Latin imperatives
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:16 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Latin imperatives
Does anyone have any definitive comments to make on the TO/TOTE form of the imperative? I had always learned that it was a 'future' or 'strengthened' form of the simple imperative, with TO for the 2nd person singular, TOTE for the 2nd person plural, and sometimes ANTO/UNTO for the 3rd person plural. My problem is that in the Kennedy grammars the TO form (as in 'amato') is listed as being used for the 3rd person singular as well as the 2nd, whereas this is not stated in what to me is my 'bible' of grammar, North & Hillard. In extensive reading of Latin texts I have never come across the TO form for the 3rd person. So I'd be grateful - and enlightened - if someone could clarify the issue for me. Thanks everyone!
- benissimus
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2733
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Contact:
-to is 2nd person singular future imperative
-to is 3rd person singular future imperative too
-tote is 2nd person plural future imperative
-nto is 3rd person plural future imperative
These are super rare from what I have heard, appearing in not very many words, mostly in formal documents and so you would not come across them in typical reading very often. The only times I have ever seen it (other than in grammar books) are in the words esto (esse) and memento (meminisse).
-to is 3rd person singular future imperative too
-tote is 2nd person plural future imperative
-nto is 3rd person plural future imperative
These are super rare from what I have heard, appearing in not very many words, mostly in formal documents and so you would not come across them in typical reading very often. The only times I have ever seen it (other than in grammar books) are in the words esto (esse) and memento (meminisse).
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
-
- Textkit Member
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:14 pm
- Location: London, UK
I dunno ... but I would usually trust Kennedy. Visigoth actually managed to fish up a live specimen of this peculiarity from his theological treatise the other day. (But I notice that "beginners" grammars, at least in the UK, now seem to ignore it altogether.)
I've never understood what could possibly be meant by a "future" imperative, or (to put it differently) why a present imperative is not to some extent looking to the future anyway. It does seem to me to be more a matter of emphasis than of time.
I've never understood what could possibly be meant by a "future" imperative, or (to put it differently) why a present imperative is not to some extent looking to the future anyway. It does seem to me to be more a matter of emphasis than of time.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 1:56 am
- Location: new jersey
- Contact:
- benissimus
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2733
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:16 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
- benissimus
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2733
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Contact:
I think they would be especially appropriate when used with an adverb/adverbial expression denoting future time ("bring that book tomorrow") or when in a future context as determined by other verb tenses in the sentence ("when I [will] read that book, take it back to your house").
I don't think that even then it would be necessary to use the future imperative, as it was somewhat of an antiquity and stuffy formality in Classical times from what I have read (with the exception of those words which replaced their present imperative).
I don't think that even then it would be necessary to use the future imperative, as it was somewhat of an antiquity and stuffy formality in Classical times from what I have read (with the exception of those words which replaced their present imperative).
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:16 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 12:56 pm
- Location: The Netherlands
I didn't know this either. Well, I found out, after a few hours of searching, when I ran into -I think it was- memento in Ovids Tristia. I used the program "words" to look it up as I couldn't find it in my grammar books. (n)benissimus wrote:-to is 2nd person singular future imperative
-to is 3rd person singular future imperative too
-tote is 2nd person plural future imperative
-nto is 3rd person plural future imperative
These are super rare from what I have heard, appearing in not very many words, mostly in formal documents and so you would not come across them in typical reading very often. The only times I have ever seen it (other than in grammar books) are in the words esto (esse) and memento (meminisse).
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:16 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
- benissimus
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 2733
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
- Location: Berkeley, California
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:16 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: Melbourne
Incidentally, I was reading Phillipians from the Vulgate today, and in chapter 2, 25-30, Paulus speaks of sending one of his companions to them and says:
"...excipite itaque illum cum omni gaudio in Domino et eiusmodi cum honore habetote..."
which is the first time I have actually encountered 'habetote'.
"...excipite itaque illum cum omni gaudio in Domino et eiusmodi cum honore habetote..."
which is the first time I have actually encountered 'habetote'.
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:16 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact:
Nice to know that some people still know the Vulgate (I was brought up on Church Latin). Now, here's an interesting question: the Vulgate was St Jerome's own Latin style, which had changed quite a bit since classical times - but what language did Paul write his epistles in initially? Was it Latin or Greek?
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 799
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 3:01 am
- Location: Melbourne
To my knowledge in Greek, but as he was a Roman could it be that at least he wrote his letters to the Romans in Latin?
“Cum ego verbo utar,” Humpty Dumpty dixit voce contempta, “indicat illud quod optem – nec plus nec minus.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”
“Est tamen rogatio” dixit Alice, “an efficere verba tot res indicare possis.”
“Rogatio est, “Humpty Dumpty responsit, “quae fiat magister – id cunctum est.”
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:16 pm
- Location: UK
- Contact: