D'Ooge vs. Wheelock: amaverimus
- pster
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 1089
- Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:05 am
- Location: Magna Graecia
D'Ooge vs. Wheelock: amaverimus
For the perfect subjunctive active amaverimus, D'Ooge makes the i short, while Wheelock makes it long. This is just one difference in this vicinity. Who is correct?
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2090
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Re: D'Ooge vs. Wheelock: amaverimus
Originally, the vowel was long, but later there was fluctuation between long and short -i-.
See Allen & Greenough 169d, Note:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0001
So both are right.
See Allen & Greenough 169d, Note:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0001
So both are right.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
Re: D'Ooge vs. Wheelock: amaverimus
You might find this interesting, too:
De hâc re, forsit hoc tibi curae sit:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WCpT ... rt&f=false
De hâc re, forsit hoc tibi curae sit:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WCpT ... rt&f=false
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2090
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:15 pm
Re: D'Ooge vs. Wheelock: amaverimus
Originally, the -i- of the future perfect was short and the -i- of the perfect subjunctive was long, but these forms became confused, since, apart from vowel quantity, they are identical in all forms except the first person singular (and originally, the third person plural). Generally, the -i- was shortened in all forms, but the long -i- was preserved in poetry when metrically convenient.
Some metrical shapes don't fit in the hexameter. Ovid has dederitis, a future perfect with long -i-, at Metamorphoses 6.357, and Vergil has egerimus, a perfect subjunctive with short -i- at Aeneid 6.514. Dederitis with a short -i- would yield a tribrach (three short syllables in a row), which can't fit in the hexameter; egerimus with a long -i- would yield a cretic (long-short-long), which is equally impermissible in the hexameter.
Source: A. Ernout, Morphologie historique du latin, sec. 308, pp. 217-9.
Some metrical shapes don't fit in the hexameter. Ovid has dederitis, a future perfect with long -i-, at Metamorphoses 6.357, and Vergil has egerimus, a perfect subjunctive with short -i- at Aeneid 6.514. Dederitis with a short -i- would yield a tribrach (three short syllables in a row), which can't fit in the hexameter; egerimus with a long -i- would yield a cretic (long-short-long), which is equally impermissible in the hexameter.
Source: A. Ernout, Morphologie historique du latin, sec. 308, pp. 217-9.