Textkit Logo

Gerundives and participles

Here's where you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Moderator: thesaurus

Gerundives and participles

Postby 1%homeless » Thu Mar 04, 2004 3:24 am

I found this definition of the gerundive in my American Heritage Dictionary interesting: A verbal adjective in Latin that in the nominative case expresses fitness or obligation and in other cases functions as a future passive participle.

Um... so does this mean that a future passive participle in the nominative case isn’t a gerundive? :)

Oh yes, I use the imperfect stem to memorize the present active participle and future passive participle stems. Many other explanations add more unnecessary steps, like adding an ie to the present stem, etc. I’m wondering if there is any philological connection with the imperfect stem and those two participle stems.
User avatar
1%homeless
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:21 am
Location: East Hollywood

Postby klewlis » Thu Mar 04, 2004 4:57 am

stupid gerundives.

i'm working on the gerunds/gerundives chapter of wheelock right now... i hate it. :)

sorry i can't answer your question. i just wanted to share my frustration. :)
User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1575
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Postby Ulpianus » Thu Mar 04, 2004 1:57 pm

The future passive participle is the gerundive (i.e., the same form of verbal adjective is used as a future passive participle and for various other "gerundive" uses, such as expressing purpose or obligation in certain constructions.) It doesn't matter practically whether you say "The future passive ppl is also used as gerundive" or "the Gerundive and the future passive participle are the same" or "the Gerundive is also used as a future passive participle". It all comes to the same thing. The traditional form of expression has been the last.

I do not believe, technically, that there is an "imperfect stem as such. The imperfect is formed from the present stem. But if you mean "I take the imperfect as a short form from which to arrive at these participles" that is fine: the "work" you would have to do to the present stem to obtain the participles has already been done to the present stem to obtain the imperfect. So the answer, as I undestand it, to your question is that there is a philological connection: all are formed off the present stem.
Ulpianus
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby 1%homeless » Thu Mar 04, 2004 7:41 pm

stupid gerundives.


:lol: Yes, I'm in the same chapter.

has already been done to the present stem to obtain the imperfect.


But still, they are slightly different, especially the 3rd and 4th conjugation... And the participles match pefectly with the imperfect right down to vowel length when dropping the bam, bas, bat, etc. I was wondering about more about the direct connection and not really about the indirect connection (i.e. imperfect from perfect).

Using the imperfect stem: I got that idea from a book called "Latin in 24 hours". Hehehe.

The future passive participle is the gerundive (i.e., the same form of verbal adjective is used as a future passive participle and for various other "gerundive" uses, such as expressing purpose or obligation in certain constructions.)


Well... the definition was kind of awkward in it's wording. I first got the impression that since gerundive functions as a future passive participle in other cases that meant that it isn't a future passive particple in the nominative case... but oh well... lexicography...
User avatar
1%homeless
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 6:21 am
Location: East Hollywood


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], hlawson38, Majestic-12 [Bot], Qimmik and 82 guests