missing future infinitive

[Richard Sere]

How can one know if a verb lacks a future infinitive? Do they fall into a
categorie or type?

Thanks

RS

[Ed Cryer]

Post by Richard Sere
How can one know if a verb lacks a future infinitive? Do they fall into a
categorie or type?
Thanks
RS

What's a future infinitive? The best I can make of this is something like
"facturus esse".
This uses the present infinitive "esse" with a future participle formed from
the supine of a verb.
Placiturus esse.
Missurus esse.
Venturus esse.

The participle has to agree with the subject in gender, case and number.

So I guess that you take the supine, change the ending to "urus" etc.

N.B. Futurum, the future.

Ed

[Richard Sere]

Post by Ed Cryer
What's a future infinitive? The best I can make of this is something like
"facturus esse".
This uses the present infinitive "esse" with a future participle formed from
the supine of a verb.
Placiturus esse.
Missurus esse.
Venturus esse.
The participle has to agree with the subject in gender, case and number.
So I guess that you take the supine, change the ending to "urus" etc.
N.B. Futurum, the future.

Bradley's Arnold says " When the verb in a dependent statement is an active
one which has no future infintive, Latin is compelled to use 'futurum esse'
or 'fore' with the subjunctive of the verb concerened introduced by 'ut'.


My question is how does one know when this construction is necessary? Are
there specific types or groups of verbs which 'want the Supine and the
participle in -rus?'

[Edwin Menes]

The verbs missing a future infinitive do not fall into any category or
grouping, either formal or semantic. Any verb that doesn't have a
fourth principal part (third, if deponent) will lack a future
infinitive.

This reminds me that when I was learning Latin, I was taught to use the
participle instead of the supine for the fourth principal part, -us
instead of -um. For intransitive verbs, we used -urus instead of -us.
This became handy in two ways. First, there are verbs which are
intransitive in Latin (like pugno) but transitive in English, and we
knew early on not to try to make passive forms of them. Second, it
warned us off some verbs in the ordinary sort of ablative absolute
(hence no howlers like 'Londinio pervento' for 'having arrived at
London').

[Ed Cryer]

Post by Richard Sere

Post by Ed Cryer
What's a future infinitive? The best I can make of this is something like
"facturus esse".
This uses the present infinitive "esse" with a future participle formed from
the supine of a verb.
Placiturus esse.
Missurus esse.
Venturus esse.
The participle has to agree with the subject in gender, case and number.
So I guess that you take the supine, change the ending to "urus" etc.
N.B. Futurum, the future.

Bradley's Arnold says " When the verb in a dependent statement is an active
one which has no future infintive, Latin is compelled to use 'futurum esse'
or 'fore' with the subjunctive of the verb concerened introduced by 'ut'.
My question is how does one know when this construction is necessary? Are
there specific types or groups of verbs which 'want the Supine and the
participle in -rus?'

Latin isn't English. I'll repeat that for better effect. Latin isn't
English.
When a native speaker of Latin spoke, he wasn't translating. He wasn't
wondering "How will I say this? How will I say that?". His expression was
unmediated.
When you speak English, are you translating? Are you measuring things
against some kind of background?
I'll answer that for you. No!

If you find some area where Latin is different from English, don't blame
Latin-speakers. it's not their fault. They weren't deficient in any sense.
Their language was their window on life. Their first-take.

Studying Latin isn't a question of "How will I say this? How will I say
that?".
There were real people who lived; on this planet. They did things, wondered
about things, died. And tried to provide for their children.

God bless them! They knew no better.

Ed

[Richard Sere]

Post by Ed Cryer
Latin isn't English. I'll repeat that for better effect. Latin isn't
English.
When a native speaker of Latin spoke, he wasn't translating. He wasn't
wondering "How will I say this? How will I say that?". His expression was
unmediated.
When you speak English, are you translating? Are you measuring things
against some kind of background?
I'll answer that for you. No!
If you find some area where Latin is different from English, don't blame
Latin-speakers. it's not their fault. They weren't deficient in any sense.
Their language was their window on life. Their first-take.
Studying Latin isn't a question of "How will I say this? How will I say
that?".

I'm sorry if I have offended you and other readers. It was not my impression
that the two langauges had to be identical. In fact, the many differences
between Latin and English, not to meniton between the other languages I have
studied, are what entertain me the most.

Earlier today I came across a line in Cicero that made me smile because of
what a writer like Cicero could do with his own language and how very
different it is from my way of thinking.

Tusculanae Disputationes II, 45 Nunc ego non possum tantum hominem nihil
sapere dicere... [This is in reference to Epicurus' philosophy on pain.]

I came across this passage only a day after doing the Bradley's Arnold
exercises on the accusative with infinitive with 'verba sentiendi ac
declarandi'. It was wonderful to find this example of a real text where a
Roman used a structure I am trying to learn in his own language and not in
some exercise contrived to teach me composition.

This entire thread started with my asking a question that wasn't worded as
clearly as possible due to my newness to the game. I have been studying
Latin for almost a year. I was afraid that I had missed something in
Wheelock's or Bennet's grammars that told me how to anticipate why or when a
verb would not have a fourth principal part. Unfortunately, it didn't come
out that way.

This newsgroup had helped me a great deal, this past week more than ever,
since I have been posting my translations of the exercises. Thanks again to
Mr Casey and Mr Menes who have responded each time.

[robert zisk]

Post by Richard Sere
I was afraid that I had missed something in
Wheelock's or Bennet's grammars that told me how to anticipate why or when a
verb would not have a fourth principal part. Unfortunately, it didn't come
out that way.

You have't missed anything. Beyond learning the parts of verbs from either
a good glossary to a text or from a good lexicon, there is no rule.
Unfortunately the only guiding principle would seem to be the ever unpopular
bludgeon of memory.

I too, by the way, am fond of Tusculanae Disputationes. In many ways I think
this little treatise shows Cicero at his best. The prose, always well
crafted, often transports itself into true grandeur and sublimity, revealing
an intensity and kind of gravitas that, perhaps, is of necessity foreign to
the forensic works.

Bob

[Ed Cryer]

Post by Richard Sere

Post by Ed Cryer
Latin isn't English. I'll repeat that for better effect. Latin isn't
English.
When a native speaker of Latin spoke, he wasn't translating. He wasn't
wondering "How will I say this? How will I say that?". His expression was
unmediated.
When you speak English, are you translating? Are you measuring things
against some kind of background?
I'll answer that for you. No!
If you find some area where Latin is different from English, don't blame
Latin-speakers. it's not their fault. They weren't deficient in any sense.
Their language was their window on life. Their first-take.
Studying Latin isn't a question of "How will I say this? How will I say
that?".

I'm sorry if I have offended you and other readers. It was not my impression
that the two langauges had to be identical. In fact, the many differences
between Latin and English, not to meniton between the other languages I have
studied, are what entertain me the most.
Earlier today I came across a line in Cicero that made me smile because of
what a writer like Cicero could do with his own language and how very
different it is from my way of thinking.
Tusculanae Disputationes II, 45 Nunc ego non possum tantum hominem nihil
sapere dicere... [This is in reference to Epicurus' philosophy on pain.]
I came across this passage only a day after doing the Bradley's Arnold
exercises on the accusative with infinitive with 'verba sentiendi ac
declarandi'. It was wonderful to find this example of a real text where a
Roman used a structure I am trying to learn in his own language and not in
some exercise contrived to teach me composition.
This entire thread started with my asking a question that wasn't worded as
clearly as possible due to my newness to the game. I have been studying
Latin for almost a year. I was afraid that I had missed something in
Wheelock's or Bennet's grammars that told me how to anticipate why or when a
verb would not have a fourth principal part. Unfortunately, it didn't come
out that way.
This newsgroup had helped me a great deal, this past week more than ever,
since I have been posting my translations of the exercises. Thanks again to
Mr Casey and Mr Menes who have responded each time.

No offence. I was labouring a point about "meaning". You were talking about
syntax and grammar.

Meaning never transcends a particular language. To translate a sentence from
one language to another adds nothing to the meaning. Meaning is an internal
phenomenon, understood by the language users.

We can guide you with good grammar, acceptable syntax, regular idioms etc.
For "meaning" you will have to turn to philosophy. But bear in mind, even
there, that a language's frontiers are its cultural and meaning frontiers.

(This is, of course, unless you think that there is some primary language;
one that incorporates the basic structure of the world better than the rest)

Ed

[atypus]

I wrote my message before I saw yours posted.

You quote Bradley's Arnold: can you give a reference? (The "New Impression"
which I have is dated 1953).

The fact is that there is no such thing as a self-contained, one-word
"Future Infinitive" in Classical Latin. (FORE is a strange bit of an
obsolete word, though it was quite useful). Greek has Future Infinitives
Active, Middle and Passive, where appropriate to the meaning. Latin has none
of these in Classical usage.

Where there seemed to be a need, a "periphrastic" construction was used: the
Future Participle + ESSE (active) or the Supine + IRI (Passive).

Latin has quite a few other bits which are puzzlingly missing, so do not
worry too much about the future infinitive. There is not, for example, a
Future Passive Participle, as there is in Greek, so there is no single word
to express "on the point of being killed". Rather more surprisingly, there
is no Active Perfect Participle (except from Deponent Verbs). This is much
more of a nuisance, and helps to explain the popularity of the clumsy
Ablative Absolute.

[Richard Sere]

Post by atypus
I wrote my message before I saw yours posted.
You quote Bradley's Arnold: can you give a reference? (The "New Impression"
which I have is dated 1953).

Mine is from 1963; it's green. The bit I quoted is from #38 in Exercise VI.

[Edwin Menes]

Bradley's Arnold has not been revised since 1938. Each subsequent
'edition' is, in fact, a reprint.

[robert zisk]

Post by Richard Sere
My question is how does one know when this construction is necessary? Are
there specific types or groups of verbs which 'want the Supine and the
participle in -rus?'

For an indirect answer, See Gildersleeve 115.3"

3. The infinite parts of the verb are formed by the addition of the
following endings to the stems:

Infinitive. (Active) pr. -re, pf. -isse, fut. -turum, esse. The future
passive infinitive adds -tum, iri.

In 531 Gildersleeve indicates that this future periphrastic is used with
verbs which lack future participle and supine. From this one might conclude
that this construction shoud be applied to verbs which lack the fourth
principle part, the supine. I would highly recommend reading this section of
Gildersleeve which not only is very clear, but which is also very thorough
in that it lists avariety of exceptions and alternative constructions.

Incidentally, whether the so called infinitive consists of one word or two
is irrelevant. The compounds of the infinitive actually should serve to
remind us that the roots of the infinitive are in verbal substantives, and
that it is a much later, though not altogether accurate convention, which
treats them as verba agentia.

Bob

Bob

[atypus]

"Future Infinitives" are possibly a a category devised artificially by later
observers. The concept is still useful for us whose natural language cannot
be Latin.

The "Future Infinitive Active" consists of the declinable Future Participle
plus "esse", so its appearance will alter in different circumstances. "We
(girls) said that we would go to Rome" is DIXIMVS NOS ROMAM ITVRAS ESSE.

The "Future Infinitive Passive" is constructed out of the Supine of the verb
(in the Accusative case), plus a Passive Infinitive of the verb "go" (used
impersonally). It will always look the same. So "We thought that we would be
beaten" is something like PVTABAMVS NOS VICTVM IRI", whoever is speaking.

atypus

Post by Ed Cryer

Post by Richard Sere
How can one know if a verb lacks a future infinitive? Do they fall into a
categorie or type?
Thanks
RS

What's a future infinitive? The best I can make of this is something like
"facturus esse".
This uses the present infinitive "esse" with a future participle formed from
the supine of a verb.
Placiturus esse.
Missurus esse.
Venturus esse.
The participle has to agree with the subject in gender, case and number.
So I guess that you take the supine, change the ending to "urus" etc.
N.B. Futurum, the future.
Ed