How to make a deponent passive?
Rex Caeser
passive form (i.e. to be aquired). How?
Q.
Catiline
>
> rexc...@aol.com (Rex Caeser) writes:
>
> > There are several words in Latin that are deponent that I think *should* have
> > passive form (i.e. to be aquired). How?
>
Rex, while it is commonly said that a deponent "is a passive form with
an active meaning" I personally believe that to be untrue. I am of the
opinion that the average Roman considered deponents to be passive in
meaning, and simply lacking an active form; the problem is that in
English, we have to use an active form in order to translate the Latin.
We sometimes do in English exactly what the Romans did with their
deponents. Take the phrase "I am mistaken." The form is clearly a
passive, but we have the active sense "I made a mistake."
Thomas is correct in saying that there are no forms which can make
"superpassives" of the deponents. But if you will carefully peruse the
finest Latin dictionaries available (in English that would be the Oxford
Latin Dictionary and Lewis & Short) you may find examples of Romans
using deponents in senses which will translate into English passives.
--
I'm sorry. I'll try to behave.
www.ipa.net/~tanker
--
I'm sorry. I'll try to behave.
www.ipa.net/~tanker
Joop Jagers
Rex, while it is commonly said that a deponent "is a passive form with
an active meaning" I personally believe that to be untrue. I am of the
opinion that the average Roman considered deponents to be passive in
meaning, and simply lacking an active form; the problem is that in
English, we have to use an active form in order to translate the Latin.
- Most deponent verbs have a direct object, like "Caesar milites hortatur". This proves unequivocally that the meaning is active.
- The term 'deponent' is coined by Roman grammarians. This shows that this specific category of verbs was considered by Roman linguists to be different from other verbs.
- Some forms are active: present and future participle, future infinitive, which would be very strange if Romans considered the verbs to have a passive meaning.
- In Vulgar Latin and in inscriptions and graffiti active forms like loquit (for loquitur) are not uncommon.
--
Joop Jagers (Eindhoven, NL)
\ \\ // /
( @ @ )
----oOOO----(_)----OOOo-----
Catiline
>
> I disagree for several reasons.
>
> hortatur". This proves unequivocally that the meaning is active.
Gildersleeve & Lodge, section 338: The Accusative of the object
affected sometimes specifies that in respect to which the statement of a
passive or intransitive ver, or an adjective, applies. ...
Compare also Allen & Greenough, section 388a.
I don't think the simple presence of an accusative (a case which has a
wide variety of usages, many unobvious) indicates a sense of "active"
versus "passive."
> * The term 'deponent' is coined by Roman grammarians. This shows
> that this specific category of verbs was considered by Roman
> linguists to be different from other verbs.
Absolutely true. Can anyone give us a citation so that we can see what
the Roman grammarians said?
> * Some forms are active: present and future participle, future
> infinitive, which would be very strange if Romans considered the
> verbs to have a passive meaning.
This is the inverse of the semi-deponents, which are active in the
present and passive in the perfect. I don't think in either case the
active or passive nature of the verb holds contrary to the forms. I
think that an active form carries active meaning, and a passive form a
passive meaning, regardless of which grammatical pigeonhole we have put
it in.
> * In Vulgar Latin and in inscriptions and graffiti active forms
> like loquit (for loquitur) are not uncommon.
If they felt that "loquitur" was active in meaning, then why did they
create an active form for it?
Aloisius Italicus
In my opinion (like many other)
Deponents verbs were in origin
*middle* verbs (grammm. sense) and
as a matter of fact, they had passive form.
Here you are some *relictus* that give strenght
to this possible explanaiton:
Adeptus (< adipiscor) = that has been obtained / that has obtained
comitatus (< comitor) = that has been accompained / that has accompained
Populatus (< populor) = that has been devasted / tha has devasted
Meditatus (< meditor) = that has been meditated / that has meditated
Not much has remained in Latin of the Indoeuropean middle verbs,
(in the Greek the thing is different) but what has remained, survives in
some
way in the deponents verbs.
see any Latin or Indoeuropean historical grammar.
I have to say that i have had some problems in the english translation,
and i don't know if the translation is right, but, i only can say that non
only
in Italian but maybe even in english as Latin loan words (it. prestiti) ,
these words are still
manteining a certain nuance of *middle* sense in the meaning (maybe not
all).
am i right english speakers?
Aloisius Italicus
"Rex Caeser" <rexc...@aol.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:20010529225325...@ng-mq1.aol.com...
Catiline
>
> I have to say that i have had some problems in the english translation,
> and i don't know if the translation is right, but, i only can say that non
> only
> in Italian but maybe even in english as Latin loan words (it. prestiti) ,
> these words are still
> manteining a certain nuance of *middle* sense in the meaning (maybe not
> all).
> am i right english speakers?
English grammar has been overly simple since the days when we spelled it
"Anglisc" and that has forced us to cobble up ways of saying things.
After many decades of trying to make myself understood in this language
(or even SPELL the damn words), I'd say that nuances like "middle"
probably do exist. As someone else, more knowledgeable of formal
English grammar than I am, has pointed out, we even have stative verb
formations, though not so clearly definable in English as in, say,
Hawai'ian.
On the other hand, I am from the South (southeastern US) and the Yankees
(northern US) would say I'm not a native speaker of English.
Aloisius Italicus
do the *yankees" are right ? ;-)
Aloisius
"Catiline" <tan...@ipa.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:3B179658...@ipa.net...
Tommi Ojanperä
> "Anglisc" and that has forced us to cobble up ways of saying things.
This is a joke, right?
English grammar isn't overly simple, it just very different. In other
words, it has developed analytic rather than synthetic features.
The general consensus in the 19th century seemed to be that the
more synthetic a language is, the more advanced, "civilized", and
"elegant" it is. And, conversely, the more analytic a language
is, the more "primitive" it is. So, Chinese was deemed simple because
it is almost completely isolating. On the other hand, the many
Native-American and Eskimo languages that are polysynthetic were
deemed equally or even more "primitive".
The whole simple-or-complex-language debate is actually so old and
boring, I don't know why I'm even talking about it. ;)
Tommi A. Ojanpera <to...@itu.st.jyu.fi>
Jyvaskyla, FINLAND <www.jyu.fi/~tojan>
"Have more than thou showest,
Speak less than thou knowest..."
- William Shakespeare, "King Lear" (I.iv)
Aloisius Italicus
was *sponsorized* by the greatest
commercial (and not only) Empire of the *moment*.
I agree with you as regard the word *Simple*.
Aloisius Italicus
"Tommi Ojanperä" <to...@itu.jyu.fi.REMOVETHIS> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:9faa8d$ie3$1...@mordred.cc.jyu.fi...
Tommi Ojanperä
viestissä:rJ9S6.13941$ZZ.5...@news.infostrada.it...
> I think that the 19th century consensus
> was *sponsorized* by the greatest
> commercial (and not only) Empire of the *moment*.
This, I suppose, is true, but it was also perpetuated by people
no way connected with the British Empire. Actually, I was appalled
to read about the Eskimo languages in a Finnish encyclopaedia
written in the 1970s, only to find the languages described as
"simple and primitive"!
P.S. "Eskimo" is a term that many westerners object to -- mainly
due to its etymology -- but which is preferred by many of the
people to whom it refers.
Tommi A. Ojanpera <to...@itu.st.jyu.fi>
Jyvaskyla, FINLAND <www.jyu.fi/~tojan>
"O man! hold thee on in courage of soul
Through the stormy shades of thy worldly way."
- Percy Bysshe Shelley, "On Death" (ll. 7-8)
Catiline
>
> This is a joke, right?
> English grammar isn't overly simple, it just very different. In other
> words, it has developed analytic rather than synthetic features.
> The general consensus in the 19th century seemed to be that the
No, actually it isn't a joke. Complexity of grammar has little to do
with suppleness of expression. Modern English grammar has very few
forms and constructions, but is capable of great finess in getting
thoughts across.
Or to take an example from computer languages, Machine Language has
incredible simple constructions, and is fully capable of instructing the
machine to do the most complex and breath-taking tasks.
"Simplicity" ought not to be an insult. After all, less is more.
DarthPuck99
>forms and constructions, but is capable of great finess in getting
>thoughts across.
But to get ideas across we constantly break the rules of our language. That's
why it is not simple. English is much harder than other languages- more forms
would actually simplify things because they clarify them better. It seems
strange to native English speakers to conjugate verbs or decline nouns, but if
you were brought up doing that it would make perfect sense.
Catiline
>
> English is much harder than other languages- more forms
> would actually simplify things because they clarify them better. It seems
> strange to native English speakers to conjugate verbs or decline nouns, but if
> you were brought up doing that it would make perfect sense.
Let's take a practical definition of how "simple" or how "hard" a
language is to learn: the length of time required to gain sufficient
understanding of the language to be able to live in a world of native
speakers, if one is permitted unlimited use of a dictionary. Let's also
factor the alphabet out of the equation to simplify terms. And let's be
tolerant of accents. All we want to do is go into a store and buy
something at random or to pass a standardized reading test made up of
journal and newspaper articles.
I truly believe that a working grasp of English grammar can be taught in
a day. Nouns have at most two forms, and some only one. Most verbs
have only two forms in the present, and only one in all other tenses.
The most complex English verb I can think of is "to be" which has only
four forms. The subjunctive in English is dead, except for some old
fairy tales and nursery rhymes. One good day of instruction and you can
make your way on this news group.
That's not to say that you'll be able to get all the finest nuances of
the language. But even that task is sufficiently easy that Joseph
Conrad and Vladimir Nabokov learned the language quickly enough to write
important pieces of English literature after moving from their native
lands and languages. "Heart Of Darkness" and "Lolita" are monuments in
the corpus.
In my experience it takes 40 days, eight work weeks, to learn/teach
classical Greek. Latin takes a little less. Sanskrit takes much
longer. French took me two weeks to learn. Spanish a bit less. German
takes maybe four weeks, maybe less. Italian is impossible to learn;
there are too damn many idioms. Anglo-Saxon (Anglisc) takes about two
weeks.
Hawai'ian is supposed to be a simple language, but takes weeks to learn
even passably well. It's a fiendishly quirky language.
A Ukrainian friend of mine tells me that kids in Kiev take English
because it's considered a "crip" -- an easy course to get good grades
in. Let's see how they do with Finnish.
Opinicus
> > would actually simplify things because they clarify them better. It
seems
> > strange to native English speakers to conjugate verbs or decline nouns,
but if
> > you were brought up doing that it would make perfect sense.
> Let's take a practical definition of how "simple" or how "hard" a
> language is to learn: the length of time required to gain sufficient
> understanding of the language to be able to live in a world of native
> speakers
<soapbox>
All natural human languages are of equal simplicity and of equal
difficulty. This is proven by the well-established observation that all
human infants acquire their native language in the same sequence and in the
same amount of time.
When people speak about "Language X being easier/harder/simpler/more
complex/less complex" (or whatever) "than Language Y" what they're really
talking about is the relative proximity of the languages to "Language Z",
which is their own, native language.
English is relatively easier for a German-speaker to learn than (say)
Mandarin Chinese because the first two languages share more things in
common (similar grammatical categories and structures, cognate vocabulary,
etc) with each other than they do with the third. A speaker of Algonquin
finds English or German just as hard to learn as he does Turkish.
Arguments over languages' complexity, precision, superiority are
linguistically meaningless and intellectually pointless.
</soapbox>
--
Bob
Foça, Turkey
---
Kanyak's Doghouse <http://www.geocities.com/kanyak.geo>
ior
"Opinicus" <gez...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:thq1kbt...@news.supernews.com...
> <soapbox>
> All natural human languages are of equal simplicity and of equal
> difficulty. This is proven by the well-established observation that all
> human infants acquire their native language in the same sequence and in
the
> same amount of time.
I'm interested in references to proofs of these assertions (as in truth they
sound to me suspiciously like "politically correct propaganda" - this
doesn't mean they are of course, and it may show that I'm a bit paranoid,
but
it does prompt me to ask) ?
> Arguments over languages' complexity, precision, superiority are
> linguistically meaningless and intellectually pointless.
Could you elaborate what you mean by "linguistically meaningless" ?
I'm unclear what the adverb linguistically contributes to the phrase,
or what meaning I should realize from the phrase as a whole.
ior
"ior" <i...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9fophd$m10$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> "Opinicus" <gez...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:thq1kbt...@news.supernews.com...
> > <soapbox>
> > All natural human languages are of equal simplicity and of equal
> > difficulty. This is proven by the well-established observation that all
> > human infants acquire their native language in the same sequence and in
> the
> > same amount of time.
Oops - I think I was tricked by specious reasoning - I should know better.
Even if we pretend for a moment that all infants acquire equal fluency in
their first language in equal amounts of time, this hardly demonstrates that
all languages are of equal difficulty for the adult learner acquiring a
second
language - it was rather foolish of me to fall for this trick...
In any case, I think he missed one of the key points of Catiline's
example --
that he was not discussing the acquisition of vocabulary, but the learning
of the grammatical rules of the language - and seems implausible to me that
anyone who knows even a handful of languages is likely to think they are
all of equal difficulty in grammar...
Catiline
> > difficulty. This is proven by the well-established observation that all
> > human infants acquire their native language in the same sequence and in
> the
> > same amount of time.
>
> I'm interested in references to proofs of these assertions (as in truth they
> sound to me suspiciously like "politically correct propaganda" - this
> doesn't mean they are of course, and it may show that I'm a bit paranoid,
> but
> it does prompt me to ask) ?
>
> > Arguments over languages' complexity, precision, superiority are
> > linguistically meaningless and intellectually pointless.
>
> Could you elaborate what you mean by "linguistically meaningless" ?
> I'm unclear what the adverb linguistically contributes to the phrase,
> or what meaning I should realize from the phrase as a whole.
Opinicus impresses me as being a follower of Noam Chomsky. Am I right,
Opinicus? Or are you in another school on this subject?
Opinicus
news:3B2038B5...@ipa.net...
> Opinicus impresses me as being a follower of Noam Chomsky. Am I right,
Opinicus?
Not really...
> Or are you in another school on this subject?
Yes. It's called "The Eclectic School of Hard Knocks Acquired from Having
Studied Chomsky and then Taught ESL (and some Latin) Overseas for Three
Decades".
(To adults AND children, by the way.)
That experience certainly shows that it's easier to teach English (grammar
and vocabulary) to a Dane or a Nederlander than it is to a Turk or an Arab.
Now why should that be? Is it because Turkish is harder than Dutch? Or
perhaps because Arabic is less complex than Danish?
By the way, all this is terribly off-topic for alt.language.latin. If
anyone seriously wants to contend that "Human Language X is more
{attribute} than Human Language Y", let him hie himself unto sci.lang and
assert himself there, for it is thickly populated with nice people who will
delight in setting him straight.
Thomas Maher
-Thomas Maher
Catiline
>
> What does Noam Chomsky have to do with this?
As Opinicus points out, this is all straying from the original thread.
I just thought that his opinions might have been based on Chomsky's
notions of underlying, unspoken language. That's all.
Opinicus makes clear that Chomsky actually has nothing to do with
himself.
George Partlow
Opinicus wrote:
> If
> anyone seriously wants to contend that "Human Language X is more
> {attribute} than Human Language Y", let him hie himself unto sci.lang and
> assert himself there, for it is thickly populated with nice people who will
> delight in setting him straight.
Starting, of course, with Peter T. Daniels, the Chief Nice Person?
LOL!
(Translation for the iron-impaired: wear your flame-proof underwear if
you decide to follow Opinicus's advice... or (obLatin) CAVEAT AUCTOR!)
