Participles

[elduce]

Since a participle is a verbal-adjective, does this mean it can not be the subject? If I wanted to say "They are about to praise him", is this right:

Eum laudaturi.

If this is right, then how do I know whether it's first, second, or third person? If I wanted to say "I am going to praise him" would this be correct: Ego eum laudaturus; with the 'ego' necessary to establish person.

Thanks

[Turpissimus]

Since a participle is a verbal-adjective, does this mean it can not be the subject? If I wanted to say "They are about to praise him", is this right:

Eum laudaturi.

If this is right, then how do I know whether it's first, second, or third person? If I wanted to say "I am going to praise him" would this be correct: Ego eum laudaturus; with the 'ego' necessary to establish person.

Thanks

If you want to say they are going to praise him, you need to use the future tense. Eum laudabunt. You can't use the participles like this - they're verbal adjectives, not verbs. The future participle would be used for sentences like When/although they were about to praise him, they killed his mother: Eum laudaturi matrem occiderunt.

[benissimus]

Participles certainly can be the subjects of a sentence/clause, but (usually) there will be a finite verb as well. eum laudaturus is not wrong, but it is a fragment - you have said "about to praise him". laudaturus eum venio would be a more complete thought: "I come to praise him" (about to praise him, I come). You also do not need a pronoun like ego to establish the person, since you should have a finite verb in there somewhere (in this case venio). As another example of a participle subject, (consules) pecunia carentes putabant plebem se debere = "(consuls) needing money used to think the plebs owed them".

Remember that participles are really more like adjectives than verbs. This applies both to the above points and to word order. Participles do not need to follow their direct objects as verbs usually do, though they certainly may. Even though participles are part verb, if the subject is a participle it will still go where the subject would... generally at the beginning of the sentence.

[elduce]

Thanks Turpissimus and Benissimus. That helps a lot. I've been reading over chapters 23-25 for a while now. It's like hitting a wall after all going so smoothly.

[Turpissimus]

Not wanting to add to your troubles but in one of my textbooks (Latin Sentence and Idiom, R Colebourn) I found a situation where it is permitted to use future participles as the predicate of a sentence. It appears that, used in that fashion, they mean likely to or intending to:

Hostes bellum illaturi erant
The enemy were likely to wage war

Facite quod vobis libet; daturus non sum amplius
Do what you want, I do not intend to give any more.

Interesting, yes? Of course none of this means that you can say sum necans to mean "I am killing" (which is neco).

That helps a lot. I've been reading over chapters 23-25 for a while now. It's like hitting a wall after all going so smoothly.

You'll get it eventually. If you look back at the earlier chapters you'll see that the stuff that seemed so hard then is child's play now. Eventually, you'll look upon Wheellock as a "elementary" work, and you'll be able to pontificate to newcomers on this website on all points of Latin grammar without needing to look anything up.

Have you considered taking a break and reading something (Ovid or Martial are good)? Or are you doing this for schoolwork?

[elduce]

This is a hobby and I'm not sure how far I will take it. As for reading, I picked up "The Epistles of Horace" from the library. It's difficult because the translator translated Horace in an extremely casual manner, very much like a contemporary would write. When I read a sentence often there is nothing in the translation that points to said sentence. I've looked for a beginner's Latin reader but to no avail.

[Turpissimus]

I've looked for a beginner's Latin reader but to no avail.

Try this one:Selections from Five Roman Authors

The different Roman authors vary in difficulty of course. I'd say they rank like this:

Easy: Caesar, Ovid, Pliny, Martial
Harder: Virgil, Catullus
Sod-off: Tacitus

Those are the ones I've had a look at so far. Horace may be one of the more difficult ones.

[elduce]

I shall take a look. Thanks again.

[benissimus]

The different Roman authors vary in difficulty of course. I'd say they rank like this:

Easy: Caesar, Ovid, Pliny, Martial
Harder: Virgil, Catullus
Sod-off: Tacitus

Those are the ones I've had a look at so far. Horace may be one of the more difficult ones.

O Turpissime, I have certainly come to respect your Latinity, but Catullus is no competition for Vergil! I don't know much about Horace either, but he seems to be near Vergil's difficulty. I would include Cicero as one of the hardest - if you run into any of his poetry, drop the book or turn off your computer and run for your life.

[elduce]

O Romani sordidissimi! Cur non linquam Anglem potestis dicere? Dehinc intellegere poteram! Linqua romana et angla non miscendi sunt. Valete!

[aot]

thank god someone else is having problems with participles too. I just hit chapter 22 and I am so confused. Can anyone recomend one of the online texts here for more practice and maybe a better explanation, most of the "review" exercises seemed kind of lacking in participles.

[elduce]

When I finally understood participles to be adjectives, then I relaxed. Wheelock could have given more attention to the subject than he did. Even now I am on ch26 and I still review participles, periphrastics, dative of agent and on and on...Ch26 is a nice break after the grammatical storm.