Terrebis, terrebam.

[mariek]

<br />Turbamne terrebis? Non terrebam.<br />Will you frighten the crowd? No, I did not frighten the crowd.<br /><br />terrebis is 2nd person singular in the future tense, right?<br />terrebam is 1st person singular in the imperfect tense, right?<br /><br />If that's the case, then why is the question set in future tense while the response is in imperfect tense? I would think that the response would also be in future tense. ???<br /><br />

[Milito]

This is just a stab in the dark.... I was interested to trip over some other uses of the Imperfect in Bennett when doing the grammar part of my last course.<br /><br />The Imperfect is generally on-going past action. ("Was running" idea.... Too easy....) <br />It can also mean repeated past action. ("Used to run" idea.... Also too easy....)<br />It can also, apparently, mean an attempted action or a beginning action. The examples that Bennett uses are "hostes nostros intra munitiones progredi prohibebant" - "The enemy tried to prevent (= prohibebant) our men from advancing within the fortifications" and "ad proelium se expediebant" - "They were beginning to get ready for battle".<br /><br />I haven't yet wrapped my head entirely around those last two, but they might provide part of the answer..... This is very much a reach because I have to agree with your puzzlement....<br /><br />Kilmeny

[mariek]

<br />It can also, apparently, mean an attempted action or a beginning action.

<br /><br />I usually think of the imperfect as a past action that is still going on (not completed) on a habitual action. And as a result I can understand its use to describe things of the past. But you have pointed out a whole new slant to the imperfect. <br /><br />Turbamne terrebis? Non terrebam.<br />Will you frighten the crowd? No, I won't (begin to) frighten the crowd.<br /><br />It's a stretch for me though. I would think, why not use th future ("I will not frighten the crowd") or the present ("I won't frighten the crowd")?<br /><br />Or maybe the response in imperfect ("I did not frighten the crowed") is to hint that the person has habitually never frightened the crowed in the past and will continue doing that going forward into the future?<br /><br />

[klewlis]

I have a picture in my head of a worried advisor saying, "are you going to frighten the crowd?!?!?" and the speaker saying defensively, "I *wasn't* frightening the crowd!"<br /><br />it seems like if the question is being asked while the speaker is in the process of frightening the crowd, it can work. <br /><br />does that make sense?

[Lumen_et_umbra]

In every Romance language, I have learned, there is a similar construction:<br /><br />In Spanish and in Italian, when wondering about something that is happening, a Spanish-speaker can ask a question in the future tense.<br /><br />e.g. ¿Qué hora será? - Spanish<br />Litterally translated - What time will it be?<br />Figurative sense - I wonder what time it is.<br /><br />Also, if one, speaking either of these languages, wonders about what has happened in the past, he may ask a question in the conditional tense.<br /><br />e.g. ¿Qué hora sería? - Spanish<br />Litterally translated - What time would it be?<br />Figurative sense - I wonder what time it was? (the time of the event or something)<br /><br />These constructions are not limited to self-interogative questions regarding time; one can wonder an unlimited number of things in this odd construction.<br /><br />Anyway, it is possible that the Romans used the future tense to make inquiries about the past as well as the present in an indirect manner - as in Spanish and Italian.

[bingley]

Is this from D'Ooge? It seems unlikely that he would introduce such a stretch without any comment.

[benissimus]

It could be a typo (D'ooge is not ENTIRELY flawless), or it could just be two unrelated sentiments.

[mariek]

[quote author=klewlis link=board=3;threadid=507;start=0#4429 date=1061313429]<br />I have a picture in my head of a worried advisor saying, "are you going to frighten the crowd?!?!?" and the speaker saying defensively, "I *wasn't* frightening the crowd!"<br /><br />it seems like if the question is being asked while the speaker is in the process of frightening the crowd, it can work. <br />[/quote]<br /><br />Hmmm.... maybe.<br /><br />When I just read "are you going to frighten", it made me think of the "aller + infinitive" construction in french. (vas-tu effrayer la foule?). Perhaps this is what is intended by the use of the future tense in Latin. ??? It's supposed to be an immediate future.<br />

[mariek]

[quote author=Lumen_et_umbra link=board=3;threadid=507;start=0#4440 date=1061322469]<br />Anyway, it is possible that the Romans used the future tense to make inquiries about the past as well as the present in an indirect manner - as in Spanish and Italian. [/quote]<br /><br />That's very interesting about Spanish. I wish I had studied Spanish, perhaps I will find the time to do that after I'm done with Latin.<br /><br />Are there similar constructions in French?<br />

[mariek]

[quote author=bingley link=board=3;threadid=507;start=0#4479 date=1061352091]<br />Is this from D'Ooge? It seems unlikely that he would introduce such a stretch without any comment.<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Shhhh... it's M&F, Unit One Drill, Part I, #11, Page 32.<br /><br />Seeing that this is at the very beginning of the book, the sentences should be really simple. So it turns out I'm making something simple into something more complicated. Because I just looked at the sentence again and realized that I misread it. :-[ Sorry about all the fuss! I think I need my eyes examined!!

[Lumen_et_umbra]

That wasn't a quote from any book; I speak both Italian and Spanish. That is the reason for which I posted my last message. Joking...