Textkit Logo

Participles

Are you learning Latin with Wheelock's Latin 6th Edition? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback.

Participles

Postby elduce » Tue Feb 01, 2005 3:46 pm

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
ego amo megaforce
elduce
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 1:55 am
Location: Connecticut, USA

Postby Turpissimus » Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:46 pm

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.
phpbb
User avatar
Turpissimus
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: Romford

Postby benissimus » Thu Feb 03, 2005 4:00 am

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.
Last edited by benissimus on Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Postby elduce » Fri Feb 04, 2005 4:00 pm

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.
ego amo megaforce
elduce
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 1:55 am
Location: Connecticut, USA

Postby Turpissimus » Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:05 am

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?
phpbb
User avatar
Turpissimus
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: Romford

Turpissimus

Postby elduce » Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:53 pm

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.
ego amo megaforce
elduce
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 1:55 am
Location: Connecticut, USA

Postby Turpissimus » Sun Feb 06, 2005 8:49 pm

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.
phpbb
User avatar
Turpissimus
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 12:49 pm
Location: Romford

Postby elduce » Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:04 am

I shall take a look. Thanks again.
ego amo megaforce
elduce
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 1:55 am
Location: Connecticut, USA

Postby benissimus » Tue Feb 08, 2005 7:21 am

Turpissimus wrote: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.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Postby elduce » Wed Feb 09, 2005 8:46 pm

O Romani sordidissimi! Cur non linquam Anglem potestis dicere? Dehinc intellegere poteram! Linqua romana et angla non miscendi sunt. Valete!
ego amo megaforce
elduce
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 1:55 am
Location: Connecticut, USA

Postby aot » Fri Feb 11, 2005 6:31 pm

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.
aot
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 12:15 am
Location: CA

Postby elduce » Fri Feb 11, 2005 7:42 pm

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.
ego amo megaforce
elduce
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 144
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 1:55 am
Location: Connecticut, USA


Return to Wheelock's Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests