Hello good scholars. This is spikebitalbert and i have some questions for all of the Latin scholars. I am reading Lingva Latina, (Chapter 6 to be correct 
) and i have no clue at all what the passive and the active case at all. (Well I do know a little bit.) I think itâs the case when you are active and when you are lazy passive. Please any bit of help would help.
Thank you all scholars
Albert, Iâd like to know the cases too.
I think you mean the active voice. Voice is a principle of verbs. It lets us know whether the subject is the actor or the recipient of the action.
Caesar kills. Active voice.
Caesar is killed. Passive voice.
In Latin, the passive voice is expressed not by using the auxiliary verb âisâ as we do in English, but by conjugating the verb differently.
Caesar interficit. Active.
Caesar interficitur. Passive.
Thank you Rhodelius or however you spell that. i am very grateful for your information but I do believe that it is the passive and active, I am sure of it.
Rhodopeius is right.
There are six cases in Latin, and they are nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, ablative, and vocative. Case applies to nouns and adjectives modifying the nouns. They tell the listener/reader what function of the noun in the sentence is. The adjectives agree with nouns in case, gender, and number so they mimic the case.
Voice is specific to verbs. As Rhodopeius already explained, it tells the listener/reader if the subject is performing the action âJohn hits a ball.â or is receiving the action âJohn is hit by the ball.â In the first example the subject âJohnâ is performing the action by âhittingâ the direct object âthe ballâ. In the second example the subject John is receiving the action by having the ball hit him. When the subject is performing the action it is the active voice. When the subject is receiving the action it is the passive voice.
If you are certain that we are wrong, please leave examples for us.
Owned, lolâŚanyway, all you peeps, I know spikebit in rl so he knows 
them now 
Perbonum nuntium, Borakovelovere! Benè factum est, spikebitalberte! // Very good news, Borakovelover! Well done, spikebitalbert!
AhâŚ! So this might actually clear up a small confusion in my own mind. The passive voice does not change the nominative of a sentence into an accusative or a dative?
James Bath
james bath wrote:
AhâŚ! So this might actually clear up a small confusion in my own mind. The passive voice does not change the nominative of a sentence into an accusative or a dative?
If the same sentence is changed from active to passive, then the cases do change:
Active: Brutus et Cassius Caesarem interfecerunt. "Brutus and Cassius killed Caesar.
Passive: Caesar a Bruto et Cassio interfectus est. âCaesar was killed by Brutus and Cassius.â
The (nominative) subject of the active sentence is put in a prepositional phrase (a/ab + the ablative). The (accusative) object of the active sentence becomes the (nominative) subject of the passive sentence.
Often the agent (the former subject of the active sentence) is not expressed in a passive sentence:
Caesar interfectus est. âCaesar was killed.â
Or there will be an instrument expressed in the ablative case (i.e., the thing by means of which the action was done):
Caesar non sagittis Gallorum sed sicis et gladiis civium interfectus est. âCaesar was killed not by the arrows of the Gauls, but by the daggers and swords of citizens.â
Damoetas, thanks for all the detail. You put it in good perspective for me and cleared a lot of confusion away. You must have crawled into my head and saw how messy things were in there, because you sure straightened the clutter up pretty good with what you wrote.
In Ălfricâs Grammar he uses the terms deedly for âactiveâ and throingly for âpassiveâ which are clearer terms for an English speaker.
Amo ic lufigeâŚdoceo ic tĂŚceâŚĂas and Ă°ylĂce synd ACTIVA, Ă°ĂŚt synd dĂŚdlĂce gehatene, forĂ°anĂ°e hi geswuteliaĂž dĂŚda
Do ĂŚnne r to Ă°issum wordum, Ăžonne beoĂ° hi PASSIVA, Ă°ĂŚt synd Ă°rowiendlice
âAmo âI loveââŚdoceo âI teachâ⌠These and the like are ACTIVE, that are called deedly, because they declare deeds. Add an r to these words, then they are PASSIVE, that are throingly [as in âthroeâ, suffering/enduring the deeds]â
Clearer, Errorant, to someone from the North, for whom daily existence is a struggle with the weather. Less clear for an English speaker who lives nearer the Equator. Grounds for a theory there! Take the passive âto be seenâ. For a Canadian to be seen, leaving the house is often more of an ordeal.
Clariora haec vocabula, Essorant, cuiquam septentrionali cuius superstes quotidiana in tempestate requiescit. MinĂšs clara cuiquam meridionali seu aequinoctiali et anglicè loquenti. En, theoria crescit! Quoad âut videaturâ clausulam, verbum voce passivâ habe. Ut videatur, oportet Canadianum forĂ s ire, quod saepiĂšs examinis genus est.
The weather is not that bad here, Adriane. You should live here a while so you may unlearn some of those stereotypes.
About using English words for grammar though, I do think it is a bit dull that people accept a latinish word such as feminine that literally means âwomanlyâ for âfeminineâ gender but if we use the actual English word womanly itself it is treated as unacceptable and ridiculous. Why is it acceptable to use another languageâs word for âwomanlyâ but it is treated as not acceptable or inferior if we use our own English word womanly itself?
nearer the Equator
That should be ânear the equatorâ. Near is the comparative of nigh or neigh (as in neigh-bour).
Salve Essorant
I didnât mean to offend you or insult Canada. I have been to Canada and I throw my own country and Aelfricâs into the same Northern stereotype of struggling with the weather.
Iâm with you a 100%, by the way, on using less dull language when it doesnât confuse, but I myself wouldnât insist on archaic usages. Without explanation, that will confuse.
As for âLess clear for an English speaker who lives nearer the Equatorâ being incorrect EnglishâŚ
Certainly, â[It is] Less clear for an English speaker who lives near the Equatorâ is fine, but to say ânearerâ is fine, too, because it carries an extra comparative sense of âcompared to someone elseâ.
I can say âHe who lives longer [than another] eats more [than another]â or âHe who lives long eats more [than he would have had he died sooner]â.
However, you seem to be suggesting that the very word ânearerâ is incorrect English, because ânearâ is itself a comparative. Are you sure you want to say that, if indeed that is what you are saying?
Ego te offendere nolui, vel patriam derogare. Jam fui in Canadâ, et patriam meam unâ cum illâ Aelfrici in eundem fascem astringo, quoad certamen in regionalibus septentrionalibus contra tempestatem.
Obiter, tecum adusquè concurro prae usu vocabulorum minÚs frigidorum cÚm non confundit; ego ipse autem vocabula antiqua in sermone commune non quaero. Confundet si sine explicatione id facies.
Prae verbis anglicè ânearâ et ânearerâ, ânearerâ adjectivum comparativum integrum habeo. Estne benè quod dicis, usum ânearerâ adjectivi illĂŽc soloecismum esse?
Salve,
Iâm with you a 100%, by the way, on using less dull language when it doesnât confuse, but I myself wouldnât insist on archaic usages. Without explanation, that will confuse.
Indeed, when a word is uncouth to people an explanation is needful. But I would argue against trying to shun unnew things in a language that is over 1500 years old. The English language itself is archaic. If you wish to shun thou or deedly because they are archaic by the same principle you ought to shun love, hate, man, word, deed, hand, and generally every other native word of the language for they are just as archaic. All of those words are as old as the English language itself.
What people actually mean is that such words are uncommon. But then they do accept thousands of other words that are from other languages and are just as uncommon. Do we actually use discombobulation, tintinnabulation, and obstreperous more than thou and deedly? I doubt it. But they are easily accepted in our dictionaries today, while a word such as swink, a native word of the English language, is forsaken and treated as if it is a word from another planet.
However, you seem to be suggesting that the very word ânearerâ is incorrect English, because ânearâ is itself a comparative. Are you sure you want to say that, if indeed that is what you are saying?
It is incorrect English because you treated near as a positive and added -er to make it comparative, when it was already a comparative. It is the likeness of saying âmorerâ instead more or âbettererâ instead of better. 
near, adj. (and n.) 7 occurrences of ânearerâ in the entry
near, adv.1 (and prep.) 11 occurrences of ânearerâ in the entry
near, adv.2 (and prep.) 35 occurrences of ânearerâ in the entry
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nearer
Nearer, My God, to Thee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nearer,_My_God,_to_Thee
Adriane
The dictionary accepts quite a few other incorrect things as well.
I see. You will not accept itâs correctness in contemporary usage (over the last 400 years). OK. No problem. Thatâs even more extreme than introducing archaisms. But I understand. Everything is relative and, from your perspective, I teased you and you are teasing me. Nice!
Nunc video. Usum quotidianum (his quattuor saeculis) legitimum esse negas. Licet. Ut velis. In extremis tua notio! Ultra fines est illae ipsae assuetudinis per quam archaismis seu dictis antiquis loquaris. Te autem intellego. Omnia secundum proportiones inter se exstant et, de conspectu tuo, tu me taxas qui te taxavi. Bellum!
I am discombobulated by thy lak of swink. Thou art dansing to the obstreperous tintinnabulations of thine own woyce. For âswinkâ is of very deed in OED. I propose a deedly ende to suich floccinaucinihilipilification!
Tua inopia laboris me commovet. Sonitui verborum tuorum tintinnantum saltas. âSwinkâ enim in OED est. Censeo talem floccinaucinihilipilificationem esse delendam!
You will not accept itâs correctness in contemporary usage (over the last 400 years).
I wouldnât say that. I accept it so far as I accept that people make a mistake. But I donât accept calling it correct just because people
keep making the mistake.
Everything is relativeâŚ
If we were in the philosophy forum I would make muchel ado with that.
I am discombobulated by thy lak of swink. Thou art dansing to the obstreperous tintinnabulations of thine own woyce. For âswinkâ is of very deed in OED. I propose a deedly ende to suich floccinaucinihilipilification!
Soothly one dictionary is better than none, but nis many nor most. And frith, swelt, thester, douth, dwine, tharf, soothfast, behote, forlet, frover, blin, yare, yark, tungle, nesh, swike, kithe, fere, sibsome, arist, swench, lichhame, queam, frood, shalk, swime, thind, tharms, swie, etc. and thousands of others too feal and too unfew to say anon are seldom to see on anymore, for that the dictionaries do away with them to give room to more foreign words, of which many are as eath to say and as behovely as floccinaucinihilipilification!