIVES, TRANSITIVE AND INTRANSITIVE VERBS<\/p>\n
In Latin the subject of a verb is in the nominative case. You know
\nthat. So it may seem to follow that, if the subject of the verb is
\nthe subject of the sentence, that the nominative case should be
\nentirely limited to the subject of the sentence. That is, we
\nshouldn’t expect there ever to be a noun in the nominative case in
\nthe predicate. Nouns in the nominative case should be the subject
\nof verbs, and the subject of verbs is in the subject clause of the
\nsentence, not in the predicate. But we do find nouns in the
\nnominative in the predicate. When we do, we call them, logically
\nenough, “predicate nominatives”. How does it happen that a
\nnominative case shows up in the predicate, after the verb?<\/p>\n
We divided verbs into two broad classes: verbs which transfer
\naction and energy from the subject to something else (the object),
\nand verbs in which there is no movement of energy from one place to
\nanother. Consider this sentence: “George kicked the ball”. Here
\nGeorge expended energy — he kicked — and this energy was
\nimmediately applied to an object — the ball — which was changed
\nas a result of what George did to it. We call a verb like this a
\n“transitive” verb and the object affected by it the direct object.
\nIn Latin, the direct object of a transitive verb is put into the
\naccusative case. Now look at this sentence: “The river is wide”.
\nIs the river doing anything in this sentence to anything else?
\nDoes the verb “is” imply that the subject is acting on something
\nelse? No. There is no movement of activity from the subject to
\nsomething else. Verbs like this are called “intransitive” and
\ndon’t take direct objects. In Latin that means they are not
\nfollowed by an accusative case. Some more examples of this: “The
\ndog was running away”, “We’ll all laugh”, “The clown didn’t seem
\nvery happy”.<\/p>\n
Sometimes it’s hard to tell whether a verb in English is
\ntransitive or intransitive. A rule of thumb is this. Ask
\nyourself, “Can I ‘x’ something?” (where “x” is the verb you’re
\ninvestigating). If the answer is “yes” then the verb is
\ntransitive; if “no” then it’s intransitive. “Can I see something?”
\nYes; therefore the verb “to see” is transitive. “Can I fall
\nsomething?” No; therefore “to fall” is intransitive.<\/p>\n
THE COPULATIVE VERB “SUM”<\/p>\n
The verb “to be” is obviously an intransitive verb — there is no
\nmovement of energy from the subject to an object — but it has an
\ninteresting additional property. What are we actually doing when
\nwe use the verb “to be?” We are in effect modifying the subject
\nwith something in the predicate. In the sentence “The river is
\nwide”, “river” is the subject and “wide” is an adjective in the
\npredicate that is modifying “river”. Even though it’s on the other
\nside of the verb and in the predicate, it’s directly tied to the
\nsubject. In Latin, therefore, what case would “wide” be in? Think
\nof it this way. “Wide” is an adjective, and it’s modifying the
\n“river”, even though it’s in the predicate. Adjectives in Latin
\nmust agree in number, gender and case with the nouns they modify,
\nso “wide” has to be in the nominative case. It’s modifying
\n“river”, right? What the verb “to be” does is to tie or link the
\nsubject directly to something in the predicate, and for that reason
\nwe call the verb “to be” a “linking” or “copulative” verb. This
\nprinciple has a special application in Latin, which has a full case
\nsystem. When the verb “sum” links the subject with an adjective in
\nthe predicate, the adjective agrees with the subject.<\/p>\n
Donum est magnum. Dona sunt magna.<\/p>\n
nominative = nominative nominative=nominative
\n neuter = neuter neuter = neuter
\n singular = singular plural = plural<\/p>\n
When “sum” links the subject with a noun in the predicate,
\nhowever, we have a bit of a problem. Nouns have fixed gender, so
\nthe noun in the predicate can’t agree with the subject noun in
\nquite the same way an adjective can. A noun in the predicate has
\nits own gender which it cannot change. But a noun in the predicate
\nwhich is tied to the subject by “sum”, will agree with the subject
\nin case. Think of the verb “sum” as an equal sign, with the same
\ncase on both sides.<\/p>\n
Mea vita est bellum (war).
\n nominative =nominative
\n feminine ~ neuter
\n singular = singular<\/p>\n
VOCABULARY PUZZLES<\/p>\n
Look at these two dictionary listings:<\/p>\n
1. bellum, -i (n) “war”
\n 2. bellus, -a, -um “beautiful”<\/p>\n
The first is an entry for a noun, the second an entry for an
\nadjective. What are the differences? An entry for a noun starts
\nwith the nominative singular form, then it gives you the genitive
\nsingular. It actually starts to decline the noun for you so that
\nyou can tell the noun’s declension and whether the noun has any
\nstem changes you should be worried about. The final entry is the
\ngender, since nouns have fixed gender which you must be given. For
\na noun, therefore you must be given (1) the nominative form, (2)
\nthe stem, (3) the declension, and (4) the gender.<\/p>\n
An entry for an adjective, by contrast, has different
\ninformation to convey. For an adjective, you must know which
\ndeclension it’ll use to modify nouns of different gender, and
\nthat’s what the “-us, -a, -um” is telling you. But there is an
\nimportant omission from the adjective listing. There is no gender
\nspecified, and how could there be, adjectives change their gender.
\nAs you’ll see later, this is the one sure sign that a word you’re
\nlooking at is an adjective: if it has declension endings listed but
\nno gender.<\/p>\n
You may also be concerned that, given the similar appearance
\nof these two words, you may mix them up in your sentences.
\nCertainly there will be some overlap of the two forms. For
\nexample, “bella” is a possible form of the noun “bellum” and the
\nadjective “bellus, -a, -um”. But there are also many forms which
\n“bellus, -a, -um” can have which “bellum, -i (n)” can never have.
\nFor example, “bellarum” can’t possibly come from a second
\ndeclension neuter noun. Neither can “bellae”, “bellas”, “bellos”,
\n“bella”, and some others. If you see “bell- something” in your
\ntext, first ask yourself whether the case ending is a possible form
\nfrom the neuter noun for war. If not, then it’s from the adjective
\nfor “pretty”. In the instances where the forms do overlap, you’ll
\nhave to let context and your good judgment tell you which it is.<\/p>\n
12\/31\/92<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 5<\/p>\n
“First and Second Conjugations: Future Indicative Active;
\n Adjectives of the First and Second Declension in -er”<\/p>\n
FUTURE TENSE OF FIRST AND SECOND CONJUGATION VERBS<\/p>\n
When you want to put an English verb into the future tense, you
\nuse the stem of the verb and put “will” in front of it: “I see”
\nbecomes “I will see”; “They have” becomes “They will have”; etc.
\nWe call the additional word “will” a “helping verb”, or, more
\nlearnedly, an “auxiliary verb”. No matter what you call it, the
\n“will” is modifying the way the listener will understand the
\naction of the verb “to see” and “to have”. In Latin, the future
\ntense is formed differently, but it still involves the addition
\nof something to the stem of the verb. The formula for forming
\nthe future tense of first and second conjugation verbs in Latin
\nis this: “stem + be + personal endings”. The stem of the verb,
\nyou remember, is what’s left after you’ve dropped off the “-re”
\nof the infinitive (the stem includes the stem vowel). The “-be-”
\nis the sign of the future and is attached directly to the stem.
\nThen you add the normal personal endings you used in the present
\ntense directly to the tense sign “be”. So let’s start to
\nconjugate the future tense of a first and second conjugation
\nverb. Here are the tables. (Don’t fill in the conjugated form
\njust yet.)<\/p>\n
I. FUTURE OF THE FIRST CONJUGATION: laudo, laudare<\/p>\n
STEM + TENSE SIGN + PERS. END. = CONJUGATED
\nFORM<\/p>\n
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
\n_______________<\/p>\n
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
\n_______________<\/p>\n
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
\n_______________<\/p>\n
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
\n_______________<\/p>\n
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
\n_______________<\/p>\n
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
\n_______________<\/p>\n
II. FUTURE OF THE SECOND CONJUGATION: moneo, monere<\/p>\n
STEM + TENSE SIGN + PERS. END. = CONJUGATED
\nFORM<\/p>\n
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
\n_______________<\/p>\n
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
\n_______________<\/p>\n
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
\n_______________<\/p>\n
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
\n_______________<\/p>\n
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
\n_______________<\/p>\n
_________ + __________ + _____________ =
\n_______________<\/p>\n
All this seems quite logical and straight-forward. But
\nthese is one glitch: the short “-e-” of the tense sign “-be-”
\nundergoes some radical changes when you start attaching the
\npersonal endings.<\/p>\n
(1) Before the “-o” of the first person singular, the short
\n “-e-” disappears completely, leaving “-bo”.
\n (2) Before the “-nt” of the third person plural, it becomes
\n a “-u-“, leaving the form “-bunt”.
\n (3) And before all the other endings, it becomes an “-i-“,
\n for “-bis”, “-bit”, “-bimus”, and “-bitis”.<\/p>\n
As you can see, the short “-e-” in fact never stays what it is in
\nany of these forms. And you may very well be wondering to
\nyourself why I’m showing you all this. Why can’t you simply
\nmemorize the future endings as “-bo”, “-bis”, “-bit”, “-bimus”,
\n“-bitis”, and “-bunt”, without having to look any farther back
\ninto its history. The answer is you can certainly remember just
\nthe final forms if you wish, but this problem of the short “-e-”
\nchanging to other vowels occurs repeatedly in Latin, and instead
\nof memorizing by rote each time you come across it, it just seems
\neasier to learn the rule governing the changes, rather than
\nencountering the changes each time as unique phenomena. It’s
\nhard to believe now, but knowing the deeper rules will make your
\nlives simpler in the future. Now that you know the rules, go
\nback and fill in the conjugated forms of the future tense.<\/p>\n
FIRST AND SECOND DECLENSION ADJECTIVES IN -ER<\/p>\n
Look at this adjective: “stultus, -a, -um”. Do you remember what
\nthis entry is telling you? An adjective spans the first and
\nsecond declensions to get the endings it needs to modify nouns of
\ndifferent genders. This entry is telling you that the adjective
\nfor “stupid” (stem: “stult-“) uses second declension “-us” type
\nendings when it modifies masculine nouns, first declension
\nendings when it modifies feminine nouns, and the “-um” category
\nof neuter endings of the second declension to modify neuter
\nnouns.<\/p>\n
Now let’s look a little more closely at the second
\ndeclension. It has two parts, you may remember: the section
\nreserved entirely for neuter nouns — those ending in “-um” in
\nthe nominative singular — and the section used by masculine and
\nfeminine nouns (the vast majority are masculine). There is a
\nvariety of nominative singular endings in this second group:
\n“-us”, “-er”, and “-ir”. The nouns which followed the “-us” type
\nsecond declension presented two problems: to find the stem, you
\nsimply dropped off the “-us” ending of the nominative case. But
\nfor the second declension nouns which ended in “-er” in the
\nnominative singular, you had to be more careful. For some of
\nthem, the stem was the form of the nominative singular, but for
\nothers the “-e-” of the “-er” dropped out from the stem. Then
\nyou used the reduced form for all the other cases. The
\ndictionary has to tell you which “-er” ending nouns had stem
\nchanges, and it does so in the in second entry for the noun.<\/p>\n
puer, -i (m)
\n liber, -bri (m)
\n ager, agri (m)<\/p>\n
The stem of “puer” is “puer-“, the stem of “liber” is “libr-“,
\nthe stem of “ager” is “agr-“. Okay, so much by way of review.<\/p>\n
Now look at this word as it appears in the dictionary:
\n“liber, -a, -um”. What is this? Is it a noun or an adjective?
\nYou can tell it’s an adjective because there is no gender listed
\nfor it. (Remember, an adjective has to be able to change its
\ngender, so it has no fixed gender, as a noun does.) An entry for
\nan adjective has to tell you how it will acquire different
\ngenders — which declensional pattern it will use to become
\nmasculine, feminine and neuter — and, you may recall, the first
\nentry shows you the masculine nominative, the second the feminine
\nnominative, and the third the neuter nominative.<\/p>\n
So have a look again at this adjective. The second entry
\nlooks familiar — it’s the nominative singular ending of the
\nfirst declension. This tells you that the adjective “liber”
\nbecome feminine by using first declension endings. The “-um”
\nshould look familiar, too. That’s its neuter ending, telling you
\nit uses the “-um” endings of the second declension to modify
\nneuter nouns. But what’s the first entry? You know that this is
\ntelling you how the adjective becomes masculine, but what about
\nthe “-er”.<\/p>\n
You’ve probably already figured out by now that the
\nadjective is going to use the second declension endings to modify
\nmasculine nouns, and that it’s going to use the “-er” ending in
\nthe nominative singular. So for “free soul”, you would write
\n“liber animus”. But what is the stem of the adjective? Remember
\nthat “-er” ending nouns of the second declension often change
\ntheir stems when they move out of the nominative singular. The
\ndictionary tells you about that in the second entry for the
\nadjective in the genitive singular. That is, the dictionary
\nactually starts declining it for you. But how will it tell you
\nwhether an adjective in “-er” has a stem change?<\/p>\n
The rule is this. An adjective in “-er” which changes its
\nstem (i.e., drops the “-e”) will use the changed stem in all
\ngenders and numbers and cases except for the nominative masculine
\nsingular. So all you need to see to know whether the adjective
\nis going to change its stem is the next entry — the feminine
\nnominative singular — to know about the stem. Look at this
\nentry.<\/p>\n
M F N<\/p>\n
pulcher, -chra, -chrum<\/p>\n
There, do you see it? The second entry shows you not only how
\nthe adjective becomes feminine, but also that the stem for all
\nother cases except the masculine nominative singular is
\n“pulchr-“. Look as this adjective: “noster, nostra, nostrum”.
\nStem change, right? Now look at this again: “liber, -a, -um”.
\nThere is no stem change since it is not indicated in the second
\nentry. So the stem is “liber-” throughout its inflection. Let’s
\ndo a few exercises. Translate and decline the following.<\/p>\n
beautiful fatherland our son<\/p>\n
Nom. ______________ ______________ ______________
\n______________<\/p>\n
Gen. ______________ ______________ ______________
\n______________<\/p>\n
Dat. ______________ ______________ ______________
\n______________<\/p>\n
Acc. ______________ ______________ ______________
\n______________<\/p>\n
Abl. ______________ ______________ ______________
\n______________<\/p>\n
Voc. ______________
\n______________<\/p>\n
N\/V. ______________ ______________ ______________
\n______________<\/p>\n
Gen. ______________ ______________ ______________
\n______________<\/p>\n
Dat. ______________ ______________ ______________
\n______________<\/p>\n
Acc. ______________ ______________ ______________
\n______________<\/p>\n
Abl. ______________ ______________ ______________
\n______________<\/p>\n
VOCABULARY PUZZLES<\/p>\n
animus, -i (m) In the singular the word means “soul,
\n spirit”, the vapory seat of
\n self-awareness. But in the plural it
\n often takes on another meaning. It may
\n mean “courage”, like our expression
\n “high spirits”, “spirited”, as in “The
\n losing team put up a spirited struggle”.
\n It happens often in Latin that a word
\n will acquire new meanings in the plural.
\n C.p., the meaning of the English word
\n “manner” in the singular with its
\n meaning in the plural: “manners”.<\/p>\n
noster, -tra, -trum This is an adjective which means “our”.
\n That is, the adjective agrees with the
\n thing that is “ours”. Therefore, it has
\n a plural form only if the noun it’s
\n agreeing with is plural. Students are
\n often lured into thinking that “noster”
\n will have only plural case endings
\n because “our” is first person plural.
\n Remember, “noster” will have plural
\n cases endings only if it’s agreeing with
\n a plural noun: “noster filius” (our son)
\n or “nostri filii” (our sons).<\/p>\n
igitur Wheelock tells you it’s post-positive:
\n it never is the first word in a Latin
\n sentence (and it’s usually the second
\n word.) Despite our tendency to put the
\n English “therefore” at the beginning of
\n the sentence, “igitur” is never first.
\n Remember.<\/p>\n
-ne We form questions in English by juggling
\n word order around, and by using
\n auxiliary verbs. But Latin doesn’t have
\n that option since word order doesn’t
\n work in the same way. To ask a question
\n in Latin, put “-ne” at the end of the
\n first word of the sentence. The word to
\n which it is attached becomes the point
\n of inquiry of the question: “Amasne
\n me?” (Do you love me?), “Mene amas?” (Is
\n it me you love (and not someone else)?)<\/p>\n
propter + acc. As you know, prepositions in Latin take
\n certain cases. “Propter” takes the
\n accusative case — always — and we
\n translate it, “because of”. Don’t be
\n thrown off by our English translation.
\n “Propter” does not take the genitive
\n case in Latin. It takes the accusative.<\/p>\n
satis When we say “I have enough money”, we
\n use “enough” as an adjective modifying
\n “money”. In Latin the word for “enough”
\n is a noun, not an adjective. Latin
\n follows “satis” with the genitive case,
\n and says in effect “I have enough of
\n money” (Habeo satis pecuniae.) You’ll be
\n pleased to know that “satis” does not
\n decline — it is always “satis”.<\/p>\n
12\/31\/92<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 6<\/p>\n
“Sum: Future and Imperfect Indicative; Possum: Present,
\n Future, and Imperfect Indicative; Complementary Infinitive”<\/p>\n
The two verbs which are the subject of this chapter are closely
\nrelated — “possum” (“to be able”) uses the forms of the verb
\n“sum” (“to be”) — so you don’t have to learn two separate
\nirregular verbs outright. You can tie them together.<\/p>\n
SUM, ESSE: FUTURE TENSE<\/p>\n
You have already learned the present tense of the irregular verb
\n“sum”. And those of you who followed my expanded notes on these
\nforms know the whole truth about the present tense. Those of you
\nwho skipped them, I recommend you go back to that section and
\nread them now. They will help you with this discussion.<\/p>\n
Do you remember how you formed the future tense of the first
\nand second conjugation verbs? It was something like this:<\/p>\n
stem + tense sign + personal endings = conjugated forms<\/p>\n
The verb “sum” follows this formula exactly, but it has a tense
\nsign for the future you haven’t seen before. Let’s start at the
\nbeginning.<\/p>\n
(1) The stem of the verb “to be” is “es-“.
\n (2) The tense sign for the future is short “-e-“. For the
\n first and second conjugations, the tense sign of the
\n future was “be-“, and the short “-e-” of the tense sign
\n underwent changes when the personal endings were added
\n to it. Do you remember what they were? The short
\n “-e-” future tense sign will undergo the same changes.
\n (3) The personal endings are the same you’ve been using all
\n along: “-o” or “-m”, “-s”, “-t” etc.<\/p>\n
So let’s set up a construction table for the future of “sum”. For
\nnow, fill in all the information except the conjugated form.<\/p>\n
FUTURE TENSE: “sum, esse”<\/p>\n
STEM + TENSE SIGN + PERS. END. = CONJUGATED
\nFORMS<\/p>\n
1st _____ _________ ___________
\n_______________<\/p>\n
2nd _____ _________ ___________
\n_______________<\/p>\n
3rd _____ _________ ___________
\n_______________<\/p>\n
1st _____ _________ ___________
\n_______________<\/p>\n
2nd _____ _________ ___________
\n_______________<\/p>\n
3rd _____ _________ ___________
\n_______________<\/p>\n
There is one more thing you need to know before you can
\nfinish this off. It’s a rule of Latin pronunciation that
\nwhenever an “-s-” is between two vowels (when it’s
\n“intervocalic”, as the professionals say), it changes from “-s-”
\nto “-r-“. Now look at the stem of “sum”. “Es-” plus the tense
\nsign “-e-” will put the “-s-” between two vowels, so the “-s-” of
\nthe stem will become an “-r-“: “ese-” = “ere-“. That, then,
\nwill be the base to which you add the personal endings. Now fill
\nout the conjugated forms — and remember the changes the short
\n“-e-” is going to go through. (Check Wheelock, p. 27.)<\/p>\n
SUM, ESSE: IMPERFECT TENSE<\/p>\n
The imperfect tense is a new tense for you, and we’re not going
\nto look very deeply into it here. For now, just remember that
\nthe imperfect tense of “sum” is our “was” and “were”. At least
\ndon’t call this the past tense; call it the imperfect tense. The
\nimperfect tense is formed along the same lines as the future
\ntense:<\/p>\n
stem + tense sign + personal endings = conjugated forms<\/p>\n
Obviously, since this is a different tense, the tense sign is not
\ngoing to be the same as the future tense sign. The tense sign of
\nthe imperfect is “-a-“. One other slight difference is that the
\nimperfect tense uses the alternate first person singular ending:
\n“-m” instead of the expected “-o”. And don’t forget the rule of
\n“-s-“: when it’s intervocalic, it changes to “-r-“. Fill out the
\nfollowing table:<\/p>\n
IMPERFECT TENSE: “sum, esse”<\/p>\n
STEM + TENSE SIGN + PERS. END. = CONJUGATED
\nFORMS<\/p>\n
1st ______ _________ _____________
\n______________<\/p>\n
2nd ______ _________ _____________
\n_______________<\/p>\n
3rd ______ _________ _____________
\n_______________<\/p>\n
1st ______ _________ _____________
\n_______________<\/p>\n
2nd ______ _________ _____________
\n_______________<\/p>\n
3rd ______ _________ _____________
\n_______________<\/p>\n
POSSUM, POSSE: PRESENT, FUTURE, IMPERFECT TENSES<\/p>\n
In Latin, the verb “to be able” is a combination of the adjective
\nbase “pot-” (“able”) plus the forms of the verb “sum”. To say “I
\nam able”, Latin took the adjective “pot-” and combined it with
\nthe present tense of “sum”. To say “I will be able”, Latin used
\n“pot-” plus the future of “sum”. To say “I was able”, Latin used
\n“pot-” plus the imperfect of “sum”. For the verb “possum”, then,
\nit is the verb “sum” provides the person, number, and the tense.<\/p>\n
In the present tense, there is one glitch: wherever the verb
\n“sum” starts with an “s-“, the “-t-” of “pot-” becomes an “-s-”
\nalso. So you see “possum” instead of “potsum” (from “pot +
\nsum”), and so on. (When a consonant turns into the consonant
\nwhich it is next to, we call this “assimilation”. So we would
\nsay “t” assimilates to “s”.)<\/p>\n
The one real oddity of the verb is its infinitive. We might
\nexpect “potesse” (“pot + esse”) according to the rules, but the
\nform “posse” is just one of those unexpected moments in life
\nwhere things get out of control. You might want to remember it
\nthis way: the English word “posse” is a group of citizens who
\nhave been granted power to make arrests: that is, they have
\n“ableness”. Fill out the following charts for the verb “possum,
\nposse”.<\/p>\n
PRESENT TENSE: possum, posse<\/p>\n
ADJECTIVE + CONJUGATED FORM OF SUM = CONJUGATED FORM<\/p>\n
1st pot ____________________ _______________<\/p>\n
2nd _________ ____________________ _______________<\/p>\n
3rd _________ ____________________ _______________<\/p>\n
1st _________ ____________________ _______________<\/p>\n
2nd _________ ____________________ _______________<\/p>\n
3rd _________ ____________________ _______________<\/p>\n
FUTURE TENSE: possum, posse<\/p>\n
ADJECTIVE + CONJUGATED FORM OF SUM = CONJUGATED FORM<\/p>\n
1st _________ ____________________ _______________<\/p>\n
2nd _________ ____________________ _______________<\/p>\n
3rd _________ ____________________ _______________<\/p>\n
1st _________ ____________________ _______________<\/p>\n
2nd _________ ____________________ _______________<\/p>\n
3rd _________ ____________________ _______________<\/p>\n
IMPERFECT TENSE: possum, posse<\/p>\n
ADJECTIVE + CONJUGATED FORM OF SUM = CONJUGATED FORM<\/p>\n
1st _________ ____________________ _______________<\/p>\n
2nd _________ ____________________ _______________<\/p>\n
3rd _________ ____________________ _______________<\/p>\n
1st _________ ____________________ _______________<\/p>\n
2nd _________ ____________________ _______________<\/p>\n
3rd _________ ____________________ _______________<\/p>\n
The only real difficulty with “possum” is the English
\ntranslations for it. If you stick with “to be able”, “will be
\nable”, and “was\/were able”, you’ll get through just fine. But
\nyou can also translate “possum” with the English verb “can”. But
\n“can”, although it is popular in English, is loaded with
\noddities. For one, it has no future tense — “I will can??” —
\nand secondly, the imperfect tense is “could”, which is also a
\nconditional of some kind or another in English: “Do you think I
\ncould have a dollar?” Try to stay with “to be able” for now, but
\nbe aware of the possibilities of “can”.<\/p>\n
THE COMPLEMENTARY INFINITIVE<\/p>\n
If you were to walk up to a stranger and, out of the blue, say “I
\nam able”, you’d be answered by a pause. The stranger would be
\nexpecting you to complete your thought: “Yes, you’re able to do
\nwhat?” That’s because “to be able” requires another verb to
\ncomplete its sense, and the form the completing verb will have is
\nthe infinitive. It needs a completing infinitive (or
\n“complementary infinitive”). This is true in Latin as well.
\n“Possum” in all its forms will be followed by another verb in the
\ninfinitive form: “Poterunt videre nostros filios”. (They will be
\nable to see our sons.)<\/p>\n
VOCABULARY PUZZLES<\/p>\n
liber, -bri (m) How are you going to keep the noun for “book”
\n distinct in your mind from the adjective for
\n “free”: “liber, -a, -um”. For one, the “-i-”
\n in “liber, -bri (m)” is short, but it’s long in
\n “liber, -a, -um”. Next, there is a stem change
\n in “liber, -bri (m)” but not in “liber, -a,
\n -um”. So if you see an inflected form “libr-
\n something”, then you know the word means
\n “book(s)”. Remember this by recalling their
\n English derivatives: library is from the
\n stem-changing “liber, -bri (m)”, and “liberty”
\n is from “liber” in which there is no stem
\n change. For the most part, derived words come
\n from the stem of the nouns, not the nominative
\n singular.<\/p>\n
vitium, -ii (n) Please don’t confuse this with the word for
\n life “vita, -ae, (f)”. Keep them straight this
\n way: “vicious”, which comes from “vitium”, has
\n an “-i-” after the “-t”, but “vital”, which
\n comes from “vita”, does not. “Vitia” means
\n “vices” or “crimes”; “vita” means “life”.<\/p>\n
Graecus, -a, -um Like “Romanus, -a, -um”, this adjective can be
\n used as a noun: “Graecus” can be translated as
\n “a Greek man”, and “Graeca” as “a Greek woman”,
\n or as an adjective: “Graecus liber” = “a Greek
\n book”.<\/p>\n
-que As Wheelock tells you, this word (called and
\n enclitic because it “leans on” another word and
\n never stands alone in a sentence) is attached
\n to the end of the second word of two that are
\n to be linked. Think of it this way: “x yque”
\n = “x et y”.<\/p>\n
ubi If “ubi” comes first in a sentence which is a
\n question, always translate it as “Where”. “Ubi
\n es?” (Where are you?) But when it is in the
\n middle of a sentence, it can be translated as
\n either “where” or “when”, and does not mean
\n that a question is being asked. You must try
\n them both out to see which of the two
\n possibilities makes the most sense.<\/p>\n
insidiae, -arum (f) We translate this word, although it is always
\n plural in Latin, as the singular “plot”, or
\n “treachery”. It’s going to happen often that
\n ideas which are conceived of as plural in
\n Latin are thought of as singular in English.<\/p>\n
12\/31\/92<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 7<\/p>\n
“Third Declension: Nouns”<\/p>\n
The third declension is generally considered to be a “pons
\nasinorum” of Latin grammar. But I disagree. The third
\ndeclension, aside for presenting you a new list of case endings
\nto memorize, really involves no new grammatical principles you’ve
\nhaven’t already been working with. I’ll take you through it
\nslowly, but most of this guide is actually going to be review.<\/p>\n
CASE ENDINGS<\/p>\n
The third declension has nouns of all three genders in it.
\nUnlike the first and second declensions, where the majority of
\nnouns are either feminine or masculine, the genders of the third
\ndeclension are equally divided. So you really must pay attention
\nto the gender markings in the dictionary entries for third
\ndeclension nouns. The case endings for masculine and feminine
\nnouns are identical. The case endings for neuter nouns are also
\nof the same type as the feminine and masculine nouns, except for
\nwhere neuter nouns follow their peculiar rules:<\/p>\n
(1) the nominative and the accusative forms are always the
\n same, and
\n (2) the nominative and accusative plural case endings are
\n short “-a-“.<\/p>\n
You may remember that the second declension neuter nouns have
\nforms that are almost the same as the masculine nouns — except
\nfor these two rules. In other words, there is really only one
\npattern of endings for third declension nouns, whether the nouns
\nare masculine, feminine, or neuter. It’s just that neuter nouns
\nhave a peculiarity about them. So here are the third declension
\ncase endings. Notice that the separate column for neuter nouns
\nis not really necessary, if you remember the rules of neuter
\nnouns.<\/p>\n
Masculine\/Feminine Neuter<\/p>\n
N\/V. ———- ———-
\n Gen. -is -is
\n Dat. -i -i
\n Acc. -em (same as nom.)
\n Abl. -e -e<\/p>\n
NV. -es -a
\n Gen. -um -um
\n Dat. -ibus -ibus
\n Acc. -es -a
\n Abl. -ibus -ibus<\/p>\n
Now let’s go over some of the “hot spots” on this list. The
\nnominative singular is left blank because there are so many
\ndifferent possible nominative forms for third declension nouns
\nthat it would take half a page to list them all. You needn’t
\nfret over this though, because the dictionary’s first entry for a
\nnoun is the nominative singular. You’ll have to do a little more
\nmemorization with third declension nouns because you simply can’t
\nassume that it’ll have a certain form in the nominative just
\nbecause it’s third declension — as you could with first
\ndeclension nouns, where they all end in “-a” in the nominative.<\/p>\n
The same is true for neuter nouns in the nominative singular
\n— although the possible forms for neuter nominative singulars is
\nmuch more limited. It’s just not worth the effort to memorize
\nthem. And remember, the accusative form of neuter nouns will be
\nexactly the form of the nominative, so there’s a blank in the
\naccusative slot for neuter nouns. It’ll be whatever the
\nnominative is.<\/p>\n
STEMS OF THIRD DECLENSION NOUNS<\/p>\n
One very distinctive characteristic of nouns of the third
\ndeclension is that nearly all of them are stem-changing nouns.
\nBut the concept of stem-changing nouns is not new for you.
\nYou’ve already worked with it in the second declension with nouns
\nending in “-er” in the nominative. Look at this entry for a
\nsecond declension noun: “ager, agri (m)”. The first entry for a
\nnoun is the nominative singular, the second is the genitive where
\nyou learn two things: (1) the declension of the noun (by looking
\nat the genitive ending), and (2) whether there is a stem change
\nfrom the nominative to the other cases. In this instance we
\nlearn that “ager” is a second declension noun — because the
\ngenitive ending is “-i” — and that there is a stem change. The
\nstem of noun is “agr-“, so it’ll decline like this:<\/p>\n
N\/V. ager N\/V. agri
\n Gen. agri Gen. agrorum
\n Dat. agro Dat. agris
\n Acc. agrum Acc. agros
\n Abl. agro Abl. agris<\/p>\n
Now look at an example entry for a third declension noun: “rex,
\nregis (m)”. Use your experience with second declension “-er”
\ntype masculine nouns to draw out all the important information
\nyou need about this noun. What’s its stem? Now decline it.<\/p>\n
N\/V. rex + — = rex<\/p>\n
Gen. __________ __________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Dat. __________ __________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Acc. __________ __________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Abl. __________ __________ ____________________<\/p>\n
N\/V. __________ __________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Gen. __________ __________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Dat. __________ __________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Acc. __________ __________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Abl. __________ __________ ____________________<\/p>\n
How did you do? Check your answers against page 31 in Wheelock.
\nThe nominative form is just what’s listed in the dictionary —
\nthere is no ending in the nominative singular to add. Next, the
\nstem of “rex” is “reg-“, which you get by dropping off the “-is”
\ngenitive ending of the third declension from the form “regis”
\nwhich the dictionary gives. Now decline this noun: “corpus,
\ncorporis (n)”.<\/p>\n
N\/V. __________ + __________ = ____________________<\/p>\n
Gen. __________ __________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Dat. __________ __________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Acc. __________ __________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Abl. __________ __________ ____________________<\/p>\n
N\/V. __________ __________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Gen. __________ __________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Dat. __________ __________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Acc. __________ __________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Abl. __________ __________ ____________________<\/p>\n
Did you remember the two rules of neuter nouns? Check your
\nanswers on page 31. How are you doing? Try to decline a couple
\nmore for some more practice.<\/p>\n
pax, pacis (f) virtus, virtutis (f) labor, laboris (m)<\/p>\n
N\/V. __________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Gen. __________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Dat. __________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Acc. __________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Abl. __________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
N\/V. __________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Gen. __________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Dat. __________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Acc. __________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Abl. __________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
One of the difficulties beginning students have with third
\ndeclension nouns is that dictionaries only abbreviate the second
\nentry, where you’re given the stem of the noun, and it’s often
\npuzzling to see just what the stem is. Look over this list of
\ntypical abbreviations. After a very short time, they’ll cause
\nyou no problem.<\/p>\n
ENTRY STEM ENTRY STEM<\/p>\n
veritas, -tatis (f) veritat- oratio, -onis (f) oration-
\nhomo, -inis (m) homin- finis, -is (f) fin-
\nlabor, -oris (m) labor- libertas, -tatis (f)
\nlibertat-
\ntempus, -oris (n) tempor- senectus, -tutis (f)
\nsenectut-
\nvirgo, -inis (m) virgin- amor, -oris (m) amor-<\/p>\n
ENTRY STEM<\/p>\n
corpus, -oris (n) ____________________<\/p>\n
honor, -oris (m) ____________________<\/p>\n
humanitas, -tatis (f)____________________<\/p>\n
frater, -tris (m) ____________________<\/p>\n
mutatio, -onis (f) ____________________<\/p>\n
pater, -tris (m) ____________________<\/p>\n
pestis, -is (f) ____________________<\/p>\n
scriptor, -oris (m)____________________<\/p>\n
valetudo, -inis (f)____________________<\/p>\n
cupiditas, -tatis (f)____________________<\/p>\n
MODIFYING THIRD DECLENSION NOUNS<\/p>\n
Modifying a third declension noun is nothing to cause any alarm.
\nIt’s done the same way you modify first and second declension
\nnouns: put the adjective in the same number, gender, and case as
\nthe target noun, and away you go. What causes beginners in Latin
\nsome discomfort is that they can’t quite bring themselves around
\nto modifying a third declension noun with an adjective which uses
\nfirst and second declension endings.<\/p>\n
Let’s go through this step by step. Suppose you want to
\nmodify the noun “virtus, -tutis (f)” with the adjective “verus,
\n-a, -um”. You want to say “true virtue”. You know that “virtus”
\nis nominative, feminine and singular, so for the adjective
\n“verus, -a, -um” to agree with it, it must also be feminine,
\nnominative and singular. So look at the adjective’s listing
\nclosely: how does “verus, -a, -um” become feminine? From the
\nsecond entry, you see that it uses endings from the first
\ndeclension to modify a feminine noun. Since “virtus” is
\nfeminine, verus” will use first declension endings. You now
\nselect the nominative singular ending from the first declension
\n— “-a” — and add it to the stem of the adjective. The result:
\n“vera virtus”. Try some more. Decline the following
\nexpressions.<\/p>\n
evil time small city<\/p>\n
N\/V. ______________ _____________ ____________________________<\/p>\n
Gen. ______________ _____________ ____________________________<\/p>\n
Dat. ______________ _____________ ____________________________<\/p>\n
Acc. ______________ _____________ ____________________________<\/p>\n
Abl. ______________ _____________ ____________________________<\/p>\n
N\/V. ______________ _____________ ____________________________<\/p>\n
Gen. ______________ _____________ ____________________________<\/p>\n
Dat. ______________ _____________ ____________________________<\/p>\n
Acc. ______________ _____________ ____________________________<\/p>\n
Abl. ______________ _____________ ____________________________<\/p>\n
VOCABULARY PUZZLES<\/p>\n
mos, moris (m) In the plural, “mos” takes on a new meaning: in
\n the singular in means “habit”, in the plural
\n “character”. This isn’t hard to understand. What
\n a person does regularly to the point of being a
\n habit eventually becomes what he is: it becomes
\n his character.<\/p>\n
littera, -ae (f) Like “mos, moris”, in the plural “littera”
\n takes on an extended meaning. In the
\n singular it means “a letter of the alphabet”;
\n in the plural it means either “a letter
\n (something you mail to someone)” or
\n “literature”. To say “letters”, — as in,
\n “He used to send her many letters” — Latin
\n used another word. “Litterae” is one letter.<\/p>\n
post + acc. Means “after”, but it is only a preposition in
\n Latin, and cannot be used as a conjunction. For
\n the English “after” in this sentence, “post” is
\n not a correct translation: “After I went to the
\n zoo, I went to the movies”.<\/p>\n
sub + acc.\/abl. This preposition, like a few others you’ll
\n see, can be followed by the accusative or the
\n ablative case. When it takes the accusative
\n it means motion to and under something; when
\n it takes the ablative it means “position
\n under”. “She walked under the tree” — in the
\n sense that she was not beneath the tree at
\n first but then walked there — would be “sub”
\n + accusative in Latin; “She sat under the
\n tree” would be “sub” + ablative. Similarly,
\n if you say “She walked under the tree” in the
\n sense that she was walking around under the
\n tree, that would be “sub” + ablative because
\n no motion toward was involved.<\/p>\n
12\/31\/92<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 8<\/p>\n
“Third Conjugation (duco): Present Infinitive, Present and
\n Future Indicative, Present Imperative Active”<\/p>\n
PRESENT INFINITIVE AND PRESENT TENSE<\/p>\n
You remember that Latin verbs are divided into groups called
\n“conjugations”, and the conjugations are distinguished from one
\nanother by their thematic vowels. The thematic vowel of the
\nfirst conjugation is “-a-“; the thematic vowel of the second is
\n“-e-“. You can tell what the stem vowel (its thematic vowel) of
\na verb is — and thereby its conjugation — by dropping the “-re”
\nending from the infinitive, which is given to you in the
\ndictionary.<\/p>\n
laudo laudare stem: lauda- 1st conjugation
\n moneo monere stem: mone- 2nd conjugation<\/p>\n
Now look at the dictionary entry for the verb “to lead” in Latin:
\n“duco, ducere”. Simply by looking at the first entry, you might
\nthink that this verb is going to be a first conjugation verb —
\nit looks like “laudo”. But the next entry looks something like a
\nsecond. Find the stem: it’s duce-. You have to look closely,
\nbut the “-e-” of the stem is short. This is the characteristic
\nvowel of the third conjugation: short “-e-“.<\/p>\n
Even if you’re not watching the long marks, you can still
\ntell a second conjugation verb in the dictionary from a third.
\nThe first entry for a second conjugation verb will always end in
\n“-eo”, and then the second entry will end “-ere”. The first
\ndictionary entry of a third conjugation ends simply with “-o” and
\nthen the second entry is “-ere”. So if the first entry of a verb
\nlooks like a first conjugation verb in the first person singular
\nand if the infinitive looks like a second conjugation verb, then
\nyou have a third conjugation verb. Identify the conjugations of
\nthe following verbs:<\/p>\n
ENTRY CONJUGATION ENTRY
\nCONJUGATION<\/p>\n
doceo, docere __________ audeo, audere __________<\/p>\n
amo, amare __________ tolero, tolerare __________<\/p>\n
duco, ducere __________ valeo, valere __________<\/p>\n
scribo, scribere __________ ago, agere __________<\/p>\n
We’ll use “duco” as our example (paradigm) of third conjugation
\nverbs. Now let’s see about conjugating a third conjugation verb
\nin the present tense. You remember the formula for all verbs in
\nLatin in the present tense: it’s just the stem plus the personal
\nendings “-o”, “-s”, “-t”, etc. Fill out the following table,
\nexcept for the conjugated form.<\/p>\n
PRESENT TENSE OF “duco, ducere”<\/p>\n
STEM + PERSONAL ENDINGS = CONJUGATED FORM<\/p>\n
1st _________ __________
\n____________________<\/p>\n
2nd _________ __________
\n____________________<\/p>\n
3rd _________ __________
\n____________________<\/p>\n
1st _________ __________
\n____________________<\/p>\n
2nd _________ __________
\n____________________<\/p>\n
3rd _________ __________
\n____________________<\/p>\n
What we need to know is what happens to the stem vowel when you
\nstart attaching the personal endings. In the first and second
\ndeclensions this presented no problem, because the stem vowels
\nare long and strongly pronounced. But short vowels always cause
\ndifficulties in languages and are subject to changes. You
\nalready have experience with what happens to the short “-e-”
\nbefore personal endings. Do you remember how you form the future
\ntense of first and second conjugation verbs? You insert the
\ntense sign “-b-” in between the stem and the personal endings.
\nAnd then the short “-e-” changes:<\/p>\n
laudabo – laudabo (“-e-” disappears)
\n laudabs – laudabis
\n laudabt – laudabit<\/p>\n
laudabmus – laudabimus
\n laudabtis – laudabitis
\n laudabnt – laudabunt<\/p>\n
This is what happens to short “-e-” before the personal endings.
\nIn third conjugation verb, then, what is going to happen to the
\nshort “-e-” of its stem? Right. It’s going to undergo precisely
\nthe same changes. Now go back to the table and fill out the
\nconjugated forms of “duco”. (Check the answers in Wheelock, p.
\n35.)<\/p>\n
FUTURE TENSE<\/p>\n
Third conjugation verbs form the future tense in a way entirely
\ndifferent from that of the first and second conjugation. First
\nand second conjugation verbs insert a tense sign — “-be-”
\nbetween the stem and the personal endings. Third conjugation
\nverbs do two things:<\/p>\n
(1) For the first person singular, they replace the stem
\n vowel with an “-a-” and use the alternate personal
\n ending “-m” — instead of the more regular “-o”.
\n (2) For all the other forms, they lengthen the short “-e-”
\n of the stem to long “-e-“. Since the “-e-” is now
\n long, it no longer goes through any of the changes it
\n went through in the present tense. It simply stays
\n “-e-“. (Except of course where long vowels normally
\n become short: before “-t”, and “-nt”.)<\/p>\n
Fill out the future tense of the verb “duco”.<\/p>\n
STEM + TENSE SIGN + PERS. END. = CONJUGATED FORMS<\/p>\n
1st duc __________ __________ _______________<\/p>\n
2nd _____ __________ __________ _______________<\/p>\n
3rd _____ __________ __________ _______________<\/p>\n
1st _____ __________ __________ _______________<\/p>\n
2nd _____ __________ __________ _______________<\/p>\n
3rd _____ __________ __________ _______________<\/p>\n
FUTURE OF THIRD CONJUGATION VS. PRESENT OF SECOND CONJUGATION<\/p>\n
The way a third conjugation verb forms its future presents an
\ninteresting problem. Write out the present tense of the second
\nconjugation verb “moneo, monere”, and next to it write out the
\nfuture of the third conjugation verb “mitto, mittere” (to send).<\/p>\n
moneo mitto<\/p>\n
PRESENT FUTURE<\/p>\n
1st __________ __________<\/p>\n
2nd __________ __________<\/p>\n
3rd __________ __________<\/p>\n
1st __________ __________<\/p>\n
2nd __________ __________<\/p>\n
3rd __________ __________<\/p>\n
As you can see, except for the first person singular, the endings
\nof both these verbs look the same: the personal endings in both
\nthese verbs are preceded by an “-e-“. The present tense of a
\nsecond conjugation verb almost always looks like the future tense
\nof a third conjugation verb, and this could cause you some
\nproblems when you’re reading and translating. But not if you
\nkeep your wits about you.<\/p>\n
Suppose that you see a form like this in a text you’re
\nreading: “legent”. What do you do with it? First you recognize
\nthe “-nt” as an ending that’s attached to verbs, so the word
\nyou’re looking at is a verb. You want to look this verb up in
\nthe dictionary, so you must simplify it to its basic form, which
\nis the first person singular. You remember that a verb is
\nconjugated by adding personal ending, so to reduce this form, you
\ndrop of the “-nt”. This leaves you with “lege-“.<\/p>\n
Now the next thing you have to consider is the “-e-“: is it
\nthe stem vowel of a second conjugation verb, or is it the
\nlengthened “-e-” of a third conjugation verb as the tense sign
\nfor the future? That is, is this a present tense form of a
\nsecond conjugation verb (stem + personal endings), or is it a
\nfuture of a third (stem + lengthened “-e-” + personal endings).
\nWhat do you do next to find out? You’ve gone as far as you can
\nwith you preliminary analysis of the form. Now you have to
\nproceed provisionally.<\/p>\n
Suppose that the verb is a second conjugation, what will the
\ndictionary entry look like? The first entry is the first person
\nsingular, the second is the infinitive, so, if this is a second
\nconjugation verb, the entry will be “legeo, legere”. Right?
\nBecause all second conjugation verbs end in “-eo” in the first
\nperson singular. So you’ve reduced the conjugated form “legent”
\nto a form you can look up.<\/p>\n
The next step is to look it up — but look for exactly what
\nyou’ve supposed the form to be. Look for both “legeo”, and
\n“legere”. Look it up. You didn’t find it, did you? But if your
\nanalysis was correct, “legeo” must be there. But it’s not. What
\ndoes that tell you? It tells you that “legent” is not a form of
\na second conjugation verb. (If it were, you would have found
\n“legeo” in the dictionary, but you didn’t.) Go back to the other
\npossibility: “legent” could be the future of a third conjugation
\nverb, where the “-e-” is the sign of the future. So if this is
\ncorrect, what will the dictionary entry be? It’ll be “lego,
\nlegere”. Check it out. This time you found what you were
\nlooking for: “lego” means “to read”. So how do you translate
\n“legent?”<\/p>\n
leg- -e- -nt
\n read will they<\/p>\n
Or “they will read”.<\/p>\n
The moral of this is that your lives used to be fairly
\nsimple. An “-e-” before the personal endings always used to
\nindicate a present tense of a second conjugation verb. Now it
\ncould mean a future of a third conjugation verb as well. You
\nhave to proceed cautiously now, and make sure you have thoroughly
\nmastered your grammar before you start reading. You’ll also have
\nto use the dictionary more deliberately and intelligently than
\nyou had to before. And that means thinking your forms through
\nbefore you turn to the dictionary.<\/p>\n
IMPERATIVE<\/p>\n
Do you remember the formulae you followed for forming the
\nimperative of first and second conjugation verbs? It was this:<\/p>\n
Singular: stem + 0
\n Plural: stem + te<\/p>\n
And so you came up with forms like this: “lauda”, “laudate”,
\n“mone”, “monete”, etc. Third conjugation verbs follow the same
\nformulae, but don’t forget that pesky short “-e-” stem vowel. If
\nthere is something added to it, it changes to an “-i-” (or “-u-”
\nbefore the ending “-nt”); if there is nothing added to it, it
\nstays short “-e-“. So how are you going to form the imperative
\nof the verb “mitto?” Think.<\/p>\n
Singular mitte + 0 = __________<\/p>\n
Plural mitte + te = __________<\/p>\n
This is how all third conjugation verbs will form their
\nimperatives — except for four very common verbs. The verbs
\n“duco”, and three other verbs you’ll get later, form their
\nsingular imperatives by dropping the stem vowel altogether: “duc”
\nnot “duce”. But the plural imperatives are quite regular:
\n“ducite”.<\/p>\n
VOCABULARY PUZZLES<\/p>\n
scribo, -ere One way to memorize the conjugation of verbs
\n is to learn them with the proper
\n accentuation. A second conjugation verb is
\n accented on the stem vowel in the infinitive,
\n so say “MOH neh o, moh HEH reh” for the
\n second conjugation verb “moneo, monere”. The
\n stress accent on a third conjugation falls on
\n the syllable before the stem vowel. So say,
\n “SREE boh, SCREE beh reh” for the third
\n conjugation verb “scribo, scribere”.
\n Similarly “DOO keh re” for “ducere”, “MIT teh
\n re” for “mittere” and so on.<\/p>\n
copia, -ae (f) Another one of those words which have a
\n different meaning in the plural. In the
\n singular “copia” means “abundance”; in the
\n plural — copiae, -arum (f) — it means
\n “supplies, troops, forces”.<\/p>\n
ad + acc Means “to” and “toward”, always with a sense
\n of “movement to. Students often “ad + acc”.
\n with the dative case of indirect object,
\n which we often translate into English with
\n the preposition “to”. Contrast these two
\n examples: “I am giving you a dollar (“you”
\n would be dative case) and “I am running to
\n you” (“you” would be in the accusative case
\n governed by “ad”).<\/p>\n
ex, e + abl. Students sometimes get hung up on when to use
\n “ex” or “e”. Use “ex” before any word you
\n like, but use “e” only before words which
\n start with a consonant. If you wish, use
\n “ex” only. That way, you’ll always be right.<\/p>\n
ago, agere An idiom with this verb which Wheelock is
\n going use a lot is “ago vitam”, which means
\n “to live” (to lead a life). Another is “ago
\n gratias” + dative, which means “to thank”.
\n The person being thanked is in the dative
\n case: “Populus hominibus gratias agent”.<\/p>\n
duco, ducere Means “to lead”, but can also mean “to
\n think”. This extension is logical: we want
\n our leaders to be thinkers too, don’t we?<\/p>\n
12\/31\/92<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 9<\/p>\n
“Demonstrative Pronouns: Hic, Ille, Iste”<\/p>\n
ENGLISH: THIS, THESE; THAT, THOSE<\/p>\n
Consider the following expressions:<\/p>\n
this car that car
\n these cars those cars<\/p>\n
The words “this”, “these”, “that”, and “those” are obviously
\ntelling you a little something more about “car” or “cars”. They
\nare indicating the relative spacial location “car” or “cars” have
\nto the speaker. When we say “this car” or the plural “these
\ncars”, we are referring to the car or cars which are nearby:
\n“this car right here”; “these cars right here”. For the most
\npart, when we say “that car” or “those cars”, we mean cars which
\nare some distance from us: “that car over there”, or “those cars
\nover there”. It would sound odd for someone to say “that car
\nright here” or “these cars way over there”. So the words “this”,
\n“these”, “that”, and “those”, are telling us more about the words
\nthey’re attached to; that is, they qualify or modify their nouns.
\nAnd we call words which modify other nouns “adjectives”.<\/p>\n
As you know, in English adjectives hardly ever change their
\nform to “agree” with the thing they’re modifying.<\/p>\n
“tall tree” and “tall trees”
\n “bad boys” and “bad girls”<\/p>\n
This is different from Latin adjectives, which must change
\nendings to show the different numbers, genders, and cases of the
\nnouns they modify. But look again at the adjectives “this” and
\n“that”. When the nouns they modify become plural, the adjective
\nitself changes form: from “this” to “these”; from “that” to
\n“those”. These two are the only adjectives in English which
\nactually change their forms to match a grammatical feature of the
\nnouns they’re modifying. They have slightly different forms to
\nindicate a change in number of the nouns they modify.<\/p>\n
So, these words are adjectives, since they qualify nouns,
\nand since their main purpose is to “point out” the nouns, we call
\nthem “demonstrative adjectives” because they “point out” or
\n“point to” (Latin “demonstrare”). This is very important to
\nremember: these words are “demonstrative adjectives”.<\/p>\n
THE LATIN DEMONSTRATIVE ADJECTIVES: ILLE, HIC, ISTE<\/p>\n
Latin also has demonstrative adjectives roughly equivalent to our
\n“this” and “that”. Now remember, since these words are
\nadjectives in Latin, they must be able to agree with the nouns
\nthey’re modifying. Therefore, these demonstrative adjectives
\nmust be able to decline to agree with all three different
\ngenders. For the most part, the Latin demonstrative adjectives
\ndecline just like the adjectives you’ve see so far. That is,
\nthey add the first and second declension endings to their stems.
\nBut there are some unexpected irregularities which you simply
\nmust memorize:<\/p>\n
(1) The nominative singulars are irregular.
\n (2) The genitive singular for all genders is “-ius”.
\n (3) The dative singular for all genders is “-i”.<\/p>\n
Keep these irregularities in mind and decline the demonstrative
\nadjective “that”. Its dictionary listing includes all the
\nnominatives — just as an adjective like “magnus, -a, -um” does
\n— so that you can see its declension pattern. The adjective for
\n“that” is “ille, illa, illud”. (You can check your work in
\nWheelock, p. 39.)<\/p>\n
STEM: ill-
\n MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER<\/p>\n
N\/V. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
N\/V. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
As you can see, the inflection of the demonstrative adjective
\n“ille” is quite recognizable after the nominative, genitive and
\ndative singulars. With some more time, however, you’ll become
\nwell-acquainted with the irregulars forms “-ius” and “-i” of
\ngenitive and dative singulars. All the demonstrative adjectives
\nand pronouns in Latin use these alternative genitive and dative
\nsingular endings, as do some adjectives. In fact, we call this
\ndeclensional pattern the “heteroclite” declension, because it
\nseems to be borrowing the genitive and dative singular forms from
\nsomewhere else.<\/p>\n
Let’s turn now to the demonstrative adjective for “this”.
\nThe stem is “h-“, and it follows the pattern set by “ille”:
\nunusual nominatives, alternative endings for the genitive and
\ndative singulars. But there are four additional things to note
\nabout its declension:<\/p>\n
(1) In the genitive and dative singulars, the stem
\n lengthens to “hu-” from “h-“.
\n (2) In all the singular cases and genders, and in the
\n neuter plural nominative and accusative, the particle
\n “-c” is added to the end of case endings for a little
\n extra emphasis: like “this here” in English. We call
\n the “-c” an “epideictic” (eh peh DAY tick) particle.
\n (3) When the epideictic particle “-c” is added to a case
\n ending which ends in an “-m”, the “-m” becomes an “-n”.
\n (4) The neuter nominative and accusative plural endings are
\n “-ae”, not “-a”, as you might expect from the second
\n declension.<\/p>\n
This is quite a list of oddities, and students have some
\ndifficulty mastering this demonstrative adjective. Keep you
\nfinger on this list of irregularities and try to decline the
\nLatin demonstrative “this”: “hic, haec, hoc”.<\/p>\n
STEM: h- (or hu-)<\/p>\n
MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER<\/p>\n
N\/V. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
N\/V. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Finally, there exists in Latin a demonstrative adjective
\nthat has no real translation into English, though we can readily
\nrecognize its meaning. It can only be rendered into English by
\nan inflection of the voice, one implying contempt, disdain, or
\noutrage. Read this exchange:<\/p>\n
X: “Did you see the movie I was telling you about?”
\n Y: “What movie?”
\n X: “You know, the one about mass killing, torture, moral
\n outrages and general profligacy. The one you said no
\n one in his right mind ought to see?”
\n Y: “Oh, that movie”.<\/p>\n
The final “that” in this dialogue corresponds to the Latin
\ndemonstrative adjective “iste, ista, istud”. There is nothing
\ncomplicated about the declension of “iste”; It uses the
\nalternative genitive and dative singular endings “-ius” and “-i”,
\nand the neuter nominative and accusative singular is “-ud” (like
\n“illud”). Aside from that, it uses the standard first and second
\ndeclension endings.<\/p>\n
STEM: ist-<\/p>\n
MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER<\/p>\n
N\/V. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
N\/V. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Gen. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Dat. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Acc. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Abl. _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
USING THE HETEROCLITE DECLENSION<\/p>\n
As irritating as it may to have to memorize more endings, the
\nheteroclite declension has a nice advantage. It can often help you
\nestablish the case of a noun. You know that the declensions have
\nforms which overlap. For example, the form “consilio” from the
\nnoun “consilium, -ii (n) can be either the dative or ablative case
\nsingular. But if it’s modified by a demonstrative adjective, you
\ncan tell immediately which of the two it is:<\/p>\n
huic consilio (dative)
\n hoc consilio (ablative)<\/p>\n
Write out the number, gender and case the following nouns are in:<\/p>\n
NUMBER GENDER CASE<\/p>\n
1. illae civitates __________ __________ __________<\/p>\n
2. illas civitates __________ __________ __________<\/p>\n
3. isti puero __________ __________ __________<\/p>\n
4. isto puero __________ __________ __________<\/p>\n
5. illi amores __________ __________ __________<\/p>\n
6. illos amores __________ __________ __________<\/p>\n
ADJECTIVES USING THE HETEROCLITE ENDINGS: -IUS AND -I<\/p>\n
As I mentioned, there are some adjectives in Latin which use the
\nalternative genitive and dative endings. Aside from that, however,
\nthese adjectives follow the normal declensional patterns. There
\nare very few of them, but they are important adjectives which get
\na lot of use. You’ve got to know them:<\/p>\n
alius, -a, -ud “other”
\n alter, -a, -um “the other”
\n nullus, -a, -um “no, none”
\n solus, -a, -um “sole, alone”
\n totus, -a, -um “whole; entire”
\n ullus, -a, -um “any”
\n unus, -a, -um “one”<\/p>\n
Judged by their dictionary entries alone, these adjective look
\ndeceptively normal. They appear to be the standard variety
\nadjectives of the first and second declensions. But their genitive
\nand dative singulars are not the standard kind. Watch this
\ndeclension of the expression “the other man alone”:<\/p>\n
Nom. alter vir solus
\n Gen. alterius viri solius
\n Dat. alteri viro soli
\n Acc. alterum virum solum
\n Abl. altero viro solo<\/p>\n
ALIUS AND ALTER<\/p>\n
“Alius, alia, aliud” is the adjective which means “other”, and it’s
\none of those adjectives which follow the heteroclite declension:
\n“-ius” and “-i” for the genitive and dative singulars. For a
\ntotally mysterious reason, Latin tends to replace the genitive
\nsingular of “alius” with the genitive singular of “alter”. Hence
\nwe find “alterius” in place of the expected “aliius” in the
\ndeclension of “alius”. After that oddity, the declension of
\n“alius” regains its sanity:<\/p>\n
Masculine Feminine Neuter<\/p>\n
N\/V. alius alia aliud
\n Gen. alterius alterius alterius
\n Dat. alii alii alii
\n Acc. alium aliam aliud
\n Abl. alio alia alio<\/p>\n
etc.<\/p>\n
THE DEMONSTRATIVE ADJECTIVES USED AS DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS<\/p>\n
So far, so good. The demonstrative adjectives “hic”, “ille”, and
\n“iste” modify nouns and point them out. Essentially this is their
\nnature. They are demonstrative adjectives. But they have a very
\ncommon extended use. They are frequently used as “demonstrative
\npronouns”. Because these words can be used either as adjectives or
\nas pronouns, we often call them just “demonstratives”. We’ll say
\n“hic” is a demonstrative, instead of calling it a demonstrative
\nadjective or pronoun. So what does this mean — demonstrative
\npronoun? The demonstrative part of it you understand: it means
\nsomething which points out or gives emphasis. But what is a
\npronoun? Without getting overly ambitious about setting down an
\neternally unassailable definition, let’s just say for now that a
\npronoun is a word which takes the place of another word in a
\nsentence. Here are some examples of pronouns in English:<\/p>\n
“It just missed her”.
\n “She has a most interesting way of speaking”.
\n “Does he have it”?<\/p>\n
As you can see, the underlined words are referring you to something
\nor someone which has already been mentioned sometime before, so to
\nrecall them we only have to use a sign marker or abbreviation. The
\nword or idea which the pronoun is replacing is called the
\n“antecedent” (an te CEE dent). In additional to replacing their
\nantecedents, pronouns also tell you a little something about the
\nnature of the antecedent. For example, in the first sentence, you
\ncan tell that the antecedent of “it” is singular and inanimate; the
\nantecedent of “her” is singular and feminine and animate. This is
\nan important rule to remember about pronouns: “Pronouns get their
\nnumber and gender from their antecedents”.<\/p>\n
Let’s look at the English third person pronouns. We divide
\nthe third person pronoun into two groups — those which refer to
\nanimate objects (mainly humans) and those which refer to inanimate
\nobjects. Our third person pronoun observes the distinction
\nbetween the genders masculine and feminine of animate things in the
\nsingular; in the plural, however, they make no distinctions among
\ngender or animate and inanimate.<\/p>\n
Singular<\/p>\n
Masculine Feminine Neuter<\/p>\n
Nom. he she it
\n Pos. his her its
\n Obj. him her it<\/p>\n
Plural<\/p>\n
Nom. they
\n Pos. their
\n Obj. them<\/p>\n
Latin pronouns are much more observant of the gender of their
\nantecedents — as they would likely be, because of the importance
\nof grammatical gender in Latin. Consequently by looking at the
\nforms of the demonstrative pronouns “hic”, “ille”, or “iste”, you
\ncan tell much more about their antecedents. This makes
\nconstructions in Latin much more flexible. Look at this sentence.
\n“Non poteram haec videre”. How would you translate the “haec?”
\nYou can tell that it is neuter, accusative plural from its form and
\nfrom the way it’s being used in the sentence. (It’s the direct
\nobject of the verb “videre”.) So its antecedent is neuter in
\ngender, and plural. So what’s our plural, accusative third person
\npronoun? It’s “them”. So this sentence would be translated “I was
\nnot able to see them”. In English, you see, this sentence could
\nmean that I am looking at men, women, or rocks, since the pronoun
\nonly tells us that the antecedent is plural. But Latin also tells
\nus the gender of the antecedent, so it can be much more specific.
\nNow let’s look at a pronoun with a little more context.<\/p>\n
“Civitas est magna, sed non possum hanc videre”. (The city is
\n large, but I can’t see it.)<\/p>\n
Remember that a pronoun gets its number and gender from its
\nantecedent, but it gets its case from the way it’s being used
\ngrammatically in the sentence. The antecedent of “hanc” is
\n“civitas”; they are both singular and feminine. But “hanc” is
\naccusative because of the way it’s being used: it’s the direct
\nobject of the verb “videre”. We would translate this into English:
\n“The city is large, but I don’t see it”. Notice that even though
\nthe pronoun in Latin is feminine in gender — “hanc” — we don’t
\ntranslate it “her”, because we use “she”, “her”, and “her” only for
\nthings which are biologically female. Unlike Latin, our nouns
\ndon’t have grammatical gender. Now try this: “Est bona femina, et
\nhanc amamus”. (She is a good woman, and we love her.) This time,
\nsince the antecedent is biologically feminine, we would translate
\n“hanc” with our feminine pronoun: “She is a kind woman and we love
\nher”. You’ll have to take a little care when you translate the
\npronouns into English: you’ll use our pronouns “he” and “she”, and
\nso on, only when the antecedent of the Latin pronouns are
\nbiologically masculine or feminine. Otherwise you’ll use our
\nneuter “it”, “its”, “it”, and “them”.<\/p>\n
One final thing to remember about the demonstratives “hic”,
\n“ille”, and “iste”. They all three show much more emphasis than
\ndoes our simple “he, she, it”, but we have no way to translate that
\nextra bit over into English. Latin has a weaker third person
\ndemonstrative which is equivalent to our “he, she, it” — you’ll
\nlearn it later — but for now you’ll be translating “hic”, “ille”,
\nand “iste”, as if they were equivalent to “he, she, it”. It’s just
\nsomething we can’t get over into English very easily. Try a few
\nshort exercises. Translate into Latin.<\/p>\n
1. Your (sing.) books are good, and we love them [use a form of
\n “hic”.]<\/p>\n
____________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
2. Your (sing.) book is good, and we love it [use “ille”.]<\/p>\n
____________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
3. The danger is great, and I fear [“timeo”] it [use “iste”.]<\/p>\n
____________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
4. The dangers are great, and I fear them [use “iste”.]<\/p>\n
____________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
5. She is your [pl.] daughter, and we are giving her [use “hic”]
\n the money.<\/p>\n
____________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
6. They are your [pl.] daughters, and we are giving them [use
\n “ille”] the money.<\/p>\n
____________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
VOCABULARY PUZZLES<\/p>\n
locus, -i (m) Something a little unusual happens to “locus”
\n in the plural. In the singular, “locus” means
\n either a physical place or a place in a book
\n (a passage in literature). As “loci, -orum
\n (m)” it means only passages in literature. To
\n say “places” as in physical places (regions),
\n Latin use a neuter derivative from “locus”:
\n “loca, -orum (n)”. So “locus” actually has
\n two different forms in the plural, each with
\n different meanings: “loci” means “passages”;
\n “loca” means “regions”.<\/p>\n
enim Like “igitur”, “enim” is postpositive.<\/p>\n
in + acc.\/abl. Like “sub” + accusative or ablative, “in” will
\n take its noun either in the accusative or the
\n ablative case. When it takes the accusative
\n in means motion into; with the ablative it
\n shows only position, with no motion into
\n involved. You can keep these two straight by
\n translating “in” + accusative always as
\n “into”. Say “in” for “in” + ablative.<\/p>\n
nunc It’s the temporal “now”, not the logical
\n “now”. “Nunc” would be a translation for “Now
\n it’s raining”, not for “Now it’s time to end
\n this chapter”.<\/p>\n
12\/31\/92<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 10<\/p>\n
“Fourth Conjugation and -io Verbs of the Third:
\n Present and Future Indicative, Present Imperative
\n and Active Infinitive”<\/p>\n
REVIEW OF VERBS<\/p>\n
Despite its epic-sized title, you’ll find that there is really
\nnot so much to learn in this chapter after all. You already know
\nthe present and future tenses of the first three conjugations,
\nand you know how to form their imperatives and infinitive. Let’s
\nhave a look at what you know so far about these verbs.<\/p>\n
1. The Present Tense<\/p>\n
To form the present tense of verbs of all conjugations, you
\n simply take the stem of the verb (which includes its stem
\n vowel) and add the personal endings.<\/p>\n
2. The Future Tense<\/p>\n
To form the future tense of all conjugations, you take the
\n stem of the verb, then you add on a tense sign for the
\n future, and then you add the personal endings. For first
\n and second conjugation verbs, the tense sign of the future
\n is “-be-“; for the third conjugation, the tense sign is
\n “-a-\/-e-“.<\/p>\n
3. The Imperative Mood<\/p>\n
To form the imperative mood in the singular, you use just
\n the stem (without any additional ending); for the plural you
\n add the ending “-te” to the stem. (The exceptions to this
\n rule are the third conjugation verbs “duc” and three others
\n you haven’t seen yet which lose their stem vowel short “-e”
\n in the singular. Their plural imperatives, however,
\n resurrect the stem vowel and are entirely regular:
\n “ducite”.)<\/p>\n
4. The Infinitive<\/p>\n
The infinitive is just the stem plus the ending “-re” for
\n all conjugations.<\/p>\n
I. First Conjugation: amo, -are<\/p>\n
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERATIVE INFINITIVE<\/p>\n
1 _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
2 _____________ _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
3 _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
_____________<\/p>\n
1 _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
2 _____________ _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
3 _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
II. Second Conjugation: moneo, -ere<\/p>\n
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERATIVE INFINITIVE<\/p>\n
1 _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
2 _____________ _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
3 _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
_____________<\/p>\n
1 _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
2 _____________ _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
3 _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
III. Third Conjugation: mitto, -ere<\/p>\n
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERATIVE INFINITIVE<\/p>\n
1 _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
2 _____________ _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
3 _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
_____________<\/p>\n
1 _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
2 _____________ _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
3 _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
FOURTH CONJUGATION: PRESENT, FUTURE, IMPERATIVE, AND INFINITIVE<\/p>\n
This is going to be easy. Look at the entry for the Latin verb
\n“to hear”: “audio, -ire”. Take a close look. What’s the stem
\nvowel, and what, therefore, is the stem of the verb? Remember,
\nyou discover the stem of a verb by dropping the “-re” infinitive
\nending. What’s left is the stem (including the stem vowel). So
\nthe stem of the verb “to hear” is “audi-“. And it’s to this stem
\nthat you add the various tense signs, personal endings, and so on
\nto conjugate the verb. Four conjugation verbs are verbs whose
\nstem ends in a long “-i-“. So how are you going to form the
\npresent tense of this verb? The formula of the present tense —
\nas you know already — is: stem plus personal endings. (There is
\nno intervening tense sign for the present tense). In other
\nwords, fourth conjugation verbs are verbs having an “-i-” for its
\nstem vowel, and it follows precisely the same rules as the other
\nconjugations for forming the present tense, with the one
\nexception that in the third person plural, an extra “-u-” is
\ninserted between the stem vowel “-i-” and the “-nt” personal
\nending. How about the future tense? The fourth conjugation uses
\nthe same tense sign as the third conjugation for the future
\ntense, inserting the letters “-a\/e-” between the stem and the
\npersonal endings. Because the “-i-” is long it “survives” the
\naddition of endings. How about the present imperative? It’s just
\nlike the other conjugations: the stem alone in the singular, and
\nthe stem plus “-te” for the plural. And finally the present
\ninfinitive? The stem plus “-re”.<\/p>\n
So you can see that the principal difference between the
\nfourth conjugation and the others you’ve seen so far is the
\nquality of the stem vowel. Conjugate the fourth conjugation verb
\n“to come”.<\/p>\n
IV. Fourth Conjugation venio, -ire:<\/p>\n
PRESENT FUTURE IMPERATIVE INFINITIVE<\/p>\n
1 _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
2 _____________ _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
3 _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
___________<\/p>\n
1 _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
2 _____________ _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
3 _____________ _____________<\/p>\n
THIRD CONJUGATION i-STEM: PRESENT, FUTURE, IMPERATIVE AND
\nINFINITIVE<\/p>\n
The third conjugation contains a subset of verbs, called
\n“i-stems”, that seem to imitate the fourth conjugation. The
\nthird conjugation, as you know, contains verbs whose stem vowel
\nis short “-e-“. The short “-e-” is almost entirely hidden in the
\nconjugation of the verbs because it changes to a short “-i-” or
\nshort “-u-” before the personal endings in the present tense.
\nStill it follows all the same rules as the other verbs when
\nderiving its different forms. Both the i-stem and non i-stem
\nthird conjugation verbs have the stem vowel short “-e-” — that’s
\nwhy they’re both third conjugation verbs. But the “i-stem” third
\nconjugation verbs insert an extra “-i-” in some places in their
\nconjugation. These places are really quite easy to remember, if
\nyou know fourth conjugation verbs: a third conjugation “i-stem”
\nverb inserts an extra “i” everywhere a fourth conjugation verb
\nhas an “-i-“. In fact, you might want to think of a third
\nconjugation “i-stem” verb as a failed fourth conjugation verb —
\nas a verb which “wants” to be fourth. Here’s the dictionary
\nentry form many 3rd conjugation i-stem verbs. Notice the extra
\n“-i-” in the first entry, and the short “-e-” of the infinitive
\nin the second:<\/p>\n
capio, -ere
\n rapio, -ere
\n cupio, -ere
\n facio, -ere
\n fugio, -ere<\/p>\n
Let’s have a closer look at all this. Write out the present
\ntense of the following verbs. Remember, a third i-stem verb has
\nan extra “-i-” every where there’s an “-i-” in the fourth
\nconjugation.<\/p>\n
THIRD (non i-stem) FOURTH THIRD i-STEM<\/p>\n
mitto, -ere venio, -ire capio, -ere<\/p>\n
1st _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
1st _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
As you can see, the fourth and third i-stem verbs look identical.
\nBut there is a difference. Go back and put in the long marks
\nover the stem vowel long “-i-” of “venio”. The “-i-” is long in
\nthe second person singular and plural, and in the first person
\nplural. Now compare the forms of “venio” with those of “capio”
\n— you can see the differences. The “-i-” of a fourth
\nconjugation verb is long by nature and “wants” to stay long
\nwherever it can. The stem vowel of a third conjugation verb is
\nshort “-e-” which turns into short “-i-” or “-u-“. But it will
\nnever become long “-i-” regardless of what ending is added to it.
\nNow, the difference between a short and long vowel may seem
\nrather subtle to us, but look again. In Latin pronunciation, the
\naccent of a word falls on to the second to the last syllable if
\nthe vowel in the syllable is long. If it is short, then the
\naccent goes back to the third to the last syllable. So, what’s
\nthe difference in the way these forms would have been pronounced?<\/p>\n
capmus is pronounced CAH peh muhs
\n audimus is pronounced owh DEE muhs
\nSimilarly
\n captis is pronounced CAH peh tis
\n auditis is pronounced owh DEE tis<\/p>\n
So the difference for a Roman between these verbs in some the
\nforms would have been quite striking.<\/p>\n
What about the future tense of the third conjugation i-stem
\nverbs? They look just like the fourth conjugation verbs: stem(i)
\n+ “a\/e” + personal endings.<\/p>\n
THIRD (non i-stem) FOURTH THIRD i-STEM<\/p>\n
mitto, -ere venio, -ire capio, -ere<\/p>\n
1st _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
1st _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
2nd _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
3rd _______________ _______________ _______________<\/p>\n
Now let’s consider the imperative mood. In this case, there
\nis no difference at all between the third i-stem verbs and the
\nthird non i-stems. And why should there be? They both have the
\nsame stem vowel: short “-e-“.<\/p>\n
THIRD (non i-stem) FOURTH THIRD i-STEM<\/p>\n
mitto, -ere venio, -ire capio, -ere<\/p>\n
SINGULAR __________ __________ __________<\/p>\n
PLURAL __________ __________ __________<\/p>\n
VOCABULARY PUZZLES<\/p>\n
You must be more alert now when you’re looking in the dictionary
\nfor a form. The third i-stem verbs and fourth conjugation verbs
\nlook the same in the first person singular. You mustn’t decide
\n— even unconsciously — which conjugation a verb is before
\nyou’ve checked with the second entry. The second entry, as you
\nknow, tells you the stem vowel — and the stem vowel tells you
\nthe conjugation. Pay attention.<\/p>\n
-ficio, -cipio The short “-a-” of the verbs “facio” and
\n “capio” change (or “grade”) to short “-i-” in
\n compound forms of the verb — i.e., when a
\n prefix is attached. It will save you a lot
\n of time if you learn to recognize the root
\n “facio” in the verbs “perficio”, “conficio”,
\n “interficio”, etc. instead of having to treat
\n every derived form as an entirely new
\n vocabulary item.<\/p>\n
01\/05\/93<\/p>\n
CHAPTER 11<\/p>\n
“Personal Pronouns Ego and Tu; Pronouns Is
\n and Idem”<\/p>\n
THE ENGLISH PERSONAL PRONOUNS<\/p>\n
You know what a pronoun is. It’s a word which takes the place of
\na noun in a sentence. The word it’s replacing is called the
\nantecedent. So we can ask, “What is the antecedent of this
\npronoun”, whenever we see a pronoun in a sentence. That is, we
\nare asking, “To what noun is this pronoun pointing?” Read the
\nfollowing paragraph and pick out the pronouns; ask yourself what
\nthe antecedent is for each pronoun.<\/p>\n
“George asked Larry to go pick up the apple. He wanted
\n an apple so he told him to get it. But Larry couldn’t
\n find it, so he couldn’t give it to him. Larry told
\n him, ‘If I had found it, I would have given it to you,
\n but I couldn’t find it.’ He turned to Sue sitting
\n nearby and said to her, ‘He’s a failure. Can you find
\n it for me?’ Sue said she didn’t know where it was
\n either. ‘I guess you’re just out of luck”, she told
\n him”.<\/p>\n
Alright, that’s enough of that. You see how useful these
\npronouns are. If it weren’t for pronouns, you’d have to repeat
\nevery noun and every name each time you wanted to refer to them,
\nno matter how obvious the reference was. If you don’t believe
\nme, try reading the paragraph again substituting the antecedent
\nfor each of the pronouns. Pronouns are useful, and in this
\nparagraph you saw all kinds of pronouns in all kinds of shapes
\nand varieties, referring to different antecedents and performing
\ndifferent grammatical task in their sentences. This variety in
\nform is not merely random. The differences among “he, she, it”,
\namong “his, her, its”, and “him, her, it” are critical; they tell
\nyou (1) what the likely antecedent is, and (2) how the pronoun is
\nbeing used in the sentence of which it’s a part.<\/p>\n
If the speaker is referring to him\/herself, or to a group of
\npeople of which he\/she considers himself to be a part, in a
\nsentence, he\/she uses the first person pronoun. In English, the
\nfirst person pronoun has three forms to indicate different cases
\n(grammatical function).<\/p>\n
Case Singular Plural<\/p>\n
Nominative I we
\n Possessive my our
\n Objective me us<\/p>\n
If the speaker is referring to the person or people to whom
\nhe\/she is directly talking, he\/she uses the second person
\npronoun. (Notice that the cases are not so clearly visible in
\nthe morphology of this pronoun; notice also that English makes no
\ndistinction between second person pronoun in the singular and
\nplural.)<\/p>\n
Case Singular Plural<\/p>\n
Nominative you you
\n Possessive your your
\n Objective you you<\/p>\n
Now take a close look at these pronouns. What don’t they tell
\nyou about their antecedents? You can see the difference in
\nnumber in the first person pronoun, but you can’t in the second.
\nWhat else don’t you know about the antecedents? Do you know
\ntheir genders? Do you know simply by looking at the form of,
\nsay, “me” whether the person referred to is male, female, or
\nneuter? No. In English (as well as in Latin), the first and
\nsecond pronouns make no distinction in the forms among the
\npossible genders of their antecedents. Think about this for a
\nmoment. Why should the languages have evolved this way? Why is
\nit not important for a speaker to be able to indicate differences
\nin gender in he first and second persons? Try to figure it out.
\nWell, let’s take a step backwards for a moment: what is the first
\nperson? It’s the speaker or speakers of the sentence, right?
\nAnd what is the second person? It’s the person or people whom
\nthe speaker(s) is (are) directly addressing. So should it be
\nnecessary for someone who’s speaking to indicate his or her own
\ngender to the listener(s)? Look, I surely know what gender I am,
\nso there’s no reason to indicate in the grammar of my sentence
\nwhat gender I am. Furthermore, the psychology of language is
\nsuch that there is an assumed (or real) audience to whom I am
\ndirecting my thoughts. There is always an implied second person
\nin everything written. So, if I’m standing directly in front of
\nyou, talking to you, you should have no doubt about my gender,
\nbecause you can see me. Therefore it would be superfluous for me
\nto add special gender markings to my first person pronouns to
\ntell you what gender I am. That is plainly visible. For this
\nreason, then, the first person pronouns make no distinctions
\namong the genders of their antecedents.<\/p>\n
Can you guess now why the second person makes no
\ndistinctions among the genders, either? Right, because if I (the
\nfirst person) am directly addressing you (the second person),
\nthen I should be able to tell your gender too. You know my
\ngender, and I know your gender, because we’re standing in front
\nof each other. As the first person in our conversation, I don’t
\nneed to remind you, my audience, of your own gender, do I?<\/p>\n
Now let’s look at the first and second pronouns in Latin.
\nThey’ll make distinctions in number. And, to be useful in Latin,
\nthey’ll have to decline through all the cases just like Latin
\nnouns. Here they are:<\/p>\n
1st Person 2nd Person<\/p>\n
N\/V. ego tu
\n [Gen. mei tui]
\n Dat. mihi tibi
\n Acc. me te
\n Abl. me te<\/p>\n
N\/V. nos vos
\n [Gen. nostrum\/nostri vestrum\/vestri]
\n Dat. nobis vobis
\n Acc. nos vos
\n Abl. nobis vobis<\/p>\n
Look at the following examples. You’ll see how useful these
\npronouns are.<\/p>\n
1. Mittam ad vos filium meum. (I will send my son to you.)
\n 2. Ego scribo has litteras. (I write this letter.)
\n 3. Ego vos video, atque vos me videtis. (I see you, and
\n you see me.)
\n 4. Cum vobis in terram illam veniam. (I will come into
\n that land with you.)
\n 5. Cum te in terram illam veniam. (I will come into that
\n land with you.)<\/p>\n
THE “WEAK” DEMONSTRATIVE ADJECTIVE IS, EA, ID<\/p>\n
So what about the third person pronouns? Here there’s a problem,
\none which plagued, and continues to plague, the Romance languages
\nderived from Latin. First off, the third person pronoun is going
\nto have to tell you more about their antecedents than the first
\nand second person pronouns did. If I (the first person) am
\ntalking to you (the second person) directly, I certainly know
\nwhat gender you are. But if I am talking to you about something
\nelse (which is the third person) or if I am talking to you about
\nseveral things, it would be nice if I could refer the gender of
\nthese topics of conversations. Look at the following passage.<\/p>\n
“I’ve got to tell you a story. Yesterday I saw Betty and
\n Steve. He asked her for an apple. She told him that she
\n didn’t have any. When he asked her again, she told him to
\n go buy his own apples”.<\/p>\n
Let’s look at this little narrative more closely. The first
\n“He” — how do you know that it’s referring to Steve and not to
\nBetty. That’s easy; it’s because “he” is masculine and not
\nfeminine. If the antecedent had been Betty, then you would have
\nhad “She” in place of “He”. Another thing “He” tells you about
\nthe antecedent is that the antecedent is singular. If the
\nantecedent had been plural, then “He” would have been “They”.
\nRight? One last thing. Look at the antecedent for “He”. What
\ncase is it in? It’s in the objective (or accusative) case
\nbecause it’s the direct object of the verb “saw”. Now look at
\nthe pronoun “He”. What case is it in? It’s in the nominative
\ncase. Why? Because in its sentence it’s the subject of the verb
\n“asked”. Now look at the pronoun “his” in the last line. What
\ncase is it in? This time the pronoun is in the possessive (or
\ngenitive) case, again because the grammar of the sentence it’s in
\nrequires it to be in the genitive case. Even though all the
\npronouns are pointing to the same antecedent, they are all in
\ndifferent cases in their own sentences. Here is a rule you must
\nremember:<\/p>\n
“A pronoun gets its number and gender from its
\n antecedent, but it gets its case from the way it’s
\n being used grammatically in its own sentence”.<\/p>\n
Remember that; you’ll need it very soon. Now let’s get on
\nwith the Latin third person pronoun. Here’s what the Latin third
\nperson pronoun must do: it must be able to show the number and
\ngender of its antecedent, and it must be able to inflect through
\nthe entire case system.<\/p>\n
Let’s look once more at the English third person pronoun, so
\nthat you can see how unbelievably flaccid and corrupted it is in
\ncomparison to the majestic power of the Latin 3rd person pronoun.<\/p>\n
Singular<\/p>\n
Masculine Feminine Neuter<\/p>\n
Nom. he she it
\n Gen. his her its
\n Acc. him her it<\/p>\n
Plural<\/p>\n
Masculine-Feminine-Neuter<\/p>\n
Nom. they
\n Gen. their
\n Acc. them<\/p>\n
As you can see the English third person pronoun is so feeble it’s
\nhardly worth learning. In the singular, some of the case forms
\nare identical, and in the plural it makes no distinction among
\nthe genders: “They” can refer to a group of men, women, or rocks.
\nSo it’s not very useful.<\/p>\n
But look at the Latin third person pronoun. The third
\nperson pronoun starts its life as a weak demonstrative adjective.
\nIt means something like “the” and it agrees with the noun to
\nwhich it’s attached: “the book”. Then, like the other
\ndemonstratives you’ve seen — “ille”, “hic”, and “iste” — it can
\nbe used independently as a pronoun. Let’s see how it works.<\/p>\n
First the morphology. The stem is “e-” and basically it’s
\ndeclined just like the other demonstratives you’ve seen before.
\nYou remember the heteroclite declension which has the irregular
\n“-ius”, and “-i” for the genitive and dative singulars? The
\nnominative singular of the third person demonstrative is a little
\nodd, and the genitive and dative singular use these alternative
\nendings Try to fill in the declension. Don’t forget, now, the
\nstem of the demonstrative is “e-” to which the case endings are
\ngoing to be added. Except for the genitive and dative singular,
\nit will use the standard first and second declension endings
\nwhich all standard adjectives use.<\/p>\n
MASCULINE FEMININE NEUTER<\/p>\n
N\/V. is ea id<\/p>\n
Gen. _____________ _____________
\n_____________<\/p>\n
Dat. _____________ _____________
\n_____________<\/p>\n
Acc. _____________ _____________
\n_____________<\/p>\n
Abl. _____________ _____________
\n_____________<\/p>\n
N\/V. ii, or ei _____________
\n_____________<\/p>\n
Gen. _____________ _____________
\n_____________<\/p>\n
Dat. _____________ _____________
\n_____________<\/p>\n
Acc. _____________ _____________
\n_____________<\/p>\n
Abl. _____________ _____________
\n_____________<\/p>\n
First let’s see how the weak demonstrative “is, ea, id”
\nworks as an adjective. Don’t forget that as with the
\ndemonstratives “ille”, “hic”, and “iste”, “is” can be used both
\nas an adjective and as a pronoun. When used as a demonstrative
\nadjective, “is” has about the same force as our article “the”,
\nalthough as you’ll see Latin doesn’t use “is, ea, id” in some
\nplaces where we would use our “the”. Briefly, we may say this:
\nLatin uses “is, ea, id” as a demonstrative adjective to give a
\nlittle emphasis to something which has already been talked about.
\nLike this:<\/p>\n
“I have a book”.
\n “Well, then, give me the book”.
\n “The book is on the table”.
\n “Okay, thanks. I’ll get the book myself”.<\/p>\n
The underscored “the’s” are candidates for the Latin “is, ea,
\nid”, because the book the two are talking about has already been
\nidentified, and the speakers are calling just a little attention
\nto it. Can you see also how “is, ea, id” differs from the strong
\ndemonstrative adjectives “ille” and “hic?” Can you feel the
\ndifference between saying “Give me the book” and “Give me that
\nbook” or “Give me this book?” In English we have a weak “this”
\nthat corresponds nicely to the Latin “is, ea, id” used as an
\nadjective. We can say for example “I like this book”, without
\nplacing much emphasis on the “this”. That is, we’re not saying
\n“I like this book [and not that one over there]”.<\/p>\n
Here are some examples of “is, ea, id” used as weak
\ndemonstrative adjectives. Of course, without a context it may be
\na little difficult to see precisely the shades of feeling, but at
\nleast you can see the grammar involved.<\/p>\n
1. Eos libros vobis dabimus. (We will give the [or these]
\n books to you.)
\n 2. Eas litteras ad me mittet. (He will send the [or this]
\n letter to me.)
\n 3. Ei libri sunt boni. (The [or these] books are good.)
\n 4. Animi earum feminarum valent. (The courage of the [or
\n of these] women is strong.)
\n 5. Nulla civitas ea bella tolerare poterat. (No city was
\n able to endure the [or these] wars.)<\/p>\n
Now translate these into Latin, using “is, ea id” for “the”.<\/p>\n
1. They will send you the [this] money.<\/p>\n
_________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
2. I will give you the money of the [these] men.<\/p>\n
_________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
3. The [these] boys are not thinking.<\/p>\n
_________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
4. I will come with the [this] tyrant.<\/p>\n
_________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
5. That man will discover the [this] plot.<\/p>\n
_________________________________________________________________<\/p>\n
IS, EA, ID AS PRONOUN<\/p>\n
Now, how does a mild-mannered weak demonstrative adjective become
\nthe redoubtable third person pronoun, the glory of the Latin
\nlanguage? Let’s think back. Remember the demonstrative
\nadjectives “ille”, “hic”, and “iste?” You remember that they can
\nbe used as adjectives, to add emphasis to the noun they’re
\nmodifying.<\/p>\n
“Ille liber est bonus.” (That book is good.)
\n“Hic vir est malus.” (This man is evil.)
\n“Cicero videt istas insidias.”
\n (Cicero see this plot.)
\n“Possum superare vitia illa.” (I can overcome those faults.)
\n“Habeo pecuniam illarum feminarum.” (I have the money of those
\nwomen.)<\/p>\n
That’s all fine and good. But you also remember that the
\ndemonstrative adjective can be used, just like all other
\nadjectives, without a noun explicitly stated, but only implied.
\nIn order to supply the correct noun, you must do two things: (1)
\nyou must examine the form of the demonstrative, and (2) you must
\nexamine the context. Watch:<\/p>\n
“Illae feminae sunt ibi, sed illas videre non possum”.<\/p>\n
How do you translate the “illas?” Well, “illas” is feminine,
\naccusative plural, right? It’s in the accusative because it’s
\nthe direct object of the verb “videre”. But why is it feminine
\nand plural? Because the noun which has been left out — that is,
\nthe things to which “illas” is referring — is feminine and
\nplural. And what is that? Look at the context. “Feminae” is
\nfeminine and plural.<\/p>\n
“Those women are there, but I can’t see those women” (or,
\n more idiomatically in English, “but I can’t see them”).<\/p>\n
When the demonstratives are used without a noun, they are taking
\nthe place of a noun. And words which take the place of a noun
\nare called pronouns. Hence the metamorphosis from demonstrative
\nadjective to demonstrative pronoun is complete.<\/p>\n
Now let’s take a look at the weak demonstrative adjective
\n“is, ea, id”. It will undergo the same process from adjective to
\npronoun. Because there is only a weak demonstrative force
\nattached to “is, ea, id”, we can translate it into English simply
\nas our third person pronoun: “he”, “she”, “it”, etc.<\/p>\n
“Videstisne meos amicos?”
\n “Video eos”.<\/p>\n
“Do you see my friends?”
\n “I see them”.<\/p>\n
All you have to do when you see the weak demonstrative adjective
\nin a sentence without a noun is to treat it just like third
\nperson pronoun: check the antecedent and find the appropriate
\nEnglish equivalent. Read these sentences (go very, very slowly
\nand be reasonable):<\/p>\n
“Cicero amat Romam, et in ea beatam vitam agit. Atque ego
\n civitatem eius amo. Toti amici eius sunt Romani. Vitae
\n eorum sunt beatae. Et eas magna cum sapientia agunt. Ei
\n igitur sunt beati. Cicero eos amat, et ei eum amant. Olim
\n civitas eorum in periculis magnis erat, sed ea superare
\n poterat, quoniam viros multos bonorum morum invenire
\n poterat”.<\/p>\n
(Cicero loves Rome, and he is leading a happy life in it. I
\n also love his city. All his friends are Romans. Their
\n lives are happy, and they are leading them [they are leading
\n their lives] with great wisdom. They are therefore happy.
\n Cicero loves them, and they love him. Formerly their city
\n was in great danger, but it was able to overcome them [the
\n dangers], since it was able to find many men of good
\n character.)<\/p>\n
THE DEMONSTRATIVE idem, eadem, idem<\/p>\n
This is simple. Latin adds an undeclinable suffix to the end of
\nthe inflected forms of the demonstrative “is, ea, id” and comes
\nout with “the same”. Like the demonstrative “is, ea, id”, the
\nresulting form can be used either an adjective — “eadem femina”
\n(the same woman), or as a full-blown pronoun — “video easdem” (I
\nsee the same (feminine) things). Remember, the syntactically
\nimportant information comes before the “dem” suffix: “eisdem”,
\n“eaedem”, etc.<\/p>\n
The addition of the suffix cause some distortion of the
\nspelling of “is, ea, id”. First, in the nominative singular
\nmasculine, the “s” of “is” collides with the “d” of “-dem” and
\ndisappears, but the “i” of “is” becomes long as a result. In the
\nnominative singular neuter instead of “iddem” we get “idem”. No
\nbig surprise here. Finally, and this isn’t much of a surprise
\neither, wherever the case ending of “is, ea, id” ends in an “m”,
\nthe addition of “dem” changes the “m” to an “n”. Decline “idem,
\neadem,<\/p>\n
