supine as 4th principal part

[j***@gmail.com]

A reference I use quite often,
"501 Latin Verbs", gives the supine as the fourth "principal part"
for each verb. e.g.

amo amare amavi amatum

Considering how unimportant the supine is compared to the
past participle passive, ppp, why is it listed as a PRINCIPAL
part? The ppp would seem to serve functionally every bit
as well as the supine and makes more sense as it is
used way more often.

I know that I raise a minor point here, but, since Latin is
"dead", ........well...........
why not?

[John W Kennedy]

Post by j***@gmail.com
A reference I use quite often,
"501 Latin Verbs", gives the supine as the fourth "principal part"
for each verb. e.g.
amo amare amavi amatum
Considering how unimportant the supine is compared to the
past participle passive, ppp, why is it listed as a PRINCIPAL
part? The ppp would seem to serve functionally every bit
as well as the supine and makes more sense as it is
used way more often.
I know that I raise a minor point here, but, since Latin is
"dead", ........well...........
why not?

Some verbs do not have a perfect passive participle, but do have a
supine, e.g., manēre. Of course, some lack both, but still have a future
active participle. There is no perfect answer.

[Ed Cryer]

Post by j***@gmail.com
A reference I use quite often,
"501 Latin Verbs", gives the supine as the fourth "principal part"
for each verb. e.g.
amo amare amavi amatum
Considering how unimportant the supine is compared to the
past participle passive, ppp, why is it listed as a PRINCIPAL
part? The ppp would seem to serve functionally every bit
as well as the supine and makes more sense as it is
used way more often.
I know that I raise a minor point here, but, since Latin is
"dead", ........well...........
why not?

Good point. I suspect the history of Latin from its earliest days
through to classical will explain more; no doubt showing the original
far greater use of the supine, and deteriorating as other verbal usages
took over. But I have some points.

1. I think it's true that the supine always gives you the past
participle passive; which is declined as a noun. But the supine has
further uses; and some verbs have a supine but no ppp.
2. The gerund took over some supine functions; eg "amando" for "amatu".
This left only certain archaic stock uses, eg "mirabile dictu", "dulce
auditu", "nefas dictu".
3. Future passive usage (eg Aiunt urbem captum iri) could be more
stylishly rephrased "Aiunt fore ut urbs capiatur" or even "Aiunt urbem
capturam esse".
4. The use with verbs of motion to express purpose stayed well into
classical times, but faded later. Eg Horace's Lusum it Maecenas,
dormitum ego (M goes to play, I to sleep). Other ways of saying this
took over later; ad ludendum, ut ludat.

I feel that the standard way of giving supine as 4th "principal part"
still applies and should be so termed. It always gives you the ppp and
it has wider use.

Ed

[B. T. Raven]

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by j***@gmail.com
A reference I use quite often,
"501 Latin Verbs", gives the supine as the fourth "principal part"
for each verb. e.g.
amo amare amavi amatum
Considering how unimportant the supine is compared to the
past participle passive, ppp, why is it listed as a PRINCIPAL
part? The ppp would seem to serve functionally every bit
as well as the supine and makes more sense as it is
used way more often.
I know that I raise a minor point here, but, since Latin is
"dead", ........well...........
why not?

Good point. I suspect the history of Latin from its earliest days
through to classical will explain more; no doubt showing the original
far greater use of the supine, and deteriorating as other verbal usages
took over. But I have some points.
1. I think it's true that the supine always gives you the past
participle passive; which is declined as a noun. But the supine has
further uses; and some verbs have a supine but no ppp.
2. The gerund took over some supine functions; eg "amando" for "amatu".
This left only certain archaic stock uses, eg "mirabile dictu", "dulce
auditu", "nefas dictu".
3. Future passive usage (eg Aiunt urbem captum iri) could be more
stylishly rephrased "Aiunt fore ut urbs capiatur" or even "Aiunt urbem
capturam esse".

This last one is active however: They say the city is going to capture
.... something.

Post by Ed Cryer
4. The use with verbs of motion to express purpose stayed well into
classical times, but faded later. Eg Horace's Lusum it Maecenas,
dormitum ego (M goes to play, I to sleep). Other ways of saying this
took over later; ad ludendum, ut ludat.
I feel that the standard way of giving supine as 4th "principal part"
still applies and should be so termed. It always gives you the ppp and
it has wider use.
Ed

[Ed Cryer]

Post by B. T. Raven

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by j***@gmail.com
A reference I use quite often,
"501 Latin Verbs", gives the supine as the fourth "principal part"
for each verb. e.g.
amo amare amavi amatum
Considering how unimportant the supine is compared to the
past participle passive, ppp, why is it listed as a PRINCIPAL
part? The ppp would seem to serve functionally every bit
as well as the supine and makes more sense as it is
used way more often.
I know that I raise a minor point here, but, since Latin is
"dead", ........well...........
why not?

Good point. I suspect the history of Latin from its earliest days
through to classical will explain more; no doubt showing the original
far greater use of the supine, and deteriorating as other verbal usages
took over. But I have some points.
1. I think it's true that the supine always gives you the past
participle passive; which is declined as a noun. But the supine has
further uses; and some verbs have a supine but no ppp.
2. The gerund took over some supine functions; eg "amando" for "amatu".
This left only certain archaic stock uses, eg "mirabile dictu", "dulce
auditu", "nefas dictu".
3. Future passive usage (eg Aiunt urbem captum iri) could be more
stylishly rephrased "Aiunt fore ut urbs capiatur" or even "Aiunt urbem
capturam esse".

This last one is active however: They say the city is going to capture
.... something.

Yes. My mistake. But when you look at "urbem captum iri" you see the
problem for a native speaker. "Urbem" (feminine), "captum" (not
feminine); which promotes alternatives.

What would you say to something like "Aiunt urbi captum iri"? Perhaps as
a "dative of person concerned".

Ed