genocide, homicide etc derivation

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
Post Reply
ironic_lettuce
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:44 pm

genocide, homicide etc derivation

Post by ironic_lettuce »

Hi everyone

I have a quick query regarding some english words that are derived from latin, those that end in cide (homicide, pesticide etc). For example, I know that the stem of the word genocide is derived from genus, but is the cide part derived from a latin word? one meaning 'to kill' perhaps?

Thanks in advance for any help
Ironic Lettuce

PS what does QED stand for and mean?

whiteoctave
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:42 pm
Location: Cambridge

Post by whiteoctave »

yes, the latter part of those compounds comes from caedo -ere, cecidi, caesum, which had the literal meaning of 'cut' or strike', but of course was commonly used of 'killing' or, worse still, 'cutting one to pieces'.

~D

Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Re: genocide, homicide etc derivation

Post by Timothy »

ironic_lettuce wrote:Hi everyone

I have a quick query regarding some english words that are derived from latin, those that end in cide (homicide, pesticide etc). For example, I know that the stem of the word genocide is derived from genus, but is the cide part derived from a latin word? one meaning 'to kill' perhaps?

Thanks in advance for any help
Ironic Lettuce

PS what does QED stand for and mean?
I'll have to look around my dictionary a bit for the -cide suffix.

QED: Quod erat demonstrandum, that which was shown is used at the end of a detailed argument, or proof in suppoprt of the conclusion.

- Tim

ironic_lettuce
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:44 pm

thanks!

Post by ironic_lettuce »

thanks both! very helpful :)

thanks again
IL

bingley
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 10:04 am
Location: Jakarta

Post by bingley »

Slight correction:

QED = quod erat demonstrandum = which was to be shown, i.e, this is what we had to prove

Titus Marius Crispus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 78
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 2:00 am
Location: San Antonio, TX, USA

Post by Titus Marius Crispus »

Hmm.. Off topic question:
I've only ever seen the passive periphrastic in the present tense(with est) because it's considered more 'advanced' than what I'm supposed to know. How exactly would you translate the following? (I'll put my guesses)

amandum erat (had to be loved)
amandum erit (will have to be loved)
amandum fuit (had to be loved)
amandum fuerat (had had to be loved?)
amandum fuerat (will have had to be loved?)

Also, can you use the passive periphrastic with other persons and numbers of esse? (e.g. amandi sumus)

Vale,
Titus Marius Crispus

User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California
Contact:

Post by benissimus »

Titus Marius Crispus wrote:Hmm.. Off topic question:
I've only ever seen the passive periphrastic in the present tense(with est) because it's considered more 'advanced' than what I'm supposed to know. How exactly would you translate the following? (I'll put my guesses)

amandum erat (had to be loved)
amandum erit (will have to be loved)
amandum fuit (had to be loved)
amandum fuerat (had had to be loved?)
amandum fuerat (will have had to be loved?)
Basically, yes (assuming the last one is fuerit). Some of these are quite rare, especially beloved by those cryptic medieval scholars. If you should ever have to translate one that sounds incredibly awkward, effort should be taken to smooth out the English afterwards.
Also, can you use the passive periphrastic with other persons and numbers of esse? (e.g. amandi sumus)
Yes indeed. It can also be found in the subjunctive and even infinitive - try translating that ;)
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae

Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Timothy »

bingley wrote:Slight correction:

QED = quod erat demonstrandum = which was to be shown, i.e, this is what we had to prove
Ok, I got lost here.

Quod erat demonstrandum

I thought this was a pluperfect passive participle form. (BLD §202)

But when I looked up demonstrandum:

dēmonstro, -āvi, -ātum, to show,

I can't see how the ending is formed. Nor can I see an infinitive form.

What happened?

- tim

whiteoctave
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 603
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2003 11:42 pm
Location: Cambridge

Post by whiteoctave »

infinitive forms often aren't listed in dictionaries.
demonstrandum is from demonstro but rather than being a pf past ptcpl is a so-called gerundive, which are typically formed with the verbal stem and -andus, -a, -um which declines as a standard adjective. it has various senses, including that of obligation in the nominative.

~D

User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California
Contact:

Post by benissimus »

Tim, I believe you are using BLD? He explains this with the other participles on Pages 161-164.

If a verb looks like first conjugation then it probably is first conjugation. My dictionaries just put demonstro (1), to show it is of the first conjugation, but leave it to dictionary writers to just do their own thing...
Last edited by benissimus on Tue Jul 20, 2004 3:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae

Timothy
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 3:16 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Timothy »

Whew! Thanks! I thought this was beyond my current knowledge.

:oops: I was worried that I had lost my marbles and was reading the "New Latin"

- Tim

Post Reply