jfontana wrote:This quote you cite "Ambiguum est participium quod aut verbum aut adjectivum". Is this your own or is this some "classic/classical" citation?
Scarlatti wrote:Vulnerati miseri sunt. Can't this be translated three ways?
1) Present tense: The wounded ones are miserable.
2) Also present tense: "The miserable are the wounded ones / those who were wounded," if miseri is taken to be a substantive.
3) Perfect passive tense: "The miserable ones were wounded ( by someone or something )."
Is this correct?
Participles are verbal adjectives. As adjectives they can modify nouns and pronouns and can sometimes stand alone as substantives. As verbs they can have tense and voice.
The so called passive perfect of cápiō is always 'captus' and all that varies is the form of 'esse' for the different persons and tenses.
jfontana wrote:Unless Adrianus, or some other list participant who knows way more Latin than myself, make me blush by pointing out some obvious fact that I'm ignoring, it looks to me that talking about perfect or past passive participle when referring to expressions such as the ones we are discussing (e.g 'captus eram') is nothing else than an imposition of categories from English or other modern Western European languages on Latin.
Adrianus wrote:captus sum = "I was captured (verbal)"
captus sum = "I am captured/captive (adjectival/a captured person)"
captus eram = "I had been captured (verbal)"
captus eram = "I used to be [a] captive (adjectival)"
jfontana wrote:When you read Latin textbooks you often see statements such as:Participles are verbal adjectives. As adjectives they can modify nouns and pronouns and can sometimes stand alone as substantives. As verbs they can have tense and voice.
New Observations on Voice in the Ancient Greek Verb
November 19, 2002
Carl W. Conrad
Associate Professor Emeritus of Classics, Washington University in St. Louis
[...]1.2. Introductory remarks: In 1997 I formulated and published on the B-Greek internet discussion list some concerns regarding what seemed to me misleading and confusing ways of teaching Greek verb voice.
Terminology and assumptions either implicit in the teaching or openly taught to students learning Greek seem to me to make understanding voice in the ancient Greek verb more difficult than it need be. In particular I believe that the meanings conveyed by the morphoparadigms for voice depend to a great extent upon understanding the distinctive force of the middle voice, that the passive sense is not inherent in the verb form but determined by usage in context, and that the conception of deponency is fundamentally wrong-headed and detrimental to understanding the phenomenon of “voice” in ancient Greek.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 59 guests