In LLPSI Cap XXXIII Oberg scribit:
Scitote me omnia quae apud vos fiund cognoscere velle
Latin 501 verbs unusually explains this as a future imperative pl - it doesn’t give a present imperative. Orberg doesn’t explain it at all. Is it really the case that there is no present imperative? 501 verbs doesn’t, from what I can see, provide a future imperative for any other word!!
Is this a typo in 501 verbs.
I don’t think I have ever seen a present imperative for scire but scito and scitote are very commonly found (examples: http://tinyurl.com/6crarhs).
Another very common future imperative is memento - what does 501 Verbs lists for memini I wonder…? Likewise esto.
It’s a shame that future imperative forms are often so neglected in basic Latin textbooks - they are really quite common in Latin, depending on what you are reading. In the world of proverbs, they abound!
It’s not a typo. The “future” imperative is uncommon, but sciō and meminī have only this imperative, as does habeō (according to Gildersleeve) when it means “to know, remember”.
As I understand it, the present imperative expresses a direct order which expects immediate fulfilment, while the future imperative can be made indirectly and expresses something like a prescription governing future behaviour, somewhat in the manner of the ten commandments’ Thou Shalt Not. The reason why the future imperative would be used regularly with the above verbs is presumably that when you command someone to know or remember something, you do not mean for it to be remembered immediately and then forgotten, but for the thing to be held in the mind indefinitely.
Sometimes there is no choice and the imperative is the only form available; in such situations, it does not really make sense to say that the choice of the future imperative form has a “meaning” unto itself. With scito, for example, I do not think I have ever seen a present imperative form. For habere, the present imperative habe is indeed possible; here are examples: http://tinyurl.com/6crarhs - I’m not sure on what basis Gildersleeve could make a claim about the semantic difference between habe and habeto; often the choice between a present imperative and a future imperative is purely formal, having to do with the genre of writing, not with semantics.
Probably the most important difference between the present imperative and the future imperative is that the present imperative only has a second-person form. The future imperative can be second-person or third-person. Salus populi suprema lex esto is an example of a third-person future imperative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_Missouri
The genres in which the future imperative predominates — proverbs, statements of law, recipes (supposedly: I’ve never seen one) — have in common that they state precepts which are thought to hold generally and which are intended to be followed always: Missourians are not to believe that the people’s safety is to be the supreme law today but not tomorrow. I would say there is good reason for thinking that it is the semantic difference between a folded-arm precept and a pointed-finger order which dictates the form in these genres.
If the verbs which regularly take the future imperative variously meant, say, “to itch”, “to eat”, and “to sprout”, I might agree with you that it is a morphological happenstance rather than a matter of semantics, but, since it can’t reasonably be considered coincidental that meminī, sciō, and (if Gildersleeve is right) habeō have such similar meanings, it only makes sense to seek the reason for their shared form in their shared meaning. Admittedly, the reason which I stated for their taking the future imperative was my own speculation and probably wrong, even if I find it satisfying and mnemonically useful. And I certainly don’t think that semantics could be the whole story here, as poets are want to choose words and forms partly for their metrical shape and their musical quality, and all careful authors can be seduced away from the pedant’s correctness by the peculiar ring of a word.
I think you must have linked to the wrong google search there, as it shows results for the query “Horace”, whose existence I don’t need convincing of! Anyway, the Packard Humanities Institute’s site, with its near-exhaustive collection of classical Latin texts and rather lovely concordance feature, is the best venue for such searches now. Here are 117 instances of habē and habēte versus 128 of habētō and habētōte. A search for scī and scīte returns mostly false positives, but on just a quick scan I did spot at least one instance of a present imperative of sciō: Ovid, Met., XV.143, mandere vos vestros scite et sentite colonos.
Singulare in sensu “habeo” verbi deest praesentum tempus modi imperativi, non aliter..
Only in one sense of the verb “habeo” (“to think/consider”), not in the other (“to have”).
He needn’t have mentioned it at all, I think.
Ei non necesse fuit habere verbum attingere, ut opinor.
Plautus is also full of “future” imperatives. I say future in quotes, because I’ve never quite been able to figure the difference out.
Actually…revisiting this on my rapid read through of LLPSI Familia Romana:
Scitote me omnia quae apud vos fiunt cognoscere velle
…I’m not sure what it means!
It would appear to mean: ‘Tell me ((fut. imp. pl.) ( we did establish that it’s future imp. pl. didn’t we - as given in 501 Verbs…?)) everything which has happened where you are that can be wished to be known’.
The trouble is that no where can I see ‘scio’ or any form of it to mean ‘make known’. It is always given as ‘know’. But ‘me’ seems to be an object of ‘scitote’. I can’t figure out the Latin. So does ‘scitote me’ mean ‘make known to me’ or ‘tell me’. ??
“Know that I wish to learn everything [/all things] that is [/are] happening your end.”