perequito

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
spqr
Textkit Fan
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:13 pm
Location: Hemet, CA, USA

perequito

Post by spqr » Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:00 pm

I am having trouble finding a full conjugation paradigm for this verb. I know what it means but I specifically need to what perequitarit means. A footnote in my book says 'had not ridden' but it doesn't look like pluperfect.

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1203
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: perequito

Post by Barry Hofstetter » Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:10 pm

Posting the full context normally helps. Perequito is a 1st conjugation verb, which means its stem ends in -v. Verbs whose perfect stem end in -v are subject to syncopation, which means stuff drops out. As it is, you have either a future perfect indicative:

perquitarit = perequitaverit

Or the perfect active subjunctive:

perquitarit = perequitaverit

The pluperfect would be perequitarat = perequitaverat.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

User avatar
bedwere
Global Moderator
Posts: 3940
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California
Contact:

Re: perequito

Post by bedwere » Wed Feb 13, 2019 7:34 pm

I second Barry's comment. Please post more details alongside your questions to help us help you. As in your previous post, we need to see the word in the context in which it is being used. As you cannot expect a hand chopped away from the body to be alive, so with Latin you cannot expect an isolated word to make much sense.

spqr
Textkit Fan
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:13 pm
Location: Hemet, CA, USA

Re: perequito

Post by spqr » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:47 pm

I agree. I should have provided more context. Here is the full sentence:

Conclamant equites sanctissimo jure jurando confirmari oportere ne tecto recipiatur, ne ad liberos, ad parentes, ad uxorem aditum habeat, qui non bis per agmen hostium perequitarit.

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1203
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: perequito

Post by Barry Hofstetter » Wed Feb 13, 2019 10:38 pm

spqr wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:47 pm
I agree. I should have provided more context. Here is the full sentence:

Conclamant equites sanctissimo jure jurando confirmari oportere ne tecto recipiatur, ne ad liberos, ad parentes, ad uxorem aditum habeat, qui non bis per agmen hostium perequitarit.
Ah, from DBG 7.66. Interestingly the 1914 OCT says:

Conclamant equites sanctissimo iureiurando confirmari oportere, ne tecto recipiatur, ne ad liberos, ne ad parentes, ad uxorem aditum habeat, qui non bis per agmen hostium perequitasset.

Caesar, C. J. (1914). C. Iuli Commentarii Rerum in Gallia Gestarum VII A. Hirti Commentarius VII Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis. (T. R. Holmes, Ed.). Medford, MA: e Typographeo Clarendoniano.

In your text, it has to be a future perfect. In the OCT, it's a pluperfect subjunctive (still syncopated, = perequitavisset). Text critically, it strikes me as the more difficult reading. Maybe our resident super-grammarians (you know who you are, and it's meant with the fullest sincerity) can weigh in here and explain this use of the subjunctive. Relative clause of characteristic (didn't we recently have discussion about that)?
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

spqr
Textkit Fan
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:13 pm
Location: Hemet, CA, USA

Re: perequito

Post by spqr » Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:04 am

When Barry mentioned syncopation a light went off in my head as I had dealt with syncopated verbs in the past but I had no trouble because I was translating verbs that I was familiar with.

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: perequito

Post by Hylander » Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:41 am

perequitarit is actually a variant reading in some mss. of Caesar's text, noted in the Oxford Classical Text edition.

Both perequitarit and perequitasset would be subjunctives, perfect and pluperfect, respectively. Whichever is right, both are subjunctive because the clause is a relative clause of characteristic.

(The relative clause introduced by qui is also a subordinate clause in indirect discourse and would require a subjunctive verb in any case, but perequitasset/perequitarit is subjunctive because the clause is a "relative clause of characteristic.")

perequitarit is more consistent with (historical) present conclamant and the present subjunctives recipiatur and habeant.

However, Allen & Greenough sec. 485e notes:
e. The Historical Present (§ 469) is sometimes felt as a primary, sometimes as a secondary tense, and accordingly it takes either the primary or the secondary sequence:—

“ rogat ut cūret quod dīxisset ” (Quinct. 18) , he asks him to attend to the thing he had spoken of. [Both primary and secondary sequence.]

[*] Note.--After the historical present, the subjunctive with cum temporal must follow the secondary sequence:—

“quō cum vēnisset cōgnōscit ” (B. C. 1.34) , when he had come there he learns.
cum esset pūgnātum hōrīs quīnque, nostrīque gravius premerentur, impetum in cohortīs faciunt (id. 1.46), when they had fought for five hours, and our men were pretty hard pressed, they make an attack on the cohorts.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 99.04.0001

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1203
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: perequito

Post by Barry Hofstetter » Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:18 am

Hylander, nice explanation, thanks. Would a future perfect indicative be more vivid in this context, emphasizing not the type of person who does this but the actual person (standing collectively for all them) will do it? But you are right, it has to be subjunctive also because in indirect statement.

Edit: I meant to add that upon reflection I think you are absolutely correct here. I was thinking of the occasional use of the indicative in relative clauses in indirect statement to indicate that the speaker is emphasizing not only that he is reporting the speech, but that he independently thinks the information in the relative clause is true. Hard to see how that would fit here, though.

SPQR, you should realize by now that the reason we have paradigm verbs is that every verb in that paradigm works the same. If you know the full paradigm for any 1st conjugation verb, you know the full paradigm for all first conjugation verbs. It should not be just verbs that you are familiar with, but you should know how they work according to some very basic rules of formation. When I identified the range of possibilities for your form, I didn't have to look anything up, I just recognized the possible forms because I long ago internalized the paradigms.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

spqr
Textkit Fan
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:13 pm
Location: Hemet, CA, USA

Re: perequito

Post by spqr » Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:54 pm

I found online McDevitt and Bohn's Gallic Wars. It uses a syncopated pluperfect subjunctive but my book (as I understand it now) uses a perfect subjunctive but McDevitte and Bohn translate this verb as future perfect indicative.

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1203
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: perequito

Post by Barry Hofstetter » Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:17 pm

spqr wrote:
Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:54 pm
I found online McDevitt and Bohn's Gallic Wars. It uses a syncopated pluperfect subjunctive but my book (as I understand it now) uses a perfect subjunctive but McDevitte and Bohn translate this verb as future perfect indicative.
The perfect subjunctive 3rd singular active and the future perfect third singular active are identical in form.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

Hylander
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1955
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm

Re: perequito

Post by Hylander » Fri Feb 15, 2019 4:45 pm

McDevitte and Bohn translate this verb as future perfect indicative.
Forget the translations -- they're misleading you. The Latin word cannot be future perfect indicative, if only for the reason that it's a subordinate clause in indirect discourse.

As I noted in my previous post, either perfect or pluperfect subjunctive is possible here. There's a rationale for both; the meaning is the same; and there is a split of authority in the manuscripts.

I suppose the OCT editor chose the pluperfect subjunctive form on the principle that the more difficult reading is more likely to be original because the process of manuscript transmission tends to simply difficulties rather than to create them ("difficilior lectio potior"). But either reading is possible here, and both have the same meaning (to say it again). This is a "relative clause of characteristic."

The English translation as future perfect is not necessarily wrong. In the subjunctive, the perfect and pluperfect (depending on whether the sequence of tenses is primary or secondardy) may serve the function of the future perfect (among other possibilities), i.e., to denote an action that precedes that of a verb. in the clause on which it depends that is semantically future (whether that verb is indicative, subjunctive or infinitive). To quote Allen & Greenough on sequence of tenses again (sec. 484c):
c. Notice that the Future Perfect denotes action completed (at the time referred to), and hence is represented in the Subjunctive by the Perfect or Pluperfect:—

He shows that if they come (shall have come), many will perish, dēmōnstrat , sī vēnerint , multōs interitūrōs.
He showed that if they should come (should have come), many would perish, dēmōnstrāvit , sī vēnissent, multōs interitūrōs.
However, you should focus on analyzing and understanding the Latin, not on the English translation.

spqr
Textkit Fan
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:13 pm
Location: Hemet, CA, USA

Re: perequito

Post by spqr » Fri Feb 15, 2019 6:46 pm

Thank you all for your constructive comments. It seems that the sequence of tense rules as presented in beginning Latin texts are too pedantic.

Post Reply