Salvete!
Just going through old posts and saw “Volo ut hoc fiat” translated as " want this to happen". Does the Latin sentence act as a purpose clause, and if so, is this a common way of expressing desire?
Thanks,
Einhard.
Salve Einhard
It seems (to me at less) a straightforward purpose clause, yes.
Meâ sententiâ plana actionis clausula est, certé.
…is this a common way of expressing desire?
Yes. Although, in other circumstances you will come across “volo” or “cupio” plus infinitive more frequently (say A&G, §563b)
Iterum. Aliis in locis, autem, (secundum saltem Allen et Greenough) “volo” seu “cupio” cum infinitivo ut formula frequentiùs comperies.
I wouldn’t say that it’s a straightforward purpose clause, though it is still a purpose clause of sorts. The traditional purpose clause is adverbial in nature, which is only natural since in describing the purpose for an action you aren’t saying anything about the action itself, e.g. who or what is performing it (subject), who or what is being produced or acted upon (direct object), or who or what it being indirectly affected (indirect object). This particular sort of purpose clause, on the other hand, is not adverbial in nature but rather nominal, hence it is often called a substantive clause of purpose or, more commonly, a jussive noun clause (so-called because it is found so often with verbs of commanding, urging, and requesting). You can tell the two apart by checking whether the clause can be replaced with a noun and still remain grammatical: if it can be, it’s a substantive clause of purpose, if it cannot, it’s a normal purpose clause.
This sort of construction is not the regular one for volo, which is rather the acc. + infin., but it still may often be found as an alternative. The subjunctive alone can also be used with volo, but that is even rarer yet.
As you say, Imber Ranae, it’s a substantive clause of purpose. I suppose we just differ on what’s a normal or “traditional” purpose clause. Traditionally, an “ut” clause with “volo” is considered a purpose clause! When you say “a purpose clause of sorts”, that suggests some ambiguity or strangeness when there isn’t any,—or at least I can’t see it. Maybe it’s me who’s strange, because I see wishing as purposeful invocation,—like casting a spell.
Ut dicis, Imber Ranae, substantiva actionis clausula. Talem sensum cotidianorum habes qualis genius tibi proprius est. Naturaliter clausula post “ut” cum “volo” sensum actionis invocat. De naturâ illae clausulae ambiguitatem vel novitatem quam suggeres deest,—at ego unus non video. Fortassè ego quidem externus sum qui simile incantationi ergo naturâ actionis votum concipio.
Allen & Greenough, §563 Substantive Clauses of Purpose.
Substantive Clauses of Purpose with ut (negative né) are used as the object of verbs denoting an action directed toward the future.
Such are, verbs meaning to admonish, ask, bargain, command, decree, determine, permit, persuade, resolve, urge, and wish: - [1][Such verbs or verbal phrases are id agó, ad id venió, caveó (né), cénseó, cógó, concédó, cónstituó, cúró, décernó, édícó, flágitó, hortor, imperó, ínstó, mandó, metuó (né). moneó, negótium dó, operam dó, óró, persuádeó, petó, postuló, praecipió, precor, prónúntió, quaeró, rogó, scíscó, timeó (né), vereor (né), videó, voló.]
By the way, what noun would you substitute for “ut hoc fiat”? Maybe a pronoun or adverb is appropriate here. “I wish it” or “I wish so”.
Obiter, quod nomen pro hâc clausulâ pones, “ut hoc fiat” videlicet? Fortassè hic pronomen vel adverbium substituens aptum esse dicas, sicut “Hoc volo” seu “Sic volo”.