Latin imperatives

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.
sesquipedalianus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:16 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Latin imperatives

Post by sesquipedalianus » Sun Feb 01, 2004 6:12 am

Does anyone have any definitive comments to make on the TO/TOTE form of the imperative? I had always learned that it was a 'future' or 'strengthened' form of the simple imperative, with TO for the 2nd person singular, TOTE for the 2nd person plural, and sometimes ANTO/UNTO for the 3rd person plural. My problem is that in the Kennedy grammars the TO form (as in 'amato') is listed as being used for the 3rd person singular as well as the 2nd, whereas this is not stated in what to me is my 'bible' of grammar, North & Hillard. In extensive reading of Latin texts I have never come across the TO form for the 3rd person. So I'd be grateful - and enlightened - if someone could clarify the issue for me. Thanks everyone!

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

Post by benissimus » Sun Feb 01, 2004 6:47 am

-to is 2nd person singular future imperative
-to is 3rd person singular future imperative too
-tote is 2nd person plural future imperative
-nto is 3rd person plural future imperative

These are super rare from what I have heard, appearing in not very many words, mostly in formal documents and so you would not come across them in typical reading very often. The only times I have ever seen it (other than in grammar books) are in the words esto (esse) and memento (meminisse).
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae

Ulpianus
Textkit Member
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: London, UK

Post by Ulpianus » Sun Feb 01, 2004 9:44 am

I dunno ... but I would usually trust Kennedy. Visigoth actually managed to fish up a live specimen of this peculiarity from his theological treatise the other day. (But I notice that "beginners" grammars, at least in the UK, now seem to ignore it altogether.)

I've never understood what could possibly be meant by a "future" imperative, or (to put it differently) why a present imperative is not to some extent looking to the future anyway. It does seem to me to be more a matter of emphasis than of time.

Alundis
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 1:56 am
Location: new jersey
Contact:

Post by Alundis » Tue Feb 03, 2004 2:39 am

It can't be that rare. I've seen scito and scitote used more than once in the Vulgate.

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

Post by benissimus » Tue Feb 03, 2004 3:36 am

Oh yeah, scio always uses scito(te) instead of sci(te). There are probably other exceptions...
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae

sesquipedalianus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:16 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by sesquipedalianus » Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:14 pm

I suppose a "present" imperative is what you require done immediately - "interfac regem nunc!" whereas a future imperative is to be done in an indefinite or defined future. Just a thought.

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

Post by benissimus » Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:12 am

I think they would be especially appropriate when used with an adverb/adverbial expression denoting future time ("bring that book tomorrow") or when in a future context as determined by other verb tenses in the sentence ("when I [will] read that book, take it back to your house").

I don't think that even then it would be necessary to use the future imperative, as it was somewhat of an antiquity and stuffy formality in Classical times from what I have read (with the exception of those words which replaced their present imperative).
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae

sesquipedalianus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:16 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by sesquipedalianus » Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:36 am

Funnily enough, I've never come across the "es/este" imperative in literature, though one example (from the old Latin religious office of Compline) has always stuck in my mind:
"Fratres, sobrii estote et vigilantes". Actually, that could be a good motto for our own times too!

Evito
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 12:56 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Evito » Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:07 am

benissimus wrote:-to is 2nd person singular future imperative
-to is 3rd person singular future imperative too
-tote is 2nd person plural future imperative
-nto is 3rd person plural future imperative

These are super rare from what I have heard, appearing in not very many words, mostly in formal documents and so you would not come across them in typical reading very often. The only times I have ever seen it (other than in grammar books) are in the words esto (esse) and memento (meminisse).
I didn't know this either. Well, I found out, after a few hours of searching, when I ran into -I think it was- memento in Ovids Tristia. I used the program "words" to look it up as I couldn't find it in my grammar books. (n)
phpbb

sesquipedalianus
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 22
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2003 4:16 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by sesquipedalianus » Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:43 pm

Well, of course, we do have the word "memento" in English, meaning a souvenir. There is also the ghastly "memento mortis" (which is always a nice illustration of memini requiring a genitive object!

Post Reply