"non" in imperative

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
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

"non" in imperative

Post by Junya »



Apollimagine
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2007 12:41 pm
Location: Germany, Hesse

Re: "non" in imperative

Post by Apollimagine »

Hi!

In Latin, negative Imperative phrases are formed either by ne+conjunctive perfect (i.e. "ne in pane vixeris") or by noli/nolite+present infinitive (i.e. "noli in pane vivere").
I was once told that one form is used when talking about a common prohibition (this would be your case) and the other one when talking about a single event, but I am not sure which one is which... sorry...

anphph
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:35 am

Post by anphph »

It is not an imperative but a future sentence. However, you can get the meaning well by using the imperative, "You will live // You shall live".

What is written and how it is best translated are not always the same.

Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Post by Junya »

I seem to have been vague with the grammatical term "imperatve".

First, what is the difference between second person imperative and third person one?

In this quotated sentence, I guess it is prohibition. And I thought prohibiting sentence was included in imperative.

I remember it was written that future sentence can be meant as imperative.

And in the imperative sentence using the future tense there are two, second person and third person.

Do you use "ne" for both persons, for prohibition?

I feel it is somehow strange to use "ne" in the third person sentence.

Because I feel "ne" is used when the speaker is addressing the hearer directly, but when you give order to a third person you don't address the person directly.

So I guess, when it is third person, "non" would be appropreate instead of "ne".




And I want to know if you use "non" or "ne" in future imperative second person.

timeodanaos
Textkit Fan
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Hafnia, Denmark

Post by timeodanaos »

On another note, Catullus uses imperative with ne in #8, 'nec quae fugit sect?re nec miser vīve'. Even though it is a divergence from the rules.

Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Post by Junya »

Hi timeodanaos.

Though this is a different question from what I posted above, is "nec" the same as "ne" (ne + que)? I have felt like it is "non + que" and the same as "non".

But this 'nec quae fugit sect?re nec miser vīve' is uttered directly to the hearer. So I can smoothly understand it is the same as "ne".

anphph
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 593
Joined: Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:35 am

Post by anphph »

"Imperative" mode, in strictly grammatical terms, is a verb form that expresses a command.

"panem mihi da!"
Give me bread!

"noli puellam amare!"
Do not love the girl!

However, other sentences can transmit the same sense without recurring to the verb mode.

"Non in pane solo vivet homo"
Man will not live by bread alone.

"urbem condes"
You shall found the city.

The notion that one is able to make a future statement about something can be very imperative, for only those with the power to "enforce" can make such statements.

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

Post by benissimus »



Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 464
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Post by Junya »

Thank you.

But I still have something vague. But if I ask about it I might look too persistent a questioner. So I can't. Can I question again about the thing?

Post Reply