Textkit Logo

Why habeam and not habeo?

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

Why habeam and not habeo?

Postby jamesbath » Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:07 pm

To understand subjunctives better, I googled "habeam" and found the following in The Latin Vulgate.

volo enim vos scire qualem sollicitudinem habeam pro vobis

Why is the subjunctive habeam used here instead of habeo? Is it because the I wish of volo throws the whole clause into the subjunctive?

If the clause was written instead as: scitis qualem sollicitudinem habeo pro vobis; would habeo be correct and habeam incorrect, because scitis is now in the indicative mood?
jamesbath
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:51 am
Location: Charleston, SC, USA

Re: Why habeam and not habeo?

Postby adrianus » Fri Dec 09, 2011 8:13 pm

Indirect discourse (or infinitive) clauses, have subjunctive subordinate clauses.
Clausulae orationibus obliquis subordinatae subjunctivo modo sunt.

"scitis qualem sollicitudinem habeo pro vobis" is fine pre-classically // bonum erat ante classicum aevum http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dscio sectio I.g
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: Why habeam and not habeo?

Postby jaihare » Sat Dec 10, 2011 2:05 am

Interesting, but my Latin isn't at the level right now where I can see the distinction.

When I plugged volo enim vos scire qualem sollicitudinem habeam pro vobis into Google translate, I got For I would that ye knew what great conflict I ​​have for you.

In Spanish, I can imagine the "ye knew" (vos scire, I assume) being in the subjunctive (quiero que [Uds. sepan]/[vosotros sepáis]) and the last phrase being in the indicative because it's a real situation and has nothing to do with the initial desire.

Now that I compare it to Spanish, I can understand the phrase in Latin, but I wouldn't imagine saying yo tenga (subjunctive) at the end of that phrase.

Isn't scire an infinitive, though?

Interesting question. Thanks!
Jason Hare
jaihare@gmail.com

ὁ μὲν Παῦλος τοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις μαθητὰς τὴν χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν Χριστῷ ἐδίδασκεν, οἱ δ᾿ ἄλλοι ἀπόστολοι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐδίδασκον τηρεῖν τὸν θεῖον νόμον τὸν χειρὶ Μωϋσέως δοθέντα.
User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Israel

Re: Why habeam and not habeo?

Postby jamesbath » Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:18 am

jaihare wrote:
Now that I compare it to Spanish, I can understand the phrase in Latin, but I wouldn't imagine saying yo tenga (subjunctive) at the end of that phrase.

Isn't scire an infinitive, though?

Interesting question. Thanks!


volo enim vos scire qualem sollicitudinem habeam pro vobis

I take it to mean something like: "for I want you to know how much concern I have for you."

I see scire as an infinitive "to know". Volo enim scire "for I want you to know"

But I am still thrashing around in a great ocean of ignorance as far as languages go. Helplessly drowning most of the time. And maybe this time, too. Take everything I say with a truckload of salt.

Your post spurs me to take a look at the Spanish verbs I downloaded to my Kindle. Thanks.
jamesbath
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:51 am
Location: Charleston, SC, USA

Re: Why habeam and not habeo?

Postby jamesbath » Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:25 am

adrianus wrote:Indirect discourse (or infinitive) clauses, have subjunctive subordinate clauses.
Clausulae orationibus obliquis subordinatae subjunctivo modo sunt.

"scitis qualem sollicitudinem habeo pro vobis" is fine pre-classically // bonum erat ante classicum aevum http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dscio sectio I.g


Thank you, Adriane! As usual, you have opened up a floodgate of interesting new information for me to study. I am really enjoying this stuff!
jamesbath
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:51 am
Location: Charleston, SC, USA

Re: Why habeam and not habeo?

Postby jaihare » Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:26 am

jamesbath wrote:volo enim vos scire qualem sollicitudinem habeam pro vobis

I see scire as an infinitive "to know". Volo enim scire "for I want you to know"


But isn't the enim just a conjunctive particle of sorts and the vos is "you"? So, I think you meant volō vos scīre means "I want you to know."

I just wasn't aware that Latin had the accusative as the subject of an infinitive like Greek has (and English).

So, I would assume:

volō scīre - "I want to know"
volō eam scīre - "I want her to know"
volō eum scīre - "I want him to know"
volō tē scīre - "I want you to know" (singular audience)
volō vos scīre - "I want you to know" (plural audience)

volō puerum scīre - "I want the boy to know"
volō puellam scīre - "I want the girl to know"

Is this an accurate assessment of the situation? That we can replace vos with any accusative and get the same meaning from the construction?
Last edited by jaihare on Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:42 am, edited 3 times in total.
Jason Hare
jaihare@gmail.com

ὁ μὲν Παῦλος τοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις μαθητὰς τὴν χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν Χριστῷ ἐδίδασκεν, οἱ δ᾿ ἄλλοι ἀπόστολοι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐδίδασκον τηρεῖν τὸν θεῖον νόμον τὸν χειρὶ Μωϋσέως δοθέντα.
User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Israel

Re: Why habeam and not habeo?

Postby jaihare » Sat Dec 10, 2011 8:29 am

jamesbath wrote:But I am still thrashing around in a great ocean of ignorance as far as languages go. Helplessly drowning most of the time. And maybe this time, too. Take everything I say with a truckload of salt.

Your post spurs me to take a look at the Spanish verbs I downloaded to my Kindle. Thanks.


I'm pretty good with languages generally. I'm still really new to Latin. Glad to inspire you to pull out your Spanish. I should do a refresher in Spanish, too. I haven't spoken Spanish in over four years!

Where are you at in Wheelock right now? (Or, are you not in a study group?) I just got to chapter four today, though the two-man study group that I'm in has only read the introduction together. We were supposed to meet up on Skype last night, but we apparently missed each other.
Jason Hare
jaihare@gmail.com

ὁ μὲν Παῦλος τοὺς ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις μαθητὰς τὴν χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐν Χριστῷ ἐδίδασκεν, οἱ δ᾿ ἄλλοι ἀπόστολοι τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐδίδασκον τηρεῖν τὸν θεῖον νόμον τὸν χειρὶ Μωϋσέως δοθέντα.
User avatar
jaihare
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 2:47 am
Location: Israel

Re: Why habeam and not habeo?

Postby adrianus » Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:25 pm

jaihare wrote:Is this an accurate assessment of the situation? That we can replace vos with any accusative and get the same meaning from the construction?

Yes. See this // Est. Vide hoc: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=AG+563 & http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=AG+565
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: Why habeam and not habeo?

Postby jamesbath » Sat Dec 10, 2011 3:35 pm

jaihare wrote: So, I think you meant volō vos scīre means "I want you to know."


No. I copied it word for word the way I found it. I did not compose the Latin. You can see the original Latin and the English translation here: http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=12&c=2

It is the first verse in The Epistle of St. Paul to the Collosians: Chapter Two in the Latin Vulgate.

enim by the way is a postpositive particle. Ancient Latin writers did not use punctuation the way modern English writers do, to separate sentences. The ancient Latin writers would start new sentences and clauses with postpositives, such as inem, igitur, autem and others. From what I understand, the function of these postpositives is more to organize a sentence than to convey information and can sometimes be left out of a translation completely.

See: http://tutor.bestlatin.net/grammar/postpositives.htm

Vales!
jamesbath
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2008 11:51 am
Location: Charleston, SC, USA


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 74 guests