Infinitivus - In LLPSI

[sapz]

Hello!

In LLPSI Cap. X the infinitives are introduced, for example: "Iulius Marcum non videre, sed audire potest". Which I would translate as "Iulius can't see marcus, but can hear him". So in this case, "audire" and "videre" would be "to hear", "to see".

So far so good... But in the grammar part of the chapter, another example of the use of infinitive is mentioned: "Pater Filium vocare audit, et acurrere videt" - Which I would translate as "The father hears the son calling, and sees him running".
In this case, is it still Infinitive? Shouldn't it be more like the "-ing" suffix (thanks, Grochojad... ) in english? After all, until now I've seen "the son runs" phrased as "filius curr-it-", so I'm having so troubles reading "Pater Filium vocare audit, et acurrere videt" as "The father hears the son calls, and sees him runs".

I guess it's not straightforward for me because I'm used to other non-latin languages, so I would really appreciate if anyone could shed some light on this.

Thanks

[adrianus]

"The father hears the son to call [sic], and sees him to run [sic]."
Latin uses an infinitive there, we don't. Latin isn't English. In English we say, as you said, sapz:
"The father hears the son calling, and sees him running" or "The father hears that the son is calling, and sees that he is running."

Latinum hîc infinitivo utor; nos non utimur. Non anglicum latinum. Aliter anglicè dicamus, ut dixisti, sapz.

Audit and videt are verbs of perceiving. See A&G §§ 579, 580.
Sentiendi verba sunt audire videre. Vide grammaticam de A&G in sectionibus quingentesimâ septuagesimâ nonâ et octogesimâ:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=AG+579 et http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=AG+580

[sapz]

Thanks!

Uhm, so... I've noticed 2 "kinds" of such sentences, following the [Nom] [Acc] [Inf] [verb] pattern:
One is for example, "Canis avem volare videt".
The other is "Canis eam capere vult".

The thing is that in the first one, the infinitive is associated with the accusative. The bird is the one doing the flying. As opposed to the other sort of sentence, in which the infinitive is associated with the nominative - the dog is the one wanting to do the catching.

So, at first I thought I'm splitting hairs, but then I thought of the next sentence:
Canis avem volare vult.

Would that be "The dog wants the bird to fly", or "The dog wants the flying bird"?

Thanks again!

[adrianus]

Canis avem volare vult = "the dog wants the bird to fly", or "the dog wishes that the bird would fly", or "the dog wants the bird flying".
"The dog wants the flying bird" = "Canis avem volantem vult"

avem volare = "the bird flying" or "that the bird fly" or "the bird to fly"
avem volantem = "the flying bird" (the dog would wish that the bird wasn't flying // avem non volare canis velit)

"Hoc volo scire" = "This I wish to know"
"Hoc volo scire te" = "This is wish you to know"

but

"Eum volo scire" = "I want him to know" or "I want to know him"? It's ambiguous! // Ambiguum est!