Textkit Logo

iri/-ur-

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

iri/-ur-

Postby Lavrentivs » Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:23 pm

What is the difference between

Scimus copias advenitas iri.

and

Scimus copias adventuras esse.

?
Lavrentivs
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: iri/-ur-

Postby adrianus » Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:17 pm

"Adventas iri" is passive but "advenio" is intransitive. However, you can use an impersonal construction, as in "copiis adventum iri" = "supplies/forces are going/about to arrive [it is about to be arrived to the supplies/forces]", with "copiis" in the dative.
Passivâ voce est "adventas iri". Advenio autem verbum intransitivum, at dicitur quidem "adventum iri" impersonaliter cum dativo casu.

amatus -a -um iri = "to be going to be loved"
amaturus -a -um esse = "to be going to love"
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: iri/-ur-

Postby adrianus » Wed Nov 09, 2011 9:43 pm

http://ephemeris.alcuinus.net/nuntius.php?id=622 wrote:Antecessor autem eius, Alan Greenspan (photographemate a laeva monstratur), qui annis 1987-2006 argentariae Fed praeerat, cum diurnariis loquendo non excludit possibilitatem alteram phasin recessionis (cuius prima scilicet phasis evenit annis 2008-09) mox adventum iri.

I found this. Am I making a mistake? Or rather, isn't this author wrong?
Hoc inveni. Errone tunc? Immò, nonnè errat auctor huius loci?
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: iri/-ur-

Postby Lavrentivs » Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:35 pm

Why dative? Should it not be accusative?
Lavrentivs
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: iri/-ur-

Postby Lavrentivs » Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:37 pm

In that case, let me change my quæstion:

What is the difference between

Scimus copias adventum iri.

and

Scimus copias adventuras esse.

? I mean: is it merely a matter of præference which one chooses or is there some semantic nuance?
Lavrentivs
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: iri/-ur-

Postby adrianus » Wed Nov 09, 2011 11:51 pm

Lavrentivs wrote:IWhat is the difference between

Scimus copias adventum iri.

and

Scimus copias adventuras esse.

? I mean: is it merely a matter of præference which one chooses or is there some semantic nuance?

I believe that "Scimus copias adventum iri" is grammatically wrong. And I believe there is no difference between "Scimus copiis adventum iri" and "Scimus copias adventuras esse". Others might confirm or correct this.
Soloecismum credo primum esse et nullum discrimen exstare inter "Scimus copiis adventum iri" et "Scimus copias adventuras esse". Alii approbent corrigantve.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: iri/-ur-

Postby Lavrentivs » Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:17 am

Sorry, I'm a bit slow, but I think I get it now: supine + iri is passive and -ur- esse is active. And I suppose you meant the dative to be agentis.
Lavrentivs
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 6:50 pm

Re: iri/-ur-

Postby adrianus » Thu Nov 10, 2011 12:35 am

Indeed. You know that impersonal means that the subject is an empty "it", so if an agent is mentioned with an impersonal, it's an indirect agent (dative) or also ablative (according to this source, http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7182349M/A_study_of_the_impersonal_passive_of_the_ventum_est_type).

Ita. Scis quid velit dicere "impersonaliter" vocabulum: vacuum est subjectum; tunc, si explicitum quod agit per constructionem impersonalem indirectum dativo agentis casu sit vel ablativo, secundum fontem suprà citatum.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 53 guests