Word of the Day

[bingley]

[quote author=sfryer link=board=3;threadid=299;start=30#2354 date=1059596131]<br />[quote author=Skylax link=board=3;threadid=299;start=30#2345 date=1059591383]<br />[quote author=bingley link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2273 date=1059543745]<br />Capti putantes se interfecturos esse precati sunt ut Caesar parcat.<br /><br />The captives, thinking they were about to be killed, begged Caesar to spare them.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />There is a discrepancy between text and translation. The text means "thinking they were about to kill"... The text matching the translation is : Captivi putantes se interfectum iri precati sunt ut Caesar sibi parceret.<br /><br />[/quote]<br /><br />interfecturos is accusative plural of the future PASSIVE participle - "going to be killed." So the sentence is perfectly correct as it stands.<br /><br />remember "Morituri te salutamus" "We who are going to die salute you."<br /><br />[/quote]<br /><br />Now that I know what to look for, I think my vote is going to have to go to skylax. <br />Interfecturus -a -um esse future infinitive active <br />interfectum iri future infinitive passive<br /><br />I was wondering about whether to use sibi or eis. I know se is reflexive, bu the subject of its clause is Caesar, not the capti. Does se refer to the subject of its own clause or the subject of the main clause of the sentence?

[Ptolemaios]

[quote author=sfryer link=board=3;threadid=299;start=30#2354 date=1059596131]<br />[quote author=Skylax link=board=3;threadid=299;start=30#2345 date=1059591383]<br />[quote author=bingley link=board=3;threadid=299;start=15#2273 date=1059543745]<br />Capti putantes se interfecturos esse precati sunt ut Caesar parcat.<br /><br />The captives, thinking they were about to be killed, begged Caesar to spare them.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />There is a discrepancy between text and translation. The text means "thinking they were about to kill"... The text matching the translation is : Captivi putantes se interfectum iri precati sunt ut Caesar sibi parceret.<br /><br />[/quote]<br /><br />interfecturos is accusative plural of the future PASSIVE participle - "going to be killed." So the sentence is perfectly correct as it stands.<br /><br />remember "Morituri te salutamus" "We who are going to die salute you."<br /><br />[/quote]<br /><br />Interfecturos is future ACTIVE participle; there is no such thing as a future PASSIVE participle in Latin. "we who are going to die" is active; the passive "we who are going to be killed" would be "Qui interfecturi iri (salutamus)".<br /><br />Vale.<br /><br />Ptolemaios

[Milito]

[quote author=bingley link=board=3;threadid=299;start=30#2375 date=1059623223]<br />I was wondering about whether to use sibi or eis. I know se is reflexive, bu the subject of its clause is Caesar, not the capti. Does se refer to the subject of its own clause or the subject of the main clause of the sentence?<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Bennett has a good explanation of this (section 244). He says that (quote coming up.....)<br /><br />

1. The Reflexive Pronoun se and the Possessive Reflexive suus have a double use:<br /><br />I. They may refer to the subject of the clause (either principal or subordinate) i nwhich they stand, - 'Direct Reflexives'; as, -<br /> eum oravi, ut se servaret, I besought him to save himself.<br />II. They may stand in a subordinate clause and refer to the subject of the principal clause, - 'Indirect Reflexives'; as, -<br /> me oravit ut se defenderem, he besought me to defend him (lit. that I defend himself);<br /> a. The Indirect Reflexive is mainly restricted to those clauses which express the thought, not of the author, but of the suject of the principal clause.

<br /><br />Does this help?<br /><br />Kilmeny

[bingley]

Well, I thought I understood what Bennett was saying until I got down to this:<br /><br />They may stand in a subordinate clause and refer to the subject of the principal clause, - 'Indirect Reflexives'; as, -<br /> me oravit ut se defenderem, he besought me to defend him (lit. that I defend himself);<br />The Indirect Reflexive is mainly restricted to those clauses which express the thought, not of the author, but of the suject of the principal clause.<br /><br />Am I missing something here? First he says that se/suus can stand in a subordinate clause and refer to the subject of the principal clause and then he says that this is mainly (i.e., not always) restricted to clauses which express the subject's thought not the author's. <br /><br />Well, of course, otherwise the author would use me/meus, wouldn't he? So, what are the exceptions that cause Bennett to say 'mainly'?

[Magistra]

Quote:<br />Interfecturos is future ACTIVE participle; there is no such thing as a future PASSIVE participle in Latin. <br /><br /><br />I guess it's a matter of preference in terminology:<br /><br />"Gerundive (Future Passive Participle)<br /><br />NOTE.--The participle in -dus, commonly called the Gerundive, has two distinct uses:--<br /><br />(1) Its predicate and attribute use as Participle or Adjective (§ 500).<br /><br />(2) Its use with the meaning of the Gerund (§ 503). This may be called its gerundive use. "<br /><br />Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges (eds. J. B. Greenough, G. L. Kittredge, A. A. Howard, Benj. L. D'Ooge)<br />http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Ahead%3D%23341<br /><br />Magistra

[Jeff Tirey]

[quote author=Magistra link=board=3;threadid=299;start=30#2448 date=1059664641]<br />Quote:<br />Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar for Schools and Colleges (eds. J. B. Greenough, G. L. Kittredge, A. A. Howard, Benj. L. D'Ooge)<br />http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Ahead%3D%23341<br /><br />Magistra<br />[/quote]<br /><br /><br />I couldn't resist giving a Textkit plug <br /><br />http://montgomery.cas.muohio.edu/textkit/AG_New_Latin_Grammar.pdf#page=320<br /><br />jeff

[Milito]

[quote author=bingley link=board=3;threadid=299;start=30#2432 date=1059660338]<br />Well, I thought I understood what Bennett was saying until I got down to this:<br /><br />They may stand in a subordinate clause and refer to the subject of the principal clause, - 'Indirect Reflexives'; as, -<br /> me oravit ut se defenderem, he besought me to defend him (lit. that I defend himself);<br />The Indirect Reflexive is mainly restricted to those clauses which express the thought, not of the author, but of the suject of the principal clause.<br /><br />Am I missing something here? First he says that se/suus can stand in a subordinate clause and refer to the subject of the principal clause and then he says that this is mainly (i.e., not always) restricted to clauses which express the subject's thought not the author's. <br /><br />Well, of course, otherwise the author would use me/meus, wouldn't he? So, what are the exceptions that cause Bennett to say 'mainly'?<br />[/quote]<br /><br />I will admit to wondering the same thing, now..... Bennett is usually pretty good about providing examples, but he didn't here, although the two that he used as examples of Indirect Reflexives fit the bill. Maybe he was just covering himself, because there are always exceptions? I don't know at all..........<br /><br />Kilmeny

[bingley]

I didn't know you could link to a particular page of an acrobat file.

[Episcopus]

[quote author=Milito link=board=3;threadid=299;start=45#2457 date=1059671620]<br /><br /><br />They may stand in a subordinate clause and refer to the subject of the principal clause, - 'Indirect Reflexives'; as, -<br /> me oravit ut se defenderem, he besought me to defend him (lit. that I defend himself);<br />The Indirect Reflexive is mainly restricted to those clauses which express the thought, not of the author, but of the suject of the principal clause.<br /><br />Am I missing something here? First he says that se/suus can stand in a subordinate clause and refer to the subject of the principal clause and then he says that this is mainly (i.e., not always) restricted to clauses which express the subject's thought not the author's. <br />Kilmeny<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Is it that I would have to say "SWEET" or "aAAAAH!" <br />Astounding.<br /><br />Indirect reflexive that just...Michael Jackson "speechless..." <br /><br />

[Puella Parva]

[quote author=benissimus link=board=3;threadid=299;start=0#1979 date=1059160346]<br />I'm thinking it would be something like, Words of the Day: Week of 7/28 to conserve space. [/quote]<br /><br />I agree! This sounds like a wonderful idea.

[mariek]

<br />Thanks, Benissime, for starting off the first Word of the Day weekly thread. That was a fine choice for the first word. It was also great to mention English words which were derived from the Latin word. I had never even heard of "elucubrate" and had to look it up in the dictionary. I can see that this will definitely improve my English. ;D<br /><br />My one concern about the weekly Word of the Day threads is that it may become "chatty" with responses about the words. I think we should make an effort to avoid this so that when anyone clicks on a Word of the Day threads, so they don't have to weed through a gazillion messages to find the 5 (or 7?) words for that week.<br />

[benissimus]

Hmm... or better yet, you have to post a word for that day to be able to chat! It could be a cult! Muahaha. We may need to elucubrate this a bit...

[Episcopus]

Yeah well it may be good for you advanced freaks but I understood little of what you said in your word of the day post. <br />lubricate some other less complex Cicero sentences

[benissimus]

Hehe. "Less complex Cicero sentences"... you have no idea how oxymoronic that sounds. I will give simpler, most likely fabricated, sentences in the future for the benefit of everyone else. Well, I didn't understand that sentence very well either, so don't try to take the beginner's excuse >:b<br /><br />or...<br /><br />make your own, why not?

[Milito]

[quote author=benissimus link=board=3;threadid=299;start=45#3567 date=1060624241]<br />Hehe. "Less complex Cicero sentences"... you have no idea how oxymoronic that sounds. [/quote]<br /><br />Come on! Lure him into Cicero gently! So that by the time he realizes what he's up against, it's too late!<br /><br />So really, what we need overall are two related threads for each "Word of the Day" - one for the word, with example use, and a second one for "Word Discussion", wherein the chat occurs... and where each new person is encouraged to post an example use of the word, excavated from some text or constructed by him/herself, before discussion can carry on? <br /><br />Kilmeny

[benissimus]

I refuse to let the poor sap get tricked into the hours of (wonderful) headaches which Cicero inevitably brings without a word of caution!<br /><br />The dual post action seems intriguing...

[Milito]

[quote author=benissimus link=board=3;threadid=299;start=45#3628 date=1060649355]<br />I refuse to let the poor sap get tricked into the hours of (wonderful) headaches which Cicero inevitably brings without a word of caution!<br />[/quote]<br /><br />So where were you when *I* was thinking about jumping into Cicero? <br /><br />All right, I suppose it's a new day, so we could give the double post idea a try....<br /><br />Kilmeny<br /><br />

[Keesa]

I like headaches...push me in! <br /><br />Keesa