In Pensa A Capitulum XXIII Orberg habet:
Aemilia putat Marcum a Iulio verberatum iri, sed Iulius ‘se epistulam scripturum esse’.
‘Verberatum’ supinum est sed hic passivum est…? Quo modo?
Num habemus: ‘Aemilia putat Iulium Marcum verberatum iri…’ Estne Supinum activium vel passivum?
Supinum ipsum neque activum nec passivum est - nil est nisi ipsum supinum.
“Iri” enim passivum est. “Iri” cum supino iunctum constituit infinitivum futurum passivum.
OK…but leaving aside the future …if
is how I say I came to Rome to hear Marcus
How do I say (using supine) I came to Rome to be heard by Marcus?
Is passive indicated by ablative ‘ab…Marco’ on its own..?
Roman looks like a Greek accusative - it should be Romam. I would have ignored it as a typo, but you did it twice in this post.
You can’t. With an active verb of motion, it denotes the action that the subject will be doing, as the purpose of motion. With iri, it denotes what will happen to the subject, but with no indication of purpose. Those are the only two uses of the supine in -um.
Romam veni Marcum auditum - “I came to Rome in order to hear Marcus.”
Aemilia putat Marcum a Iulio verberatum iri - “Aemilia thinks Marcus is about to be beaten by Julius.”
Romam veni ut a Marco audirem.
I think you might put it in this way: // Sic id convertatur, ut conjecto:
Romam veni me a Marco auditum
“Mundus it se perditum” = does that mean // significatne “The world is going to destroy itself” or “The world is going to be destroyed”?
Thank you both…yes Roman was a typo… I meant Romam of course…Thanks for your guidance…
Hm, I won’t rule this out, but I would really have to see a Classical example to accept it. Romam veni me auditum - “I came to Rome to hear myself”. It seems to me that a Marco would just confuse things.
“Mundus it se perditum” > = does that mean // > significatne > “The world is going to destroy itself” or “The world is going to be destroyed”?
I would take it as “the world is going to destroy itself”, but I’m open-minded. Where is that from?
Cicero, A&G §509:
“si sciret se trucidatum iri (Div. ii 22), If he (Pompey) had known that he was going to be murdered [Rare except in Cicero…]”
“Mundus it se perditum” ex operibus Joannis Calvani, _http://archive.org/stream/ioanniscalvinio04reusgoog/ioanniscalvinio04reusgoog_djvu.txt_
“quandoquidem ipsus perditum se it” (Plautus, Truculentus, 2.7)
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3isUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA444&lpg=PA444&dq=“perditum+se+it”&source=bl&ots=Tm_yJxtf9f&sig=1alIDlVxGJTAMIbj-7hHnCTaKLo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Syd7T_zzDaSt0QXou82RCQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=“perditum%20se%20it”&f=false
That has iri, though, marking it as a future passive infinitive, with no notion of purpose.
That’s interesting that it’s rare outside of Cicero - I didn’t realize that.
Yes, it’s as you say, Sceptra Tenens, and “me a Marco auditum” is just a muddle.
Est ut dicis, Sceptra Tenens, et falsum sic construere: “me a Marco auditum”