I understand the participles like datus or auditus have passive meanings.
But what about the participles of intransitive verbs?
For example, adventus est.
How can this have a passive meaning?
What does it mean?
Other examples:
ambulatus est
dormitus est
itus est
exspectatus est
factus est
fugitus est
laboratus est
ruatus est
sessus est
status est
ventus est
victus est
Thanks,
David
Such phrases are really not translatable into English. Authors such as Vergil used such passive verbs to emphasize the action within the sentence. The subject is many times an impersonal “it.”
These are all impersonal passives, which, as vir litterarum notes, emphasize the action. However, I’m afraid that your source must be incorrect, because impersonal constructions are by their nature neuter – that is, impersonal (not masculine or feminine). Thus, “adventum est,” “ambulatum est,” etc.
Here’s an example:
in campis oppidisque pugnatum est - there was fighting [literally, “it was fought”] in the fields and the towns.
The impersonal passive is especially common with intransitive verbs like noceo, placeo, etc, which cannot take an object. So “mihi nocitum est” means “I was hurt” though literally, of course, it says “it was hurt to me.” Compare such impersonal verbs as liceo, which is sometimes used in the passive perfect as “licitum est.”
-David
Hi.
Neither of the 2 replies really addressed the question.
The example with “pugnatum est” is treating “fighting” as a noun.
The other reply with it can’t be translated confused me.
There are indeed examples with “adventus est”, as in:
…quod signum Dominici adventus est
Check out a full conjugation here:
http://www.verbix.com/cache/webverbix/9.advenio.shtml
What the devil does “adventus sum” mean?
David
David,
I don’t think you quite understood the above replies. Let me try to un-complicate matters.
‘pugnatum’ est: pugnatum is definitely not a noun here, it is the neuter singular perfect passive indicative of ‘pugnare’, meaning ‘there was fighting’, or more literally in german (it’s not really possible to translate it as such into english) ‘es ist gekämpft worden’ or ‘man hat gekämpft’.
the others are indeed right by asserting that intransitive verbs like ‘advenire’ simply can’t be passive in the way you provided (only impersonal with the neuter). The ‘adventus’ you quoted from the vulgate (I presume) looks more like a genitive singular noun to me, making the following sentence:
‘quod signum Dominici adventus est’
‘which is the sign of the coming of the Lord’.
‘adventus, -us’ can be a masculine noun of the fourth declension.
Thanks, Julianus, for clarifying our points.
By the way it’s a little misleading to say that constructions like “pugnatum est” (impersonal passive) can’t be translated. Rather, English does not contain that type of construction so we cannot translate the grammar directly while still retaining sense.
Regards,
David
PS - Why does the verb conjugation site you mention offer a “complete” listing of the passive forms of aduenio? That’s kind of ridiculous! As far as I know, the only passive forms of intransitive verbs that you’ll ever need to know are the third personal singular - i.e., the impersonal forms.
writing “it has been come” is not proper, so the translator would have to interpret the emphasis and rearrange it into a syntactically acceptable construction, a process which would involve interpretation as well as translation;hence, you could not translate such verbs without also augmenting them with some personal interpretation of the author’s intent.
a process which would involve interpretation as well as translation
What?! Translation IS interpretation! Until we find two languages that have identical grammars and identical lexicons except for sounds, that is, word for word correspondence where only the pronunciations differ, there will always be interpretation. Surely you don’t think that the best “translation” of “arma uirumque cano” is “I sing the arms and the man”? In which case translation means some mechanical conversion of one language’s grammar into recognized forms in the other language, the conversion of one language’s words into their closest equivalent. THAT is not translation of the text–it is degradation.
David
each individual word within “arma virumque cano” is translatable. I agree poetry is not translatable, but each individual word can be translated without the others without interpretation. I am stating that the impersonal construction to which this query refers, whether it is isolated or not, cannot be translated. “cano” means “I sing”, but you cannot truly explain “adventum est” by saying “it has been come.” I was referring to constructions like the retained indicative or subjunctive in Greek which also are not translatable. You are referring to literature, while I am referring to grammar.
By the way it’s a little misleading to say that constructions like “pugnatum est” (impersonal passive) can’t be translated.
I didn’t mean to open up Pandora’s box here. Remember, though, I didn’t say the phrase simply couldn’t be translated:
it’s not really possible to translate it > as such > into english
What I meant to say is, the grammatical construction has no real equivalent (that is the impersonal use) in English - which it does in German and Dutch, for instance. (Except for maybe phrases like ‘it’s raining/snowing, etc.’)
Obviously it can be translated, but I was talking about the grammar specifically in this case, which in English cannot be rendered the exact same way.
Thanks for all the replies.
The link I gave wasn’t mine.
I think verbix.com has conjugations for a whole bunch of languages.
I’ve seen it quite a bit.
I don’t know why they showed conjugations for the perfect participle of intransitive verbs.
Nonetheless, I’ve been reading Richie’s Fabulae Faciles and I rememebr coming across some similary examples.
I’ll have to give it a reread and post the sentence I find.
David
verbix.com gives passive forms for sum:
http://verbix.com/cache/webverbix/9.sum.shtml
Need I say more?
Hi Julianus,
Sorry for the confusion. I think we’re actually saying the same thing!
You said:
What I meant to say is, the grammatical construction has no real equivalent (that is the impersonal use) in English
I said:
Rather, English does not contain that type of construction so we cannot translate the grammar directly while still retaining sense.
My comment was intended to respond to vir litterarum’s original post:
He said:
Such phrases are really not translatable into English.
I understand your point, vir litterarum, but I’d like to make one last comment on this:
but each individual word can be translated without the others without interpretation.
For me, this is word substitution, not translation. For instance, cano in Latin means sing, just like English, but it is also used in a specialized way for poetic utterance, which really isn’t “singing” at all. So we can “translate” the phrase directly, but (for me) that isn’t translation. Maybe we can call it grammar translation instead of literary translation, but I like to think of translation as the attempt to transfer as much as the artistry and the meaning of the original into the target language. But your point is taken.
Magistra said:
verbix.com gives passive forms for sum:
Yes, and that’s not all - present participle - sens, sentis ?!?! if anything, this should be essens (hence, essentia). gerundive - esendum?!! Who came up with this stuff? Possibly the weirdest Latin misinformation I’ve ever seen.
Regards,
David
When I posted this a while back I promised I would read through Fabulae Faciles and post the sentences I found using an intransitive verb and a participle.
24: Fourth Labor: The Erymanthian Boar
Postquam in silvam paulum progressus est, apro occurit.
Ok, so here we have a real example of a participle and an intransitive verb.
What does it mean and why is it not in the grammar books?
David
“Progredior, progredi, progressus sum”
is a third-conjugation deponent verb that means “go forward”.
Therefore, in your sentence, “progressus est” is actually the third personal singular perfect ACTIVE of this verb, litterally means “he went forward”.
Maybe you already knew, that a deponent verb is passive in format but active in meaning. I think that is in every Latin grammar book.