"non" in imperative

[Junya]

Hi.

Non in pane solo vivet homo,sed in omni verbo, quod procedit de ore Deiï¼￾

Vivet is future.
So "human being will not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds out of God's mouth".
But I thought this might be an imperative sentence, like "Man should not live by bread alone......"
But I don't know if you use "non" in imperative sentences.
As far as I know "ne" is used in imperative sentences.


Now I see. The third person has to have, if it is imperative, "non", not "ne".
But how is it when it is the second person?
If it is "in pane vives"(Man, don't live by bread alone, but by.....), does the sentence take "non", or "ne"? "Non in pane vives" or "Ne in pane vives"?

[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...

[MiguelM]

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]

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]

On another note, Catullus uses imperative with ne in #8, 'nec quae fugit sectÄ￾re nec miser vÄ«ve'. Even though it is a divergence from the rules.

[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 sectÄ￾re nec miser vÄ«ve' is uttered directly to the hearer. So I can smoothly understand it is the same as "ne".

[MiguelM]

"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.

[benissimus]

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 sectÄ￾re nec miser vÄ«ve' is uttered directly to the hearer. So I can smoothly understand it is the same as "ne".

In this case you would have to take nec as ne+que (it's original compound). neque (nec), as you observed, is usually used where non would be used, but rarely it stands in for ne. The archaizing sense of ne+imperative might have created an especially suitable environment for such a manifestation of neque.

[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?