#is it referring to the noun? or is it modifying it? it's modifying a pronoun as far as i can tell

[perpetual-stories]

Common Grammar Mistakes: Part 1

Hello, hello. It’s me coming back at ya with another segment of grammar basics. Last time I posted about grammar, I had talked about punctuation. This time I will be going over common grammar mistakes that writers often make. Plus it’s been a while since I’ve posted about grammar.

1. Run-on Sentences and Comma Splices

Run-on sentences are known to be sentences that combine independent clauses without punctuation or the right conjunction needed.

Comma splices are known to be similar to run-on sentences but instead uses commas to combine two clauses that have no appropriate conjunction.

I know, I sometimes fall victim to comma splices.

Fixing a run-on sentence or a comma splice can be done in five methods.

Sentence example: Rachel is very smart, she began reading when she was three years old.

Solution 1: Separate the clauses into two sentences: Rachel is very smart. She began reading when she was three years old.

Solution 2: Replace the comma with a semicolon (my favorite one): Rachel is very smart; she began reading when she was three years old.

Solution 3: Replace the comma with a coordinating conjunction: “Rachel is very smart, for she began reading when she was three years old.”

Solution 4: Replace the comma with a subordinating conjunction. “Rachel is very smart because she began reading when she was three years old.”

Solution 5: Replace the comma with a semicolon and transitional word or phrase. “Rachel is very smart; as a result, she began reading when she was three years old.”

Pronoun Disagreement

Some of the most common grammar mistakes are pronoun errors. They occur when pronouns do not agree in number with the nouns to which they refer. If the noun is singular, the pronoun must be singular. If the noun is plural, the pronoun must be plural as well. For example:

Incorrect: “Every girl must bring their own lunch.

Correct: “Every girl must bring her own lunch.”

Pronoun errors are common in modern English, as writers try to avoid awkward phrasing or the implication of sexist language. Although this is an admirable goal, it is still important to learn the correct grammar and use it in more formal situations.

Mistakes in Apostrophe Usage

Apostrophes are used to show possession. However, you do not use an apostrophe after a possessive pronoun such as my, mine, our, ours, his, hers, its, their, or theirs. For example:

Incorrect: “My mothers cabin is next to his' cabin.”

Correct: “My mother's cabin is next to his cabin.”

In the case of it's, the apostrophe is used only to indicate a contraction for “it is.” For example:

Incorrect: “Its a cold day for October.”

Correct: “It's a cold day for October.”

Lack of Subject-Verb Agreement

Confusion over subject-verb agreement can be the source of many grammatical errors. When speaking or writing in the present tense, a sentence must have subjects and verbs that agree in number. If the subject is singular, the verb must be singular. If the subject is plural, the verb must be plural as well. For example:

Incorrect: “These recipes is good for beginning chefs.”

Correct: “These recipes are good for beginning chefs.”

Misplaced Modifiers

To clearly communicate your ideas, you should place a modifier directly next to the word it is supposed to modify. The modifier should clearly refer to a specific word in the sentence. Misplaced modifiers can create confusion and ambiguity. For example:

Incorrect: “At eight years old, my father gave me a pony for Christmas.”

Correct: “When I was eight years old, my father gave me a pony for Christmas.”

Sentence Fragments

Sentence fragments are also common grammar mistakes. A sentence needs to have a subject and a verb. A fragment often happens after another related idea has been expressed. For example:

Incorrect: “Sharon stayed home from school the other day. Because she was sick.”

Correct: “Sharon stayed home from school the other day because she was sick.”

Missing Comma in a Compound Sentence

A compound sentence expresses two complete and related ideas, and it usually includes a conjunction to connect these two parts. There should be a comma before the conjunction to indicate the two ideas are related. If that’s missing, it’s a mistake readers will notice. For example:

Incorrect: “Jim went to the store and Ella went with him.”

Correct: “Jim went to the store, and Ella went with him.”

No Clear Antecedent

An antecedent is a word that comes before a pronoun and helps the reader understand what the pronoun means. Generally, you can clear up this confusion by rearranging the wording. For example:

Incorrect: “The dad found the boy, and he was happy.”

Correct: “The dad was happy when he found the boy.”

Ending a Sentence in a Preposition

Another common grammar mistake is ending a sentence with a preposition. A preposition, by its nature, indicates that another word will follow it. In casual conversation, this type of error is no big deal, but you should avoid this mistake in your writing. For example:

Incorrect: “What reason did he come here for?”

Correct: “For what reason did he come here?”

Please follow, like, comment and reblog!

#writing #writing advice #writing tips #original writing #writers on tumblr #writersconnection #writerscommunity #short story #storytelling #writersupportingwriters

[copperbadge]

"Ci" is absolutely the worst word that exists in Italian.

It can be a pronoun, a verb modifier, an adverb, and can also reference back to previous nouns in other sentences. If you want ci to be something, odds are there's a way to make it be that thing. It's like an irregular French verb fucked the entire concept of noun declension in Latin and they had a baby whose only thoughts were of murder.

Ci is my enemy. Ci is the mindkiller.

[ID: A chart of several of the meanings of Ci in Italian; extending from the word in the center, the chart indicates it can be a demonstrative pronoun, an adverb of place, a modifier of the verb "to be" or essere, a direct object pronoun, a modifier for idiomatic verbs, a reflexive pronoun, and an indirect object pronoun.]

#sam learns italian #to be clear there's more fucked up words in English hands-down #I'm just saying if you're learning italian Ci will make you cry #and will enjoy it

[ethereal-ocean-eyes]

Why Hits Different is about a Woman

For the most part, the song does not have any pronouns or any words that can signal the gender of whom the song is about…until we get to the bridge. One of the most compelling evidence for this song to be about a woman are the lyrics, “bet I could still melt your world argumentative, antithetical dream girl”. The line can be interpreted in two ways: either she refers to herself or another woman. The line structure allows for both interpretation.

“Bet I could still melt your world / argumentative, antithetical dream girl”

With this structure, people would assume that the subject in the second line is the same from the subject of the first. (I, dream girl) Therefore, leading some people to believe that the dream girl herself is Taylor. But the second phrase as a stand alone lacks cohesiveness with the rest of the lyrics. It’s as if it was just put there at random. Why would Taylor insert herself in a bridge where she is clearly talking about someone else? Look at the lyrics prior to the one being discussed:

Dreams of your hair and your

Stare and sense of belief

In the good in the world, you once

Believed in me

And I felt you and I held you

For a while

Adding a description of herself as an argumentative, antithetical dream girl does not fit with the narrative she is trying to convey about the subject of her song. Why would Taylor suddenly just describe herself as argumentative and antithetical dream girl and how does it relate to the rest of the lyrics before this specific line?

The second way it can be interpreted is the one where she is talking about a woman.

“Bet I could still melt your world, argumentative, antithetical dream girl” (as one cohesive sentence)

Let’s inspect this in a grammatical perspective.

There are two subjects in the sentence. I, referring to Taylor, and another woman being referred to as the “dream girl”. So how do we know she’s not just referring to herself again in the second line, you say?

In the line “Bet I could still melt your world” the direct object of the sentence here is “your world” (which already signals the presence of another person/in other sense, whose world exactly?) and in the words following this, is the line, “argumentative, antithetical dream girl” and it connects with the direct object as modifiers to whoever this person Taylor Swift talks about. In other words, she is describing the person whose world she can still melt. Adjectives only modify a noun, therefore it doesn’t change the whole sentence structure (in a way that there’s still a subject and a direct object).

If you take away the adjectives, only leaving us with the line “Bet I could still melt your world, girl.” The intended meaning is the same. (Taylor being able to still affect this girl’s world.)

The line “argumentative, antithetical dream girl” is a dependent clause, meaning it cannot stand on its own. Combining it with the line “Bet I could still melt your world” would make this sentence form a complete idea.

Interpreting it by analysing sentence structure, grammar, and overall cohesiveness of the line may clear up the confusion. But you’re free to believe what you want! I hope this explanation can open a new perspective for you! It does make so much sense why this song is more of a bonus/hidden track that is not available in the two versions of midnights if it has the slightest hint of gay vibes in it.

#taylor swift #hits different #midnights #gaylor #gaylor swift #theory

[inkichan]

particle の · suffixes

(⁠｡⁠•̀⁠ᴗ⁠-⁠)⁠✧ N5 grammar [ことのは lesson 5]

particle の

in general this particle is placed between two nouns. You need to add this particle to the end of the added noun to indicate that it is a modifier. "Noun 1 of Noun 2" in Japanese is expressed "Noun 2 の Noun 1". But this particle can be used more widely than the English "of". It also created adjectives, indicates positions, and makes adjectives or pronouns passive, etc.

possession

example: 私の本です translation: it's my book

location

example: 東京の会社(かいしゃ)です location: it is a company in Tokyo

nature, state

example:日本語の本です location: it's a Japanese book

material

example:木(き)の椅子(いす)です location: it's a wooden chair (made of wood)

suffixes さん, ちゃん and くん

さん - typically used after a name, surname or some social title like "director" or "store manager" it corresponds to Mr. and Miss.

ちゃん - typically used after girls' names, but it is also used for small children (either sex)

くん - typically used after boys' names. It usually refers to someone you know very well, to others of the same age or younger, or in other kinds of informal situation.

またね～@inkichan

꒰ა ˚₊ ✧・┈・╴﹕꒰ ᐢ｡- ༝ -｡ᐢ ꒱﹕╴・┈・𐑺 ‧₊˚໒꒱

#japanese #nihongo #studyblr #learn Japanese #learning Japanese #japanese langblr #langblog #japanese studyblr #日本語 #n5 #JLPT N5 #grammar #basic grammar #japanese grammar #n5 grammar #ことのは

[em-writes-stuff-sometimes]

first of all i love you

second of all NO I DONT EVER SINCE I SAW YOUR ANSWER ABOUT THAT HIGH VALYRIAN DICTIONARY I HAVE BEEN PULLED INTO THIS LANGUAGE UNIVERSE THAT I FIND TOO INTERESTING FOR MY OWN GOOD AND NOW IM WRITING A FIC WITH THIS FAKE ASS LANGUAGE USING THOSE DICTIONARIES (im using multiple valyrian languages💀💀💀💀WHY IDK ALL I KNOW IS I HATE YOU AND ITS ALL YOUR FAULT)

😔 whyd you have to set the bar so high. ok to be fair, i cant be bothered to manually translate everything BUT STILL THIS IS ALL YOUR FAULT

third of all i am only sending this ask because tagging you in said fic once i finish would be 👁❌👁

fourth of all [sigh] i still love you

fifth of all i think i am insane

HAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIII! I love you too, first of all!

Second of all, I am sorry that I've dragged you down the High Valyrian path! It's a fascinating language, I find it really interesting because there's a lot about the grammatical structure that mimics Latin (instead of English's Subject-Verb-Object agreement, HV has a Subject–Object–Verb agreement). The inflections can be tough to get your head around (adjectives and nouns for number, case and gender, and verbs for person, number, tense, voice, and mood), but it does get easier! As long as you remember to re-order the words in the original sentence, you'll do fine.

High Valyrian is a strongly head-final language. In general:

Verbs follow their direct objects and adverbs which modify them;

Nouns follow the adjectives, demonstratives, possessors (genitive modifiers), locative modifiers, adpositional phrases and relative clauses which modify them;

Possessees follow possessors;

Adjectives follow the adverbs and adpositions which modify them;

And most adpositions are postpositions, with only a few prepositions occurring.

Here's an example!

English: "I want to go with you."

High Valyrian: "Aōma aeragon jaelan."

In HV, finite verbs are conjugated to allow for implied personal pronoun usage, so you don't have to explicitly use 'I' in the translated sentence because the verb combo of [I want] will account for it. Unless, of course, you're looking to place emphasis on 'I'! So:

[I] want = verb, finite active present tense, first-person

[to] go = verb, complementary infinitive present tense

[with] you = object, comitative case (loosely refers to "with" [noun] or "along with" [noun] combo)

Rearrange these into the right agreement - SOV. The Subject is implied here, so the sentence becomes Object-Verb. [to] go is a complementary infinitive, which means it is used to complete the meaning of the verb '[I] want' and thus acts as another object.

"I want to go with you." = "[with] you [to] go [I] want."

Seek out the correct translations in the tables for each word in the High Valyrian dictionary.

[with] you = aōma

[to] go = aeragon

[I] want = jaelan

Complete the final phrase.

"I want to go with you." = "Aōma aeragon jaelan."

I hope this helps? Or if not, it was fun anyway. HV is FUUUUUN! I may be wrong on this translation too as I’m still learning also, but at least it’s colour-coded and looks purty. I am sorry for infecting yoooooooou. Please tag meh in the fic when you are done, I'd love to reeeeead!

I love you tooooooo! And we are all insane here, it's why we're on Tumblr!

#random asks #high valyrian #house of the dragon fanfiction #hotd fanfiction #hotd writing resources

[interretialia]

Nonnulla Indicia Linguae Latinae Idonee Scribendae / Some Hints on Writing Latin Competently

There are many features of Latin grammar and idiom which can be difficult for the modern learner to understand fully because such features have no exact counterparts in English and the Romance languages. Elementary courses on Latin tend to spend little to no time reviewing these seemingly unusual aspects of the Latin language. Fortunately, the student can get some help by consulting the “Preliminary Hints” section of Bradley’s Arnold Latin Prose Composition, and the “Notes on Grammar” and “Various Hints” sections of W. R. Hardie’s Latin Prose Composition. There are several seemingly unusual yet vitally important aspects of the Latin language, though, that these sources do not deal with sufficiently or at all.

In this essay I present some hints that pertain to twelve points wherein the grammar or idiom of those modern languages is misleading or intractable to modern-language speakers who are busy learning Latin composition.

Contents

Latin Does Not Have a “Predicate” Case

Postpositive Particles and Enclitics Have Special Positions

Latin’s Way of Writing “...and I”

Nouns Cannot Be Non-Appositive Modifiers in Latin

Fused Relatives/Correlatives Do Not Exist in Latin

Latin Does Not Use a “Polite Plural” as in Modern Languages

Latin Adverbs and Adverbial Phrases as Attributives

Gender Neutrality (or the Lack of It) in Latin

Word Formation: Nominal Composition and Denominative Verbs

The Difference between Se/Suus and Eius

The Subjunctive by Attraction Is Not Really a Thing in Latin

Adjectives and Adverbs in English, Adverbs and Adjectives in Latin

Sources

1. Latin Does Not Have a “Predicate” Case

In colloquial English we often say, “It’s me” and “That’s him,” where we use the object pronoun forms me and him as subject complements in the predicate of a sentence instead of the subject forms I and he. According to non-colloquial forms of English, we are to say, “It is I” and “That is he.”

Latin, however, does not do this at all, even in its colloquial forms. It has no “predicate” case that differs from the nominative case, and it always uses the same case as the subject for the subject complement. When the verb of the sentence is a linking verb like esse, the case of the subject complement is usually nominative, but in certain situations other cases are involved.

Examples:

Ego sum. (not “Me sum” or “Mihi sum.”) It’s me.  

Ille est. (not “Illum est.”) That’s him.  

Quae sunt illa? (not “Quae sunt illos?” or “Quae sunt illas?”) What are those?  

Esse mihi laeto licet. (not “Esse mihi laetus licet.”) I am allowed to be happy.  

Scio me esse hominem bonum. (not “Scio me esse homo bonus.”) I know I am a good person.  

Deus fio. (not “Deum fio.”) I am becoming a god.

There are instances in Latin literature, mostly in the plays of Plautus and Terence, where a pronoun in the accusative case follows, or merges with, the interjection ecce even when that pronoun is referring to an individual who serves as the subject of the sentence (e.g., Ecce me, “Here I am”; Eccos exeunt, “Look, here they are coming out”). Someone might suppose that this “ecce + [accusative]” construction is Latin’s own version of the “object me as subject” construction in English, but the truth is that the Latin construction is parenthetic to the rest of its own sentence, and the accusative case is due to its being the object of some form of an implied transitive verb like videre, so: Ecce me = Ecce vide me; Eccos exeunt = Eccos vide, exeunt). The nominative case can also follow the ecce. This construction is also parenthetic to the rest of its own sentence, but it has no implication of the existence of some implied verb like videre (e.g., Ecce ego, “Here I am”).

English speakers who are learning Latin very often make the mistake of writing sentences like “Cornelia est puellam,” instead of the correct Cornelia est puella (“Cornelia is a girl”), partly because of the “object me as subject” construction of colloquial English, and partly because these students are used to seeing the accusative forms of words together with transitive verbs (e.g., Corneliam amo, “I love Cornelia”; eum video, “I see him”).

Memes such as “Me and the Boys” and “Me, Also Me” use the “object me as subject” construction, and so that means that when we translate the English words into Latin, we must use the nominative forms of the Latin pronoun and not some other form like the accusative or ablative me.

We write these meme phrases as:

Ego Puerique/Ego et Pueri Me and the Boys  

Ego, Ego Quoque: Me, Also Me:

The same goes for the other pronoun forms:

Tu:/Vos: You:  

Is: Him:  

Ea: Her:  

Nos: Us:

2. Postpositive Particles and Enclitics Have Special Positions

Latin word order is for the most part syntactically freer than that of English, but certain Latin words take specific positions to perform their particular functions. The words of that type which concern us here are postpositive particles and enclitics. A postpositive particle is a word that does not come first in a clause or phrase, and sometimes needs to be translated in English one word earlier than where it appears in the Latin. An enclitic is a word which does not stand by itself, but is added at the end of another word, and therefore all enclitics are by their very nature postpositive particles.

The particles autem (a mark of discourse transition), enim (“for,” introducing a reason), vero (introducing something in opposition to what precedes), quoque (“also,” “too”), quidem (“indeed,” “surely,” giving emphasis, and often has a concessive meaning), and the conjunctive enclitic -que (“and”) and the interrogative enclitic -ne (almost always appearing on the end of the first word of the sentence) are always postpositive, while igitur (“and then,” “then”) and tamen (“nevertheless,” “yet”) generally are.

Ne ... quidem means “not even...” or “not ... either.” The emphatic word or words (represented by the “...”) must stand between the ne and the quidem.

Examples:

Omnes viri mortales sunt. Socrates autem vir est. Ergo Socrates mortalis est. All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.  

Pueri autem venerunt. The boys, however, came./However, the boys came.  

Pueri enim venerunt. For the boys came.  

Neutrum vero. Praefero vinum. Actually, neither. I prefer wine.  

Veniant igitur, dum ne nos interpellent. Let them come then, provided they don’t interrupt us.  

Res sane difficilis, sed tamen investiganda est. Though a difficult question, yet still one that demands investigation.  

Senatus Populusque Romanus (not “Senatusque Populus Romanus”) The Senate and the Roman People  

Pueri puellaeque (not “Puerique puellae”) Boys and girls  

Ego Puerique Me and the Boys  

Quodam die chartam piceam habemus quoque. One day we have tar paper also. (i.e., we, too, will have...)  

Tu Quoque (not “Quoque tu”) You too  

Hoc quidem videre licet. This surely one may see.  

Videtene id? (not “Ne videte id?”) Do you see it?  

Mene amas? An eum? Do you love me? Or him?  

Sed ne Iugurtha quidem quietus erat. (not “Sed ne quidem Iugurtha quietus erat.”) But not even Jugurtha was quiet.  

Ingrata patria, ne ossa quidem habebis. Ungrateful fatherland, you will not even have my bones.

Pay special attention to the positions of these words.

If you want to translate “Also, I did this” in English, resist the urge to write something like “Quoque, hoc feci.” Quoque is never a sentence-modifying adverb like the “Also” in the aforementioned English sentence, and it is so consistently used as a postpositive particle that the “Quoque” in “Quoque, hoc feci” would reasonably be mistaken for either the quoque form of the pronoun quisque or the word quo with the enclitic -que. “Also, I did this” must be translated as Praeterea hoc feci or even Ceterum hoc feci.

3. Latin’s Way of Writing “...and I”

In English we say, “My brother and I” and “the King and I,” with the third person first and the first person last. We seem to do this out of politeness.

Latin, though, does not use that order, and the order which it does use has nothing to do with the expression of politeness. When we talk about the “first person” and the “second person” and the “third person” while discussing Latin sentences, we are using terms which correspond to the order in which we would mention these individuals in a Latin sentence with a finite verb, and that means first person first, second person second, and third person third. We use the same order in mere Latin phrases as well. This means that “You and I” in Latin is Ego et tu. The order then keeps going down the line.

Examples:

Tu et Cicero You and Cicero  

Ego et tu et Cicero You, Cicero, and I  

Ego et Lancelot et Galahad Lancelot, Galahad, and I  

Ego et frater meus My brother and I  

Ego et Rex The King and I

Note that Latin uses the same order as the colloquial Me and you.

4. Nouns Cannot Be Non-Appositive Modifiers in Latin

While English does distinguish between nouns and adjectives, there is not a hard and fast line between the two categories, and English nouns can act as adjectives even when these words are not the same as the nouns they modify. We can refer to these adjective-like nouns as “non-appositive modifiers.” In the phrases horse feathers and house mother, the two nouns horse and house are not the feathers and the mother, but they modify those nouns, and so are non-appositive modifiers: horse feathers = feathers of the horse variety or equine feathers or feathers on a horse; house mother = mother of the house variety or a mother living in a house or a mother of the house.

Latin cannot do this. There is a hard and fast line between nouns and adjectives in Latin (viz., nouns have a gender, while adjectives assume, or “agree with,” the gender of the noun they are in construction with), and a Latin noun cannot become a non-appositive modifier like its English equivalent can. If we want to use a non-appositive modifier in Latin, we must either use a corresponding adjective or put the word in the genitive:

pennae equinae/pennae equi horse feathers  

mater domestica/mater domūs house mother

But note what happens if we use the nominative forms of the nouns:

equus pennae horse and feathers  

domus mater house and mother

When we put the nominative forms of the nouns together next to one another like what we see in each of these two phrases, we end up with an asyndetic phase. (These phrases could also be read as appositives, so that “equus pennae” means “horse, the feathers,” where the horse is the feathers, but since we have established that the corresponding words in the English phrases are not supposed to be appositives, and because these Latin words are imitating a noun phrase rather than being just two linked words, my statement about how each of these is an asyndetic phase still stands.)

Sometimes Latin uses adjectival nouns which are really nouns in apposition, that is, the two nouns refer to the same individual. We can call these words “appositive modifiers.” So, for example, victrices Athenae means “victorious Athens,” and while victrix would normally be a noun meaning “victress” or “the victorious one,” here it is an adjective or an appositive modifier. One could even translate the phrase as “Athens the victress.” Similarly, milites tirones means either “novice soldiers” or “soldiers who are novices.”

Latin’s sharp distinction between nouns and adjectives also applies when words come together to form compound words. The morphological and syntactic features of a word are not nullified simply because it appears within a word, or if it is linked to another word with a hyphen. So, for example, the two words in the compound respublica, “republic,” still have their individual morphological and syntactic features even though they form one word, and therefore since the adjective is agreeing with the noun, each word is declined separately even within that single word: nominative singular respublica, genitive singular reipublicae, accusative singular rempublicam, etc. Another example is modus operandi, “mode of operating,” but this time only the modus is declined while the genitive operandi keeps its form to retain its genitive meaning: nominative singular modus operandi, genitive singular modi operandi, accusative singular modum operandi, etc. All of that means that equus pennae still cannot mean “horse feathers” even if we write it as equuspennae (with no spaces) or equus-pennae (with a hyphen).

Here I point to, and comment on, four specific places which make the mistake of using Latin nouns as non-appositive modifiers.

The “Coronavirus” entry at Latin Wikipedia has an invented “Coronavirus, Coronaeviri” declension (where each of the words corona and virus is declined separately), and this declension is completely wrong because the noun corona cannot be a non-appositive modifier in Latin, and so the compound which uses that declension at best means “corona and virus,” not something like “virus of the corona type.” This “Coronavirus, Coronaeviri” declension therefore behaves like the declension of ususfructus, usūsfructūs, which means “use and enjoyment,” and each of the two words is declined separately. A compound word of corona and virus created through nominal composition would actually be *Coronivirus in Latin. It seems that whoever came up with the name Coronavirus either did not know or did not care that the regular Connecting Vowel in Latin is i for nominal compounds. As it stands, Coronavirus looks like it is a univerbation of the phrase [solari] coronā virus, “virus with a [solar] corona,” which comprises an abbreviated ablative of description and a nominative.

Mark Walker, who translated The Hobbit into Latin (i.e., Hobbitus Ille), rendered the adjective “pitch-black” in Latin as tenebrosa-pix, where he erroneously treated the noun pix as a non-appositive modifier and connected that noun to an adjective with a hyphen. But hyphens do not nullify the morphological and syntactic features of a word, and that means the phrase tenebrosa-pix is exactly the same as the plain, old tenebrosa pix, which really means “dark pitch.” And so, the sentence from Walker’s translation tum tenebrosa-pix erat actually means “then it was dark pitch.” “Pitch-black,” though, can be in Latin piceus, an adjective from pix, or some comparative phrase like tam niger quam pix, “as black as pitch,” or perhaps even piciniger, a neologism that is a nominal compound of pix and niger.

Vox Machina means “Voice and Machine” and not “Voice Machine.” It is a phrase like pactum conventum, which means “bargain and covenant.” Vox is a noun in Latin, and the “voice” in the English phrase “Voice Machine” is not just a noun but also a non-appositive modifier modifying the “Machine,” and so, in order to render “Voice Machine” in Latin, we need to write either Machina Vocalis or Machina Vocis.

This well-known image, which shows stylized depictions of Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker, appears to render “He holds a lightsaber” into Latin as Luxgladium tenet. Luxgladium tenet, however, is just the phrase Lux gladium tenet, which actually means “The light holds the sword”! It looks like whoever wrote the text was trying to create a compound of lux and gladius, but ended up just writing a sentence that is nonsense. (The Latin on this image is pretty awful in general.) I suppose the nominative form of the compound is supposed to be luxgladius, but luxgladius, of course, would mean “light and sword.” The “light” in the word “lightsaber” is a noun and a non-appositive modifier modifying the “sword,” so if we wish to render “lightsaber” in Latin, we need to write ensis luminosus (where ensis is a poetic word for “sword,” and reflects the poetic or fanciful use of “saber”) or ensis luminaris (although luminaris is not a common word in Latin) or, if we wish to use a compound word from lux and gladius, lucigladius.

5. Fused Relatives/Correlatives Do Not Exist in Latin

In English a relative clause and its antecedant can combine into a noun phrase which is called a free relative or a fused relative construction. The resulting what of this fused relative construction is a fusion of both the relative pronoun and its antecedant: what = “that which,” “the thing that.”

Example:

The cats ate what I gave them.

which can be rewritten as:

The cats ate that which I gave them.

Latin does not do this. A Latin relative pronoun, like quod, cannot introduce a noun phrase like the what does in the English sentence above. Nor can it fuse together with its antecedant, since the two words are syntactically discrete. Not only are we unable to pull a “id quod” (“that which”) from this relative pronoun quod in Latin, we are unable to know whether the antecedant should even be id by looking at the relative pronoun!

Latin relative clauses are adjective clauses, and it is important not to treat such clauses as Latin noun clauses for two reasons. First, the noun phrases of that type do not exist in Latin, and second, the language makes a clear distinction between relative clauses and subordinate interrogative clauses, which are noun clauses and are typically called “indirect questions.”

Look at this sentence:

The cats know what I gave them.

You cannot pull a “that which” out of this what because it is interrogative: it represents a variable which the cats could fill in by providing relevant information, and does not represent a combination of an antecedant and a variable which is bound by that antecedant. Latin must express this what by an interrogative which introduces a subordinate interrogative clause.

The two English sentences are therefore translated like this:

Feles id ederunt quod eis dedi. (Relative clause.) The cats ate what I gave them.  

Feles sciunt quid eis dederim. (Interrogative clause.) The cats know what I gave them.

Memes of the “What She Says, What She Means” format contain phrases which are subordinate interrogative clauses, not relative pronouns, for two reasons. First, the English phrases are noun constructions, and therefore require us to use noun constructions in Latin when we translate the English phrases into Latin. Second, the what represents variables which are subsequently filled in with relevant information, and that relevant information comes after the colons in each of the two phrases.

We translate the two phrases this way:

Quid ea dicat: ... What she says: ...  

Quid ea velit: ... What she means: ...

Writing “Quod ea dicit:” and “Quod ea vult:” (i.e., relative clauses) would be very wrong because Latin cannot fuse those relatives, and the variable indicated by the English what is filled in with the relevant information after the colons, not some nonexistent antecedant of the relative.

English can also combine correlative words as seen in memes of the “When X / X When” format, which indicate how an individual reacts under a specified circumstance. In such memes, the when looks like it introduces a clause indicating some specified circumstance, but it actually combines that clause with correlative words referring to the individual doing the reacting. Subsequently, the when represents a fusion of itself and some correlative word or phrase like then, at that time, me, or my face when.

Latin does not fuse correlatives like this, either. The phrases tum cum, ego cum, facies mea cum, etc., cannot fuse into a single cum. A Latin word and its Latin correlative are also syntactically discrete, and all of the relevant words must be written out to convey what the English means.

Examples:

Tum cum mater tua cibum tuum favorabilissimum coquit When your mom cooks your favorite food  

Tum cum canis tuus dormiens caudam suam movet When your dog wags his tail while sleeping  

Zeus cum quamlibet feminam videt Zeus when he sees anything female  

Pellicularii Youtube situs cum in duodetricesima secunda pelliculae sunt Youtubers when they’re 28 seconds into the video  

Ego octo annos natus cum minister deversorii me “bonum virum” vocat 8 year old me when the hotel waiter calls me Sir

6. Latin Does Not Use a “Polite Plural” as in Modern Languages

The T–V distinction (or “polite plural”) is the contextual use of different pronouns that exists in some languages and serves to convey formality or familiarity. While modern English does not observe such a distinction, modern Romance languages such as French and Spanish do.

Latin itself, however, does not observe such a distinction. This is true especially for the use of imperatives. If you use a plural form of a Latin imperative, you are specifically addressing more than one person, and that is true if you are making either a general or a specific command for more than one person. Latin does not “default” to the plural when the speaker or writer is uncertain of how many individuals will end up being the recipients of the command. The singular form of a Latin imperative, however, can be used for general commands, which are addressed to no one in particular, and specific commands, which are addressed to a particular person.

Examples:

Cave Canem Beware the Dog  

Sapere Aude Dare to be Wise  

Respice Finem Look Back at the End

The plural forms of imperatives sometimes appear in quoted texts.

Examples:

Et nunc reges intelligite erudimini qui iudicatis terram. And now, O ye kings, understand: receive instruction, you that judge the earth.  

Manibus date lilia plenis. Give lilies with full hands.

On a related note, nos and noster sometimes appear instead of ego and meus in Roman letters and familiar speech. In general, the plural forms in such cases have an air of dignity, complacency, and importance. They indicate that the speaker thinks of themself as a “personage.” Cicero frequently uses these plural forms. The regal use of “we,” however, is not known to Latin.

7. Latin Adverbs and Adverbial Phrases as Attributives

English freely uses adverbs and adverbial phrases as attributive modifiers. The phrase man in the moon, for example, comprises a noun, man, and the prepositional phrase in the moon, which modifies that noun like an adjective: man in the moon = a man who is in, or lives on, the moon.

But Latin does not so freely use such words and phrases in that way. When a real adverb or adverbial phrase is used as such in Latin, it is introduced by, or bound to, a verb form, and this means that we often use a relative clause or a participle in Latin where we would use an attributive modifier in English. Thus, we would normally render the phrase “man in the moon” in Latin as vir qui in luna est, vir qui in luna habitat, or vir in luna habitans.

Here are some Latin translations of other English phrases of that type:

Puella Quae Inaurem Margaritiferam Habet/Puella Inaurem Margaritiferam Habens Girl with a Pearl Earring  

Vir Qui Causiam Flavam Gerit/Vir Causiam Flavam Gerens Man with the Yellow Hat  

Fortissimi Qui in Testa Dimidiata Sunt/Fortissimi in Testa Dimidiata Appositi Heroes in a Half Shell  

Rotae Quae in Laophorio Sunt/Rotae ad Laophorium Affixae The Wheels on the Bus  

Simius Qui in Medio Est/Simius in Medio Stans Monkey in the Middle  

Cor Quod Nomine Tuo Inscriptum Est/Cor Nomine Tuo Inscriptum A Heart with Your Name on It  

Pellicula Quae de 10 Numero Est/Pellicula de 10 Numero Tractans A Video about the Number 10  

liber qui e bibliotheca sumptus est/liber e bibliotheca sumptus the book from the library

At this point we should note that attributive modifiers which resemble adverbs and adverbial phrases sometimes appear in Latin of all periods.

Examples:

At pater infelix, nec iam pater But the unhappy father, no longer a father  

bonos et utilis et e re publica civis citizens good, useful, and advantageous to the Republic  

albo et sine sanguine vultu with a face white and bloodless  

senectutem sine querela old age without complaint  

Ciceronis de philosophia liber Cicero’s book on philosophy  

voluntas erga aliquem desire to do good to someone  

unus e militibus one of the soldiers  

Triumviratum Rei Publicae Constituendae Commission of Three for the Restoration of the State

Various scholars have hunted down, and commented on, examples of such phrases from Latin literature, especially of so-called “Adnominal Prepositional Phrases” (i.e., prepositional phrases which appear to be used as attributive modifiers which are in construction with nouns). One may inquire why these attributive modifiers have the appearances of adverbial constructions. Perhaps the most obvious way to answer our question is to suggest that these phrases are parts of participial phrases like the vir in luna habitans mentioned above, but the participle in question is typically or usually *sens, the unused present participle of esse, “to be.” According to this suggestion, the phrase At pater infelix, nec iam pater, for example, stands for At pater infelix, nec iam *sens pater, and the phrase bonos et utilis et e re publica civis stands for bonos et utilis et e re *sentes publica civis.

One may object by saying that it is much more parsimonious to suppose that a verbal form like a participle is not implied with these adverbial constructions, but parsimony is irrelevant when we consider that adverbs and prepositional phrases are constructions most typically tied to a verb rather than to a noun, nor would we expect a participle form of esse to show up overly even when we can be sure that its force is felt (as it is in ablative absolute constructions like L. Domitio Ap. Claudio consulibus). If you reject my suggestion, you will get stuck trying to explain why these verb-bound constructions became ostensibly attributive in the first place, and why they are not used ostensibly attributively as often as other, real attributives.

In any event, the fact that many of the Roman authors have used these verb-bound constructions as ostensibly attributive modifiers means that we would be not entirely wrong to imitate that usage: e.g., vir in luna; Puella cum Inaure Margaritifera. Since, however, that usage is not as common as the usage of real attributive modifiers for nouns, and since there is always the potential of construing any of those verb-bound constructions with an actual verb instead of the intended noun, we would be safer to use Latin constructions which contain a relative clause or a participle. An exception to that principle, though, is the use of such verb-bound constructions in well-known Latin phrases and in titles of books and other such media: e.g., Argumentum ad Hominem, “Argument to the Person”; M. Tullii Ciceronis Orationes in Catilinam, “Marcus Tullius Cicero’s Orations against Catiline.”

8. Gender Neutrality (or the Lack of It) in Latin

Modern English has a system whereby natural gender has been assigned to particular nouns and pronouns: masculine words denote male people or animals, feminine words mostly denote female people or animals, and neuter words denote sexless objects. Throughout the years, users of English have invented various gender-neutral pronouns for the language (e.g., thon, xe, ze). In recent times, however, many have taken the generalizing third-person English pronoun they and prescribed it to be used specifically as a gender-neutral or genderless, singular pronoun consciously chosen either for someone whom the user of the word knows or by someone who is rejecting the traditional gender binary. This novel use of they has very much caught on in English-speaking areas, and we see “they/them” prominently displayed in social-media bios, email signatures, and conference name tags.

Gender in Latin is completely different. Latin has at its core a syntactic system of nominal morphology and concord. That is how agreement is possible among nouns, pronouns, and adjectives in the language. Without this system, Latin nominal syntax is altogether incoherent. By convention we refer to this system as “gender.” The hard and fast line between nouns and adjectives in Latin centers around whether a nominal word has a gender (making it a noun or substantive pronoun) or assumes a gender (making it an adjective or adjectival pronoun). Words denoting male people and animals may be masculine, and words denoting female people and animals may be feminine, but Latin’s masculine and feminine gender categories are not based on some sort of essential “male-ness” or “female-ness.” Syntax, not biological reality, ultimately serves as the basis of Latin’s gender system.

Moreover, Latin lacks a gender-neutral or genderless form which is comparable in function to English’s they. All nominal Latin words have a gender, and none can be genderless. A Latin word may not overtly specify a gender, but it always presupposes at least one. The lack of specificity of a gender does not imply the lack of a gender. Third-declension endings like -is and -es and -ex, genitive pronominal forms like eius and huius, and plural pronominal forms like ei and eae, do not behave like they because they are never genderless, and when they refer to people, they are always binary: either masculine or feminine. Latin’s neuter gender is not gender-neutral, and as a matter of fact the only neuter words in Latin which refer to people are words meant to dehumanize or disparage them (e.g., mancipium, “slave”; scortum and prostibulum, “prostitute”). Using neuter-gender pronouns for people in Latin is like using it to refer to a person in English.

Attempts to create gender-neutral language in Latin can very easily fail because they are liable to ignore these basic features of Latin’s gender system and treat the language’s gender system like English’s system of natural gender or the gender systems of the modern Romance languages, which are quite unlike Latin’s system since they lack the neuter gender and cases.

The closest that Latin has to gender-neutral terms are—ironically enough—gendered animal words like passer (“sparrow”), aquila (“eagle”), and vulpes (“fox”). The feminine word aquila, for instance, is always feminine no matter what the reproductive features or individual identity of the particular eagle in question is, so we can write: aquila mas, aquila femina, and aquila nonbinaria. And so, there are indeed “gender-neutral gendered words” in Latin. To our English-speaking ears, “gender-neutral gendered words” may sound absurd, but we should realize that the genders of such nouns exist to satisfy the demands of Latin’s system of morphology and concord.

9. Word Formation: Nominal Composition and Denominative Verbs

English can create compound words from nouns and adjectives simply by joining the words together without changes to those words.

Examples:

egg + head = egghead  

cat + girl = catgirl  

black + bird = blackbird

Such a process is called nominal composition.

English also can create verbs directly from nouns and adjectives.

Examples:

cash → to cash  

weird → to weird  

gaslight → to gaslight

These words are called denominative verbs.

Latin can create verbs and compound words from nouns and adjectives as well, but one cannot simply join together words in the same way that we do in English, nor do Latin compound words and verbs come about through random or haphazard development. There are real, coherent processes through which new words arise, and although these processes can be complicated, there are nevertheless some basic ideas to keep in mind.

All nominal composition and denominative-verb formation in Latin involves the concatenation of stems of words. Exactly how those stems of words concatenate is not always obvious because the final sound of one stem must interact with the initial sound of the next stem in accordance with the morphophonological rules of the language. Since Latin is not anyone’s native language today, we do not come to the study of the language with an instinct of how these sounds interact with one another to form new words. For this reason, we require an empirical investigation of these morphophonological rules of Latin. Fortunately, such investigations have been carried out, and from them we can follow the basic, simplified rules which appear below.

The most basic rules for nominal composition in Latin are as follows:

A compound word created through nominal composition can have any number of parts, but for the sake of simplicity, I will be describing the creation of these compound words in terms of a first part and a second part. The first and second parts of such compound words are noun stems, adjective stems, and nominalized verb stems.

The first part of the compound word is a combining form which is created by taking the case ending of the genitive singular form (-ae, -i, -ius, -is, -us, -ei) or genitive plural form (-arum, -orum, -um or -ium, -uum, -erum) of a noun or adjective from any declension and replacing that case ending with the Connecting Vowel i (e.g., magnus, magni, “great,” becomes the combining form magni-). If a combining form happens to end in -ii (two “i”s) after the case ending of the genitive singular or plural has been changed to the Connecting Vowel i (e.g., combining form medii- from medius, medii, “middle”), this -ii shortens to the Connecting Vowel -i (e.g., medii- becomes medi-).

If the second part of the compound word begins with a

consonant, the combining form which serves as the first part of the compound word remains unchanged;

vowel, the Connecting Vowel i of the combining form which serves as the first part of the compound

remains if that combining form is monosyllabic (e.g., combining form tri-, from tres, “three,” retains its Connecting Vowel -i) or if that Connecting Vowel -i is the shortened version of -ii (e.g., combining form medi- standing for medii-, from medius, “middle,” retains that single Connecting Vowel -i);

otherwise disappears, and so, for example, the combining form magni-, when it appears before -animus, loses its Connecting Vowel i and becomes magn-.

The last part of the compound word either stands unaltered or is given an appropriate suffix or ending, depending on the intended meaning.

Certain nouns and adjectives, especially undeclinable words (including numerals), have special combining forms which are to be used as the first parts of compounds, e.g., quadri- or quadru- for the adjective quattuor, “four.” Similarly, certain words have special forms which appear only as the second parts of compounds, e.g., -cida, “-killer” (which is a nominalization of the stem of the verb caedere, “to kill”).

Below are examples of compound words created through nominal composition. Compounds indicated by † below already existed. Compounds indicated by ‡ below are those that I created for the sake of demonstration. Each Latin word in the list below appears in its nominative singular or plural form and, if applicable, in its genitive singular or plural form.

ala, alae (wing) + -cornis, -cornis (-horned) → ali-corni- → ‡alicornis, alicornis (with wings and a horn; alicorn)  

aqua, aquae (water) + -ducus, -duci (-leading) → aqui-duco- → †aquiducus, aquiduci (drawing off water)  

corona, coronae (crown) + virus, viri (virus) → Coroni-viro- → ‡Coronivirus, Coroniviri (Coronivirus/Coronavirus)  

flamma, flammae (flame) + -comus, -comi (-haired) → flammi-como- → †flammicomus, flammicomi (flame-haired)  

gloria, gloriae (glory) + -iugis, -iugis (-yoked) → glorii-iugi- → ‡gloriiugis, gloriiugis (yoked to glory)  

sapientia, sapientiae (wisdom) + potens, potentis (mighty) → sapientii-potent- → †sapientipotens, sapientipotentis (mighty in wisdom)  

via, viae (road) + vis, vis (violence) → vii-vi- → ‡vivis, vivis (road rage)  

ager, agri (field) + -cola, -colae (-cultivator) → agri-cola- → †agricola, agricolae (field-cultivator, farmer)  

caper, capri (goat) + -cornus, -corni (-horned) → Capri-corno- → †Capricornus, Capricorni (goat-horned; Capricorn)  

caseus, casei (cheese) + -ceps, -cipitis (-headed) → casei-cipit- → ‡caseiceps, caseicipitis (cheesehead)  

equus, equi (horse) + pennae, pennarum (feathers) → equi-penna- → ‡equipennae, equipennarum (horsefeathers)  

gallus, galli (cock) + cauda, caudae (tail) → galli-cauda- → †gallicauda, gallicaudae (cocktail)  

gladius, gladii (sword) + -fex, -ficis (-maker) → gladii-fic- → †gladifex, gladificis (swordmaker)  

liber, libri (book) + vox, vocis (voice) → Libri-voc- → ‡Librivox, Librivocis (LibriVox)  

patruus, patrui (uncle) + -produs, -prodi (-betraying) → patrui-prodo- → ‡patruiprodus, patruiprodi (uncle-betraying)  

tyrannus, tyranni (tyrant) + -cida, -cidae (-killer) → tyranni-cida- → †tyrannicida, tyrannicidae (tyrant-killer)  

vir, viri (man) + -cidium, -cidii (-cide) → viri-cidio- → †viricidium, viricidii (killing of men)  

gasum, gasi (gas) + lumen, luminis (light) → gasi-lumin- → ‡gasilumen, gasiluminis (gaslight)  

negotium, negotii (business) + homo, hominis (person) → negotii-homin- → ‡negotihomo, negotihominis (businessperson)  

ovum, ovi (egg) + -ceps, -cipitis (-headed) → ovi-cipit- → ‡oviceps, ovicipitis (egghead)  

ovum, ovi (egg) + ovis, ovis (sheep) → ovi-ovi- → ‡ovovis, ovovis (egg sheep)  

sandalium, sandalii (sandal) + gerula, gerulae (bearer) → sandalii-gerula- → †sandaligerulae, sandaligerularum (sandal-bearers)  

virus, viri (virus) + -cidium, -cidii (-cide) → viri-cidio- → ‡viricidium, viricidii (viricide)  

vulgus, vulgi (crowd) + -vagus, -vagi (-wandering) → vulgi-vago- → †vulgivagus, vulgivagi (wandering everywhere)  

bonus, boni (good) + -moris, -moris (-mannered) → boni-mori- → †bonimoris, bonimoris (good-mannered)  

doctus, docti (learned) + -ficus, -fici (-making) → docti-fico- → †doctificus, doctifici (making learned)  

magnus, magni (great) + -animus, -animi (-souled) → magni-animo- → †magnanimus, magnanimi (magnanimous)  

medius, medii (middle) + -amna, -amnae (-rivered) → Medii-amna- → †Mediamna, Mediamnae (Mesopotamia)  

medius, medii (middle) + terra, terrae (earth) → medii-terra- → †mediterraneus, mediterranei (mediterranean)  

multus, multi (much) + amor, amoris (love) → multi-amor- → ‡multamorium, multamorii (multamory/multiamory)  

multus, multi (much) + -bibus, -bibi (-drinking) → multi-bibo- → †multibibus, multibibi (much-drinking)  

niger, nigri (black) + avis, avis (bird) → nigri-avi- → ‡nigravis, nigravis (blackbird)  

unus, unius (one) + -cornis, -cornis (-horned) → uni-corni- → †unicornis, unicornis (with one horn; unicorn)  

homo, hominis (human) + -formis, -formis (-shaped) → homini-formi- → †hominiformis, hominiformis (human-shaped)  

draco, draconis (dragon) + equus, equi (horse) → Draconi-equo- → †Draconequus, Draconequi (Draconequus)  

flos, floris (flower) + -legus, -legi (-culling) → flori-lego- → †florilegus, florilegi (flower-culling)  

imago, imaginis (image) + -fer, -feri (-carrier) → imagini-fero- → †imaginifer, imaginiferi (image-carrier, standard-bearer)  

lac, lactis (milk) + -color, -coloris (-colored) → lacti-color- → †lacticolor, lacticoloris (milk-colored)  

lex, legis (law) + -fer, -feri (-bringing) → legi-fero- → †legifer, legiferi (lawgiving)  

lux, lucis (light) + -fer, -feri (-bringing, -bringer) → luci-fero- → †lucifer, luciferi (light-bringer; Lucifer)  

lux, lucis (light) + gladius, gladii (sword) → luci-gladio- → ‡lucigladius, lucigladii (lightsaber)  

mel, mellis (honey) + -fluus, -flui (-flowing) → melli-fluo- → †mellifluus, melliflui (flowing with honey)  

pix, picis (pitch) + niger, nigri (black) → pici-nigro- → ‡piciniger, picinigri (pitch-black)  

vox, vocis (voice) + machina, machinae (machine) → Voci-machina- → ‡Vocimachina, Vocimachinae (Voice Machine)  

rete, retis (net) + -fex, -ficis (-maker) → reti-fic- → †retifex, retificis (netmaker)  

os, oris (mouth) + -ficium, -ficii (-making) → ori-ficio- → †orificium, orificii (orifice)  

pater, patris (father) + -cida, -cidae (-killer) → patri-cida- → †patricida, patricidae (father-killer)  

ignis, ignis (fire) + -vomus, -vomi (vomiting x) → igni-vomo- → †ignivomus, ignivomi (vomiting fire)  

ovis, ovis (sheep) + auritus, auriti (having large ears) → ovi-aurito- → ‡ovauritus, ovauriti (sheep-eared)  

animal, animalis (animal) + amans, amantis (loving) → animali-amant- → ‡animalamans, animalamantis (animal-loving)  

pellis, pellis (fur) + globulus, globuli (ball) → pelli-globulo- → ‡pelliglobulus, pelliglobuli (furball)  

feles, felis (cat) + puella, puellae (girl) → feli-puella- → ‡felipuella, felipuellae (catgirl)  

nox, noctis (night) + -vidus, -vidi (-seeing) → nocti-vido- → †noctividus, noctividi (night-seeing)  

nubes, nubis (cloud) + -gena, -genae (-born) → nubi-gena- → †nubigena, nubigenae (cloud-born)  

urbs, urbis (city) + -cremus, -cremi (-burning) → urbi-cremo- → †urbicremus, urbicremi (city-burning)  

bos, bovis (ox) + -formis, -formis (-shaped) → bovi-formi- → †boviformis, boviformis (ox-shaped)  

senex, senis (old man) + -cidium, -cidii (-cide) → seni-cidio- → ‡senicidium, senicidii (senicide)  

caro, carnis (flesh) + -vorus, -vori (feeding on x) → carni-voro- → †carnivorus, carnivori (carnivorous, feeding on flesh)  

os, ossis (bone) + -fragus, -fragi (-breaking) → ossi-frago- → †ossifragus, ossifragi (bone-breaking)  

vis, vis (force) + ager, agri (field) → vi-agro- → ‡viager, viagri (force field)  

sus, suis (swine) + -formis, -formis (-shaped) → sui-formi- → †suiformis, suiformis (swine-shaped)  

Iuppiter, Iovis (Jupiter) + barba, barbae (beard) → Iovi-barba- → †Iovibarba, Iovibarbae (Jupiter’s Beard)  

nix, nivis (snow) + -fer, -feri (-bringing) → nivi-fero- → †nivifer, niviferi (snow-giving)  

iter, itineris (journey) + vir, viri (man) → itineri-viro- → ‡itinerivir, itineriviri (journeyman)  

celer (swift) + -pes, -pedis (-footed) → celeri-ped- → †celeripes, celeripedis (swift of foot)  

omnis, omnis (all) + -genus, -geni (of x kind) → omni-geno- → †omnigenus, omnigeni (of all kinds)  

tres, trium (three) + -iugis, -iugis (-yoked) → tri-iugi- → †triiugis, triiugis (triple-yoked)  

tres, trium (three) + -linguis, -linguis (-tongued) → tri-lingui- → †trilinguis, trilinguis (with three tongues)  

tres, trium (three) + vires, virium (strength, force) → Tri-viri- → †Trivires, Trivirium (Triforce)  

confidens, confidentis (confident) + -loquus, -loqui (-speaking) → confidenti-loquo- → †confidentiloquus, confidentiloqui (speaking confidently)  

par, paris (pair) + copula, copulae (bond) → pari-copula- → ‡paricopula, paricopulae (pair bond)  

senior, senioris (senior) + momentum, momenti (moment) → seniori-momento- → ‡seniorimomentum, seniorimomenti (senior moment)  

velox, velocis (swift) + raptor, raptoris (plunderer) → Veloci-raptor- → †Velociraptor, Velociraptoris (Velociraptor)  

domus, domus (house) + mater, matris (mother) → domi-matr- → ‡domimater, domimatris (house mother)  

domus, domus (house) + -porta, -portae (-carrier) → domi-porta- → †domiporta, domiportae (snail)  

cornu, cornus (horn) + -cen, -cinis (-player) → corni-cin- → †cornicen, cornicinis (hornblower)  

facies, faciei (face) + -tergium, -tergii (-cloth) → facii-tergio- → †facitergium, facitergii (facecloth)  

res, rei (thing) + -metrum, -metri (-meter) → ri-metro- → ‡Rimetrum, Rimetri (Thing-O-Meter)  

spes, spei (hope) + -fer, -feri (-bringing) → spi-fero- → ‡spifer, spiferi (bringing hope)  

duo, duorum (two) + -ceps, -cipitis (-headed) → bi-cipit- → †biceps, bicipitis (with two heads)  

duo, duorum (two) + -ennium, -ennii (-years) → bi-ennio- → †biennium, biennii (period of two years)  

quattuor (four) + -fidus, -fidi (-split) → quadri-fido- → †quadrifidus, quadrifidi (split into four parts)  

quattuor (four) + -pes, -pedis (-footed) → quadru-ped- → †quadrupes, quadrupedis (with four feet)  

quinque (five) + -angulus, -anguli (-cornered) → quinqui-angulo- → †quinquangulus, quinquanguli (five-cornered)  

quinque (five) + -fidus, -fidi (-split) → quinqui-fido- → †quinquifidus, quinquifidi (split into five parts)  

quinque (five) + -remis, -remis (-oared) → quinque-remi- → †quinqueremis, quinqueremis (with five banks of oars)  

sex (six) + -ennium, -ennii (-years) → sex-ennio- → †sexennium, sexennii (period of six years)  

sex (six) + -fidus, -fidi (-split) → sex-fido- → †sexfidus, sexfidi (split into six parts)  

sex (six) + -pes, -pedis (-footed) → se-ped- → †sepes, sepedis (with six feet)  

septem (seven) + -fluus, -flui (-flowing) → septem-fluo- → †septemfluus, septemflui (with seven mouths)  

septem (seven) + -pes, -pedis (-footed) → septi-ped- → †septipes, septipedis (with seven feet)  

septem (seven) + -ennium, -ennii (-years) → septi-ennio- → †septennium, septennii (period of seven years)  

octo (eight) + -ennium, -ennii (-years) → octi-ennio- → †octennium, octennii (period of eight years)  

octo (eight) + -iugis, -iugis (-yoked) → octo-iugi- → †octoiugis, octoiugis (eight in a team)  

octo (eight) + -pes, -pedis (-footed) → octi-ped- → †octipes, octipedis (eight-footed)  

novem (nine) + -ennis, -ennis (of x years) → novi-enni- → †novennis, novennis (of nine years)  

novem (nine) + -plex, -plicis (-fold) → novem-plic- → †novemplex, novemplicis (ninefold)  

novem (nine) + -ussis, -ussis (-asses) → non-ussi- → †nonussis, nonussis (nine asses)  

decem (ten) + -ennis, -ennis (of x years) → deci-enni- → †decennis, decennis (of ten years)  

decem (ten) + -remis, -remis (-oared) → decem-remi- → †decemremis, decemremis (with ten banks of oars)  

centum (hundred) + -oculus, -oculi (-eyed) → centi-oculo- → †centoculus, centoculi (hundred-eyed)  

centum (hundred) + -peda, -pedae (-footed) → centum-peda- → †centumpeda, centumpeda (hundred-footed)  

centum (hundred) + -peda, -pedae (-footed) → centi-peda- → †centipeda, centipedae (centipede)  

mille (thousand) + -folium, -folii (-leafed) → mili-folio- → †milifolium, milifolii (thousand-leafed, milfoil)  

mille (thousand) + -folium, -folii (-leafed) → mille-folio- → †millefolium, millefolii (thousand-leafed, milfoil)  

mille (thousand) + -ennium, -ennii (-years) → milli-ennio- → †millennium, millennii (period of one thousand years)  

mille (thousand) + -modus, -modi (-wayed) → mili-modo- → †millimodus, millimodi (thousand-fold)

More thorough explanations of the rules appear in my “Latin Stem Compounds: Formation and Meaning” article and in George D. Chase’s “The Form of Nominal Compounds in Latin” article.

It is very important to understand that a first part of a Latin compound cannot link up directly with a non-nominal verb form through nominal composition. Here I point to, and comment on, some examples of compound words and the ways in which the parts of these words came together.

Latin does not allow us to link, say, the combining form homini- (from homo, “human being”) with, say, the verb ducere, “to lead,” to make a nominal compound. A verb *hominiducere would actually be the phrase homini ducere, which means “to lead for a human being,” where the homini is not a combining form but the dative singular form of homo. If we wanted to make a verb involving homo and ducere through nominal composition, we first would have to create a compound adjective *hominiducus, “leading humans” and then make a denominative verb *hominiducare, “to lead humans.”

The verb animadvertere, “to notice,” was not created through nominal composition but through the combining of the two words in the phrase animum advertere, “to turn the mind to,” where the -um of the first word was elided before the a of the second word, and the two words were put as one word. A verb involving animus and advertere created through nominal composition would have to be a denominative verb *animadvertare, “to turn the mind to,” which has an intervening compound adjective *animadvertus, “turning the mind to.”

The denominative verb glorificare, “to glorify,” came about from the compound adjective glorificus, “glorious,” which itself came about from the noun gloria, “glory,” and the word element -ficus, “-making.”

Even great Latin scholars fail to understand these important facts about Latin nominal composition and verbs. A notable example is Reginald Foster. He wanted to turn the participle breviloquens, “speaking briefly,” into a verb so that he could have a word meaning “to tweet” (on Twitter), and although he should have written the denominative verb breviloquentare, he changed the nominal participial form loquens into the non-nominal verb form loqui to get breviloqui. The problem with this breviloqui is that it is not a verb from breviloquens but really a separate phrase brevi loqui, “to speak a short time,” comprising the infinitive loqui and the adverbial form brevi.

The creation of denominative verbs in Latin requires the act of adding various verb ending sets to the bases or stems of nouns and adjectives. The most basic rules for denominative verbs in Latin are as follows:

The verb ending set -o, -are, -avi, -atum is used to create transitive and intransitive verbs, and it is the most common denominative verb ending set in Latin, serving as the default. A first-conjugation verb, with the desired meaning, is created by

adding this verb ending set to polysyllabic stems of the fourth declension, and to monosyllabic stems of the second, third, fourth, and fifth declensions;

taking the case ending of the genitive singular form (-ae, -i, -ius, -is, -us, -ei) or genitive plural form (-arum, -orum, -um or -ium, -uum, -erum) of any other noun or adjective of any declension and replacing that case ending with this verb ending set.

The deponent verb ending set -or, -ari, -atus sum is used to create transitive and intransitive verbs, and the intransitive verbs often express condition or occupation. A first-conjugation verb, with the desired meaning, is created by following the same exact rules as those of the verb ending set -o, -are, -avi, -atum (see above in A.).

The verb ending set -eo, -ere , -ui, -itum is used to create intransitive verbs which denote states. A second-conjugation verb, with the desired meaning, is created by

adding this verb ending set to monosyllabic stems of all but the fifth declension;

taking the case ending of the genitive singular form (-ae, -i, -ius, -is, -us, -ei) or genitive plural form (-arum, -orum, -um or -ium, -uum, -erum) of any other noun or adjective of any declension and replacing that case ending with this verb ending set.

The verb ending set -io, -ire, -ivi, -itum can be used to create transitive and intransitive verbs from i-stems, and much less often from other stems treated as i-stems. A fourth-conjugation verb, with the desired meaning, is created by

adding this verb ending set to monosyllabic stems of all but i-stems of the third declension;

taking the case ending of the genitive singular form (-ae, -i, -ius, -is, -us, -ei) or genitive plural form (-arum, -orum, -um or -ium, -uum, -erum) of any other noun or adjective of any declension and replacing that case ending with this verb ending set.

Below are examples of denominative verbs created through the use of the verb ending sets. Verbs indicated by † below already existed. Verbs indicated by ‡ below are those that I created for the sake of demonstration. Each Latin noun or adjective in the list below appears in its nominative singular or plural form and, if applicable, in its genitive singular or plural form. For a few nouns in this list, there also appear the stems of these nouns.

First Conjugation Non-Deponent

fuga, fugae (flight) → †fugo, fugare, fugavi, fugatum (to put to flight, to chase away)  

stimulus, stimuli (goad) → †stimulo, stimulare, stimulavi, stimulatum (to goad, to incite)  

numeratum, numerati (cash) → ‡numerato, numeratare, numeratavi, numeratatum (to cash)  

arma, armorum (arms) → †armo, armare, armavi, armatum (to arm)  

albus, albi (white) → †albo, albare, albavi, albatum (to make white)  

insolitus, insoliti (weird) → ‡insolito, insolitare, insolitavi, insolitatum (to weird)  

pius, pii (pure) → †pio, piare, piavi, piatum (to expiate)  

novus, novi (new) → †novo, novare, novavi, novatum (to renew)  

miles, militis (soldier) †milito, militare, militavi, militatum (to fight as a soldier)  

pulvis, pulveris (dust) → †pulvero, pulverare, pulveravi, pulveratum (to turn anything to dust)  

gasilumen, gasiluminis (gaslight) → ‡gasilumino, gasiluminare, gasiluminavi, gasiluminatum (to gaslight)  

vis, vis (force) [stem vi-] → ‡vio, viare, viavi, viatum (to force)  

bos, bovis (ox) [stem bov-] → ‡bovo, bovare, bovavi, bovatum (to ox)  

sus, suis (swine) [stem su-] → ‡suo, suare, suavi, suatum (to swine)  

levis, levis (light) → †levo, levare, levavi, levatum (to lighten)  

aestus, aestus (tide) [stem aestu-] → †aestuo, aestuare, aestuavi, aestuatum (to seethe)  

fluctus, fluctus (wave) [stem fluctu-] → †fluctuo, fluctuare, fluctuavi, fluctuatum (to wave)  

sinus, sinus (curve) [stem sinu-] → †sinuo, sinuare, sinuavi, sinuatum (to bend)  

facies, faciei (face) [stem facie-] → ‡facio, faciare, faciavi, faciatum (to face)  

res, rei (thing) [stem re-] → ‡reo, reare, reavi, reatum (to thing)

First Conjugation Deponent

aqua, aquae (water) → †aquor, aquari, aquatus sum (to fetch water)  

dominus, domini (lord) → †dominor, dominari, dominatus sum (to be master)  

osculum, osculi (kiss) → †osculor, osculari, osculatus sum (to kiss)  

Graecus, Graeci (Greek) → †graecor, graecari, graecatus sum (to act like a Greek)  

fur, furis (thief) → †furor, furari, furatus sum (to steal)  

piscis, piscis (fish) → †piscor, piscari, piscatus sum (to fish)  

res, rei (thing) [stem re-] → ‡reor, reari, reatus sum (to thing)

Second Conjugation

albus, albi (white) → †albeo, albere (to be white)  

clarus, clari (bright) → †clareo, clarere (to shine)  

flos, floris (flower) → †floreo, florere, florui (to flower)  

felipuella, felipuellae (catgirl) → ‡felipuelleo, felipuellere (to be a catgirl)  

vis, vis (force) [stem vi-] → ‡vieo, viere (to be force)  

res, rei (thing) [stem re-] → ‡reo, rere (to be a thing)

Fourth Conjugation

bulla, bullae (bubble) → †bullio, bullire, bullivi, bullitum (to boil)  

insanus, insani (mad) → †insanio, insanire, insanivi, insanitum (to rave)  

custos, custodis (guardian) → †custodio, custodire, custodivi, custoditum (to guard)  

finis, finis (end) → †finio, finire, finivi, finitum (to end)  

vis, vis (force) [stem vi-] → ‡vio, vire, vivi, vitum (to force)  

gestus, gestus (movement of the limbs) [gestu-] → †gestio, gestire, gestivi, gestitum (to gesticulate)  

res, rei (thing) [stem re-] → ‡reio, reire, reivi, reitum (to thing)

I must reiterate that these are basic, simplified rules for the creation of denominative verbs and compound words formed through nominal composition in Latin. A full set of rules and exceptions is beyond the scope of this essay, but the reader can still use these rules to get at least a sense of the Latin language’s systems of nominal composition and derivation.

10. The Difference between Se/Suus and Eius

Reflexive pronouns in English end in -self or -selves, and most of the time, they function as emphatic pronouns that highlight or emphasize the individuality or particularity of their noun. The distinction between reflexive pronouns and anaphoric pronouns in English is typically simple to discern, especially since the anaphoric pronouns do not have the -self or -selves element: e.g., I hurt myself; I hurt you; they see themselves; I see them.

The uses and forms of reflexive pronouns and anaphoric pronouns in Latin, however, are very different. Textbooks and composition guides attempt to explain the differences between the two groups of words, but these explanations end up being either half true (“se/suus refers back to the subject”), or unnecessarily vague and complicated (“in the mind of the subject of the main verb” or “logical instead of grammatical subject”).

The actual rule for the uses and forms of reflexive pronouns and anaphoric pronouns in Latin comes from “Latin reflexive pronouns at the crossroads of syntax and pragmatics” by Elena Zheltova:

The reflexive is always coreferent with the topic of the clause or the sentence, but its use is possible if there is no conflict of the topic and focus of empathy. ... In the event of such a conflict, the use of a reflexive is impossible.

This may sound very technical and difficult to follow, but the ideas behind it are not difficult to grasp: the se/suus refers to the individual serving as the topic when the writer or speaker wishes to put themselves into the point of view of that individual serving as the topic, in order to say something relevant about that topic; the eius, however, refers to someone else named in the context. (The “topic” of a sentence or clause is what that sentence or clause is about, and the “focus” is what is being said about the topic.)

Thus, the difference between se/suus and eius is a pragmatic one and not a syntactic one. It relates to topic and focus, not to subject and object.

Example:

Dux Romanus filium suum interfecit. The Roman commander killed his own son.

The topic is the Roman commander, and the focus tells us that he killed his own son, but the composer of this sentence is putting themselves into the point of view of the commander to give that information, as if reporting a direct statement of the commander: “I killed my own son.”

Another example:

Agricola nautam timet sed uxorem eius amat. The farmer fears the sailor but loves his wife.

The farmer is the topic and subject. The eius, however, refers not to the farmer, but to someone else named in the context: the sailor.

The topic of the utterance does not need to be the subject. Example:

Socratem cives sui interfecerunt. Socrates was put to death by his own fellow-citizens.

Although the citizens are the subject of the sentence, Socrates is the topic and focus of empathy. The writer of the sentence is giving Socrates’ point of view, which is: “My own fellow-citizens put me to death.”

One last example:

Scit se esse laetum. He knows he is happy.

Hey, wait! This is just a normal instance of indirect speech (or oratio obliqua)! Yes, that is right, and it demonstrates an important feature about that construction: the topic of the sentence turns out to be the subject of the sentence as well, and the indirect speech is by its very nature giving relevant information from the point of view of that topic (and subject)!

11. The Subjunctive by Attraction Is Not Really a Thing in Latin

English has a subjunctive mood, but its force has always been weak, and today we find only remnants of it (e.g., If I were you, Be that as it may).

The subjunctive mood in Latin, of course, is not only alive and well, but is even thriving. It appears in so many constructions that sometimes the learner finds it difficult to determine why a verb in a particular situation is subjunctive instead of indicative. The so-called “Subjunctive by Attraction” can be one of the most difficult for the student to understand because of how the textbooks and grammars define it: “the change of a verb in a subordinate clause to subjunctive because it is so closely connected with another subjunctive verb or an infinitive as to form an integral part of it.” The student of Latin can always ask, “How closely does the connection need to be?” Unfortunately, there is a lack of clear and noticeable distinctions among the various examples which purport to show where this “Subjunctive by Attraction” phenomenon occurs. The choice between the subjunctive and the indicative seems to be random and situational. Reginald Foster even refers to this construction as a subjunctive used “just for kicks.”

In reality, clauses which seem to display this “Subjunctive by Attraction” are either subjunctive clauses of characteristic or indirect subordinate clauses. Most Latin grammars and textbooks fully explain the nature of subjunctive clauses of characteristic, but fewer explain what exactly indirect subordinate clauses are. An indirect subordinate clause is a clause which indicates some topic, and there is at the same time no conflict of this topic and focus of empathy, so the writer or speaker is putting themselves into the point of view of the individual who is the topic of the utterance, and we receive relevant information from that point of view. That means that the criteria for determining whether a clause is an indirect subordinate clause are fundamentally not different from the criteria which are involved in determining whether to use se/suus or eius. Once again, we are dealing with a construction that involves a pragmatic distinction, not a syntactic one.

Example:

Quis eum diligat quem metuat? Who would love a man that he fears?

This could be read as either a subjunctive clause of characteristic or an indirect subordinate clause. If we read it as a subjunctive clause of characteristic, then we would interpret eum ... quem as “that type of person whom...” If we read this as an indirect subordinate clause, however, we must think about it more carefully. The topic of the relative clause is also the topic of the main clause, and the writer writes from that point of view: “Would I love some other person, and would I even fear him too?”

Another example:

Mos est Athenis laudari in contione eos qui sint in proeliis interfecti. It is a custom at Athens for those who have died in battles to be praised in the assembly.

An indirect subordinate clause appears after the infinitive in this sentence. The subject of the sentence is “a custom,” but the topic and focus of empathy are “those who died in battles,” and the point of view of those who died is: “We are praised in the assembly according to the custom of the city.”

Sometimes we find the indicative in places where we might have expected the “Subjunctive by Attraction.” Gildersleeve’s Latin Grammar attempts to explain the use of the indicative instead of the “Subjunctive by Attraction” by claiming that such clauses point to “mere circumlocutions” or “individual facts,” but in both cases we are dealing with utterances which are not providing us with information from the point of view of an individual as the topic, but simply relevant information where points of view are not relevant.

Example:

Efficitur ab oratore ut ii qui audiunt ita adficiantur ut orator velit. It is brought about by an orator that those who hear are affected as he wishes.

The topic here is the orator, and the writer is simply referring to “those who hear,” and that writer is in no way attemping to give relevant information from their (i.e., of the people indicated by “those who hear”) point of view.

One last example:

quod vides perisse, perditum ducas. you should consider as lost what you see has perished.

There are two reasons why we see an indicative vides here. First, while the “you” is the subject of the verbs ducas and vides, the topic which that relative clause refers to is not that “you” but the thing that ought to be considered lost. Second, the writer is not putting himself into the point of view of anyone who could be considered a topic, and in fact the writer is writing from his own point of view to give his reader or listener an exhortation.

12. Adjectives and Adverbs in English, Adverbs and Adjectives in Latin

English likes to use adjectives in some situations and adverbs in other situations. If someone asks us how we are doing, we might respond by using a phrase containing some adjective, as, say, “I am good.” If, however, someone asks us how someone else performed some action, we might use some adverb like “happily” or “angrily” or “poorly” in response.

In analogous situations in Latin, the language very often uses adverbs where English uses adjectives, and adjectives where English uses adverbs.

When someone asks us, “Quid agis?” or “Quomodo te habes?” (“How are you doing?”), we might say, “Me bene habeo” or just “Bene” (“I am doing well,” “I’m good,” “I’m doing good”), or even “Me male habeo” or “Male” (“I am not doing well,” “Bad,” “I’m doing bad”), instead of “Bonus” or “Malus.” Latin here appears to focus on how we are while English focuses on what we are.

But Latin very often uses adjectives in an adverb-like way so that they indicate the manner in which the action of the verb is done. This is especially common in the use of Latin adjectives which imply subjective attributes (i.e., those adjectives relating to feelings or states of consciousness). We can refer to such adjectives as “depictives.” In situations like these, Latin appears to focus on what we are while we do something, while English focuses on how we are feeling or thinking or behaving while we do something.

Examples:

Laetus saltans Happily dancing  

Porcus ad speluncam tristis adiit. The pig went sadly toward the cave.  

Invitus haec dico. I say this unwillingly.  

Ego vivo miserrimus. I live very miserably.  

Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres. Gallia as a whole is divided into three parts.

Notice what is meant in each of these. The person who is dancing is happy while do it. The pig headed toward the cave and was sad while doing it. The person who is saying some things does so against their will. The person who is living is also very miserable. Gallia ... omnis does not mean “All Gaul,” but actually the omnis indicates in what way Gallia is divided into three parts.

We can, of course, write laete saltans, with an adverb, but the adverb here is modifying specifically the verb, and so the phrase does not so much mean “happily dancing” as “performing the act of dancing in a happy-like way.”

13. Sources

A Grammar of Classical Latin, Arthur Sloman;

A Latin Grammar, George M. Lane;

A Manual of Latin Word Formation, Paul Rockwell Jenks;

Bradley’s Arnold Latin Prose Composition;

Botanical Latin, William T. Stearn;

Classical Latin, JC McKeown;

Conversational Latin for Oral Proficiency, John C. Traupman;

Gildersleeve’s Latin Grammar, B. L. Gildersleeve and G. Lodge;

Introduction to Latin Prose Composition, Milena Minkova;

Latin Grammar, Dirk Panuis;

Latin Prose Composition, George Gilbert Ramsay;

Latin Prose Composition, W. R. Hardie;

Latin Sentence and Idiom, R. Colebourn;

Latin Suffixal Derivatives in English, D. Gary Miller;

Latin Suffixes, John Tahourdin White;

Latin Word Order, A. M. Devine and Laurence D. Stephens;

Learn Latin from the Romans, Eleanor Dickey;

List of Latin phrases (full);

New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin, Andrew L. Sihler;

New Latin Grammar, Allen and Greenough;

Nominal Determination, Elisabeth Stark, Elisabeth Leiss, Werner Abraham;

“On the Distribution of Adnominal Prepositional Phrases in Latin Prose,” David Wharton;

“Orthography of Names and Epithets: Stems and Compound Words,” Dan H. Nicolson and Robert A. Brooks;

Ossa Latinitatis Sola ad Mentem Reginaldi Rationemque, Reginald Foster and Daniel P. McCarthy;

Ossium Carnes Multae e Marci Tullii Ciceronis Epistulis, Reginald Foster and Daniel P. McCarthy;

Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin, Michael Weiss;

“Relative Constructions and Unbounded Dependencies,” Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey Pullum;

Second Latin Exercise Book, J. B. Allen;

Syntax of Early Latin, Charles Edwin Bennett;

George D. Chase’s “The Form of Nominal Compounds in Latin”;

The Noun Phrase in Classical Latin Prose, Olga Spevak;

The Oxford Latin Syntax, Harm Pinkster;

This, That and Who;

Vicipaedia: Ensis luminaris;

VITA LATINA: Nuntii de orbiculo Latinitatis Vivae fautorum.

     - Ian Andreas “Diaphanus” Miller

#Latin Grammar #Latin Prose #tagamemnon #latin fandom #latin #latin language #latin translation #lingua latina #writing Latin #Latin declension #Latin word formation #formation of Latin words #Latin vocabulary #Latin prose composition #writing the Latin language #Latin hints #Word Formation #paradigm #paradigms #latin paradigm #latin paradigms #declension #declensions #latin declensions

[magfilipino]

Talking about one's self [Part 2]

In this series of posts, I'll be posting about some declarative statements that can be used when talking about one's self in a conversations or during self-introductions.

2) Expressing Likes and Desires

Expressing something that you already like as a declarative sentence and expressing something that you like or want to do as an intention (not yet done) is often expressed as "gusto" in Tagalog. It can both mean like and want.

Gusto ko / ko(ng)

Usually followed by a pronoun or an action word, to express desire to do something or express fondness/liking for a certain hobby. If the action word is in contemplative aspect, then it might be expressing desire to do something. If the action word is in imperfect aspect that implies it is regularly being done, then it might be expressing fondness or liking for a hobby or an activity.

Examples:

Hanga ako sa pamumuno ni Lea. Gusto ko siya maging kaibigan. (Trans: I admire Lea's leadership. I want her to be my friend.) "siya" is a pronoun referring to Lea

Gusto kong kumain ng Jollibee Chickenjoy. (Trans: I want to eat Jollibee Chickenjoy.)

Gusto kong makita mag-perform nang live ang Blackpink. (Literal: I want to see Blackpink perform live.) Both the action words "kumain" (to eat) and "makita" (to see/watch) are in contemplative aspect, therefore the speakers express desire to do those activities.

Gusto kong namamasyal sa probinsya tuwing bakasyon. (Trans: I like visiting and going around the province every time I stay for a vacation.) The action word "namamasyal" (to visit and stroll -- visiting and strolling) is in imperfect aspect, meaning that it is still being done, in the process of being completed, or is regularly happening ("tuwing" (every time...)). When translated to english, it becomes a noun in function.

Gusto kong maging...

This phrase literally means, "I want to become..." and it can be followed by a noun with or without a modifier.

Examples:

Gusto kong maging matagumpay na negosyante. (Trans: I want to become a successful entrepreneur.) "negosyante" means entrepreneur, which is a noun and modified by the adjective "matagumpay" which means successful

Gusto kong maging oncologist, 'pag nakatapos na ko ng pag-aaral. (Literal: I want to become an oncologist when I finish my studies.) oncologist is a noun that is specific to people

Gusto kong magkaroon ng...

This is the combination of has/have and expressing like statements. It translates to "I want to have..."

Examples:

Gusto kong magkaroon ng bag na Chanel. (Trans: I want to have a Chanel bag.)

Gusto kong magkaroon ng maraming pera! (Trans: I want to have lots of money!)

Note: In actual conversations, sometimes "magkaroon" is dropped and simply use the "Gusto kong..." or "Gusto ko ng..." since both phrases expresses for things or events that are still yet to happen or will happen in the future, which is also being implied in "Gusto kong magkaroon..." sentences. Example: both sentences above can also be stated as "Gusto ko ng bag na Chanel," and "Gusto ko ng maraming pera!" Although the desire to possess both things are not explicitly stated, the speaker's meaning is left to be interpreted based on the context of conversation.

Gusto ko si ____ / ng ____

Usually followed by nouns. "Si" is followed by proper pronouns especially if a name of a person, while "ng" is usually followed by common or abstract nouns.

Examples:

Gusto ko si Ben dahil hindi siya nagsasabi ng mga birong sexist. (Literal: I like Ben because he doesn't tell sexist jokes.) "Ben" is a name of a person. "Si" becomes a marker for a proper noun.

Gusto ko ng sariling bahay para magkaroon na ko ng privacy. (Literal: I want my own house for me to have privacy.) "Bahay" is a common noun or object meaning house, while the word "sarili" is a modifer that means my own or mine.

Additional notes:

Most of the ko pronouns used can be substituted by other pronouns like mo, ninyo, niya, nila, natin, and namin.

Pay attention to how si and ng are used to be familiarized with these

#learn tagalog #tagalog langblr #filipino langblr #learn filipino #philippine culture #pinoy culture #authors #language study #filipino grammar #tagalog grammar #tagalog native speaker #how to speak tagalog

[nuelangblr]

Irish Grammar Notes - Séimhiú (lenition)

In a nutshell, Irish séimhiú (lenition) is a mutation of consonants to make them sound softer and to make the speech smoother. Séimhiú is marked by adding a letter ‘h’ after a consonant. Nine consonants pick up séimhiú: b, c, d, f, g, m, s, p, t.

bean →  bhean cara → chara deartháir → dheartháir fuinneog → fhuinneog guí → ghuí mála → mhála súil →  shúil pota → phota teach → theach

Séimhiú changes the pronunciation of a word! Here are some yt videos for reference video 1 (Ulster dialect), video 2, video 3.

Exception

There is a certain exception no this rule - dental consonants d, t, s do not pick up séimhiú; theacht (no-dental t) but tine (dental t). I recommend checking the IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) spelling of a word whenever you’re not sure if a consonant is dental or not bc it can be tricky :)

When do consonants pick up séimhiú?

After the definite article ‘an’ - in feminine nouns in nominative singular, bean → an bhean - in masculine nouns in genitive singular, fir →  carr an fhir

After the vocative particle ‘a’, cairde → a chairde

After possessive pronouns, madra → mo mhadra

After prepositions ‘de’, ‘faoi’, ‘mar’, ‘ó’, ‘roimh’, ‘trí’, ‘um’, ‘idir’, ‘ar’, maidin →   roimh mhaidin

After the preterite and conditional of the coupla, duine → ba dhuine

After past particles ‘níor’ and ‘ar’, múinteoir → níor mhúinteoir é

After particles ‘a’, ‘má’, ‘ní’, tuigim → ní thuigim

After numers 1-6 when counting people or things, bó → aon bhó

After constructions of adjective + noun written as compounds,  fear óg → ógfhear

If the word is the second part of a compound word, gorm → dúghorm

If the word is a modifier in some fixed constructions as ‘rainy weather’ báistí → aimsir bháistí

In some adjectives in some contexts, deas → bean dheas

After most prefixes such as ‘an’, ‘ró’, ‘ais’, beag → ró-bheag [full list to be updated]

How does it look like in a sentence?

So, to say that the weather was rainy but I took my dog for a walk, you need to modify certain consonants like this:

Bhí an aimsir bháistí ach thóg mé mo mhadadh ag súil.

Remember to take it easy, everything comes with a practice! Also, I’m neither native nor fluent Irish speaker, so feel free to correct me if I’ve made any mistakes.

#nue #Irish #irish language #irish grammar #gaeilge #as gaeilge #irish grammar notes #langblr #tongueblr #language learning #indigenous languages

[chromatasia]

Your a they/it?

THATS GONNA BE CONFUSING NOW

cuz I always say “it” like

“So the dog ate my cat… it didn’t stop it though”

Am I talking about my dog here or someone’s pronouns and I feel like “they” is perfectly fine it makes things easier kinda but if you gave yourself a nickname so it makes more sense then it’s perfect… NOW I AM EVEN MORE CONFUSED PRONOUNS are so SO WEIRD AND CONFUSING I’M SORRY 😭

NONONO ITS ALRIGHT :p pronouns can be weird sometimes i get it. english is a weird language for. a lot of reason. but also because pronouns are very ambiguous in english specifically. in a lot of languages, there will be a distinction made between plural and singular pronouns (thinking of latin, because that’s what i do in school) or will use the case/function of the noun it is referring to in order to modify the pronoun.

if it’s easier to use they/them feel free to! i have two pronouns im fine with for a reason :D plus, you can always use chroma (or izzy) to refer to me!

#me taking any excuse to talk about latin because it’s fun :] #ask/answer #🌙

[paradoxcase]

QuCheanya post 3:

I have added an extra tense:

"Sideways" tense is for talking about things in other timelines. What I've discovered when trying to write this story is that this tense is actually quite necessary. You know the gay fanfiction problem? Where you have two participants in the sentence, and they both use the same pronouns, and sometimes it becomes hard to figure out which pronoun refers to which person? Well, time travel stories have an even worse version of the gay fanfiction problem, which is that sometimes two participants not only have the same pronouns, but also have the same name because they are both versions of the same person from different times, or different timelines, or something. I never realized it until now, but Homestuck actually handled this so seamlessly I never realized it was an issue. We have all the pesterlogs where people are specifically labeled with whether they are from the past, or the future, or the present, and we have people talking about "past Karkat" or "future Karkat", etc. which is basically exactly what QuCheanya does with noun tenses. And then in another place, we have an alternate timeline Dave being referred to as "feltsuit Dave" (ok, I can't remember if that term actually existed in canon or only in fandom, but he was identified in canon by the outfit he was wearing), Dave who comes back from the doomed timeline becomes Davesprite, Jade's dead dreamself becomes Jadesprite, etc. I remember people joking about how Homestuck was just all about coming up with new modifiers for "self", e.g. "dreamself", "past self", "spriteself", whatever, but the thing is, it needed to do this in order for all the time travel to make sense. And then at the end, we had that conversation between Vriska and (Vriska) which had the potential to be extremely confusing, but Hussie utilized a fandom meme to make it clear who was speaking when. Anyway, I digress. The point is, the noun tenses solve this gay time travel fanfiction problem pretty well.

I now have actual interlinears explicating the tense system:

Those are the simple past/present/future tenses. I think that use of rinu may be new content, but we'll get to that part later.

Here's an example of the time travel tenses in action:

Imagine, you're asked to design a conlang, and the next day someone shows up with a grammar of your conlang and the example sentences are actually about YOU.

-me indicates a noun is a title, so, neaSapfita just means "priestess" with a little p, while neaSapfitame means "Priestess" with a big P that has to precede someone's name. You can also stick on the back of regular names to mean Mr. or Mrs.

Here is an example with an embedded clause with a different tense:

And here is the "I don't like you" example spelled out in the document, complete with a sideways tense example:

Side note at this point, that I'm now no longer using tables to make these interlinears and instead using the dedicated package for linguistics examples, expex, which is why they look so much better, and why there are more of them. It's great.

That's it for today.

#conlang #qucheanya #time travel #tenses

[tananansad]

Malay and open class pronouns!

It can cause some silly ambiguities :D

For non-lingblr: Basically, when a word class (nouns, verbs etc.) is open, that means that it's accepting new words into the category relatively frequently. A known example would be like how Japanese is frequently debated among learners to not have pronouns as its pronoun class is a result of nouns modified to function the way they do today!

In Malay, nouns are also very open class. Informally, sis can be used as a feminine first-person singular pronoun or when referring to a feminine-presenting person, substituting engkau (a informal or literary word for you). In higher registers, titles and honorifics are used in place of pronouns when referring to someone respectfully.

Doktor, ada orang nak jumpa doktor sekarang juga. Dr., someone wants to meet you right now.

Cikgu: Cikgu harap kau orang sudah siapkan kerja sekolah. Teacher: I hope you've all done your homework. Murid: Hah? Cikgu ada bagikah? Student: Huh? Did you give any?

Anyways, recently someone was talking about a guy who had looks but also a really ugly personality, to which I said

Nonok pun tak lalu nak jamu!

which should mean

Even the gays wouldn't want him!

However, I realized a tad late that nonok could also be a first-person singular pronoun used by femme gay men and some trans women so it could also be interpreted as

Even I wouldn't want him!

even if I never was attracted to him in the first place. Oh my.

Personally, besides the various regional pronouns I use in actual day-to-day speech, I use a(n initially, jokingly) self-coined brosis to refer to myself online. It's fun to experiment with whatever first-person pronouns you want to use. I used to be friends with a system that used kita orang (literally we people, but can also work fine as a singular, at least to me). Let's not forget the notably anglicized Is and yous as a marker of urban hyperfemininity or intimacy!

#langblr #language #linguistics

[reedreadsgreek]

2 Corinthians 1:21–22

21 ὁ δὲ βεβαιῶν ἡμᾶς σὺν ὑμῖν εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ χρίσας ἡμᾶς θεός, 22 ὁ καὶ σφραγισάμενος ἡμᾶς καὶ δοὺς τὸν ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡμῶν. 

My translation: 

21 And the one making us firm with you unto the Anointed and having anointed us is God, 22 the one having also sealed us and given us the pledge of the Breath in our hearts. 

Notes:

1:21 

βεβαιόω (8x) is literally, “I make firm”; figuratively, “I establish, strengthen” (BDAG); cf. βέβαιος “firm” in verse 7. NIGTC suggests the use of the term here may reflect its legal usage, denoting ‘legally guaranteed security’, i.e., ‘God is constantly engaged in strengthening or confirming believers in their relationship to Christ’. The direct object of the substantival present participle ὁ βεβαιῶν is ἡμᾶς. The participle is modified by the associative prepositional phrase σὺν ὑμῖν; the phrase seems to imply a reciprocal relationship in the strengthening (so NET: “establishes us together with you”), which is not brought out in most translations (e.g., NRSV, NASB: “establishes us with you”). EGGNT classifies the prepositional phrase εἰς Χριστὸν as referential (“with respect/reference to”). Most translations simply take the phrase as equivalent to ἐν Χριστῷ, “in Christ”; NIGTC notes, however, that ‘although εἰς and ἐν share some common territory in Hellenistic Greek, Paul is not prone to confuse them.’ The present-tense of the participle suggests an ongoing strengthening by God. 

χρίω (5x) is, “I anoint [with oil]”, although in the NT the term is only used figuratively of anointing with the Holy Spirit and/or ‘consecration to divine service’ (NIGTC); cf. ὁ Χριστός “the anointed one”. Given the reference to the Spirit in the next verse, anointing with the Spirit may be implicit here. The article ὁ above also governs the aorist participle χρίσας (“He who strengthens us ... and anointed us”). The aorist-tense of χρίσας probably refers to the individual moment of salvation or baptism. ἡμᾶς is the direct object of the participle; most commentators take the pronoun here to be inclusive of Paul and his readers, as it is in the entirety of verses 21–22. 

θεός is the predicate of an implied ἐστιν, of which ὁ βεβαιῶν ... καὶ χρίσας is the subject. 

1:22 

καὶ introduces a second pair of substantival participles which modifies θεός (v. 21) in the third attributive position. 

σφραγίζω (15x) is, “I seal” (BDAG), from ἡ σφραγίς (16x) “seal”. The verb is used here figuratively to indicate ‘divine ownership and protection’ (ICC); ‘ownership ... authentication ... and security’ (NIGTC). NASB, HCSB, NET: “sealed us”; NIV: “set his seal of ownership on us”. The direct object of the substantival aorist middle participle ὁ σφραγισάμενος is ἡμᾶς. Only here and Romans 15:28 is this verb middle; the meaning appears to be similar, and so here the middle-voice may emphasize God’s self-interest. Ephesians 1:13 mentions being sealed “by the Spirit”; given the reference to the Spirit in the second participial phrase below, that idea may be implicit here. 

The article ὁ above also governs the aorist participle δοὺς (from δίδωμι; “He who sealed us ... and gave us”). The aorist-tense of both participles indicates antecedent action. The unexpressed direct object of the participle is ἡμᾶς. 

ὁ ἀρραβών (3x, 2 of which in 2 Cor.) is, “deposit, down payment, pledge” (BDAG). It is a Hebrew loan-word, from עֲרָבוֹן; ESV: “guarantee”; NIV: “a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come”. τὸν ἀρραβῶνα is the direct object of δίδωμι above. The genitive τοῦ πνεύματος could be appositional (“the down-payment, namely, the Spirit”), in which case the Spirit is either the foretaste or the guarantee of the blessings of the next age, or it could be partitive (“the first part of the Spirit”), in which case the Spirit given to us now is only a small portion of the Spirit we will have in the next age. Most translations take it as appositional, as shown by the fact that most reverse the order of the nouns so that “Spirit” is the direct object of the verb (“gave us the Spirit as a pledge” rather than “gave us the pledge of the Spirit”). The locative prepositional phrase ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις indicates the destination of the given Spirit; ἐν is effectively equivalent to εἰς. ἡμῶν is a possessive genitive.

#2 Corinthians #2 Corinthians 1 #Christ #God #the Spirit

[zerogpt7]

Mastering English: How to Correct Common Sentence Errors

In the realm of language mastery, the ability to construct grammatically english correct the sentence stands as a hallmark of proficiency. However, even the most seasoned writers and speakers may find themselves susceptible to certain common errors. Whether it's a misplaced modifier, subject-verb agreement issue, or punctuation misstep, refining one's command of English necessitates a keen eye for detail and an understanding of the nuances within sentence structure.

One prevalent error is the misuse of modifiers, leading to ambiguity or unintended meanings. Consider the sentence, "Walking down the street, the trees appeared beautiful." Here, the modifier "walking down the street" seems to modify "trees," suggesting that the trees themselves are strolling. To correct this, we could rephrase it as, "As I was walking down the street, I noticed the beautiful trees."

Subject-verb agreement presents another common pitfall. Errors often arise when dealing with collective nouns or intervening phrases. For instance, "The team are playing well" should be corrected to "The team is playing well," as "team" is a singular entity. Similarly, in the sentence, "The book, along with its sequels, were captivating," "were" should be replaced with "was" to agree with the singular subject "book."

Punctuation, while seemingly straightforward, can cause confusion if misused. Take the sentence, "Let's eat Grandma!" Without a comma, it reads as an alarming invitation to cannibalism. Adding the comma transforms it into, "Let's eat, Grandma!" highlighting the importance of proper punctuation in conveying intended meanings.

Parallelism, essential for maintaining clarity and rhythm, often falters in complex sentences or lists. In the sentence, "She likes hiking, swimming, and to ride bicycles," the lack of parallel structure mars its flow. Correcting it to "She likes hiking, swimming, and riding bicycles" ensures consistency in verb forms, enhancing readability.

Another error to watch for is faulty comparisons, where disparities in elements being compared lead to illogical or nonsensical statements. For instance, "My cat is more intelligent than any other pets" should be revised to "My cat is more intelligent than any other pet," ensuring coherence in the comparison.

Additionally, dangling modifiers frequently confound readers by failing to connect with the intended subject. In the sentence, "Running late, the keys were left on the table," the modifier "running late" lacks a clear subject to describe. Revising it to "Running late, I left the keys on the table" rectifies the ambiguity.

Lastly, the misuse of pronouns can impede comprehension, particularly when antecedents are unclear or pronouns lack agreement with their referents. In the sentence, "Each student must submit their homework," "their" is ambiguous as it doesn't specify if it refers to each individual student or to all collectively. A clearer alternative would be, "Each student must submit his or her homework."

In conclusion, honing one's english language corrector involves vigilant attention to detail in sentence construction. By addressing common errors such as misplaced modifiers, subject-verb disagreements, punctuation mishaps, parallelism issues, faulty comparisons, dangling modifiers, and pronoun misuses, writers and speakers can elevate their communication skills to new heights. Through practice, patience, and a commitment to precision, mastering these nuances of language empowers individuals to convey their thoughts with clarity and coherence.

[leads-view]

Essential Grammar Rules: Mastering the Art of Writing with Accuracy

The art of writing is more than simply compiling words together. Writing is about communication and connecting with your readers. Content that's engaging, clear, and grammatically correct ensures your message is conveyed effectively and professionally. For this reason, having a solid understanding of grammar rules is essential. In this blog, we will outline some grammar fundamentals that will empower your writing and equip you with the confidence to express ideas with precision and eloquence.

Essential Grammar Rules to Master

1. Subject-Verb Agreement

When a sentence's subject is singular, the verb must also be singular. Conversely, if the subject is plural, the verb must be plural.

Incorrect:

> The team of researchers are presenting their findings.

Correct:

> The team of researchers is presenting its findings.

2. Correct Use of Commas

Commas are vital for clarifying meaning and avoiding confusion. Use a comma to separate words and word groups in a simple series of three or more items and when linking independent clauses with a conjunction.

Incorrect:

> She enjoys reading cooking and painting.

Correct:

> She enjoys reading, cooking, and painting.

Incorrect:

> She enjoys painting but she doesn't have enough time.

Correct:

> She enjoys painting, but she doesn't have enough time.

3. Proper Placement of Modifiers

Modifiers (words or phrases that provide additional information about a subject) should be placed as close as possible to the word they are describing to avoid ambiguity.

Incorrect:

> I almost watched all the movies in the series.

Correct:

> I watched almost all the movies in the series.

4. Apostrophes and Possession

It's essential to understand when and where to use apostrophes when indicating possession. Use 's for singular nouns and s' for plural nouns.

Incorrect:

> The womens' jackets are on sale.

Correct:

> The women's jackets are on sale.

5. Homophones

Homophones are words that sound alike but have different meanings and may have different spellings. Examples include 'there', 'their' and 'they're', 'you're' and 'your', and 'its' and 'it's'. Be careful to use the correct homophone based on context.

6. Pronoun Reference

Ensure that it's clear to which subject a pronoun refers. Unclear pronoun references can lead to confusion.

Incorrect:

> Mark told John that he failed.

Correct:

> Mark told John that John had failed.

Closing Thoughts

Deepening your understanding of grammar doesn't happen overnight. However, by regularly revisiting these basic rules and continually practicing your writing, you'll notice a significant improvement in your ability to construct compelling and accurate sentences. Remember, mastery in the art of writing comes from the active persistence to learn and apply the rules coupled with the creative freedom to make the language your own.

#LinkBuilding #ContentWriting #Copywriting #ContentCreation #ContentStrategy #Storytelling #grammar

[textribe]

Difference between bad or badly

The English language presents a multitude of pairs that often cause confusion, and "bad" versus "badly" is a prime example. At the heart of this confusion is the distinction between adjectives and adverbs, where "bad" serves as an adjective and "badly" functions as an adverb. This grammatical nuance dictates their usage: "bad" describes nouns and pronouns, while "badly" modifies verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs. Quick Facts Table AspectBadBadlyPart of SpeechAdjectiveAdverbCommon UsageDescribes a noun or pronounModifies a verb, adjective, or another adverbExamplesa bad idea, feel badperform badly, smells badlyMisconceptionOften mistakenly used as an adverbSometimes incorrectly used in place of "bad Difference Between “Bad” OR “Badly” Definition of Bad Bad is an adjective that describes something as inadequate, unpleasant, or of poor quality. It is used to modify nouns and pronouns, indicating their state or quality. Definition of Badly Badly, on the other hand, is an adverb that describes the manner in which an action is performed. It implies that something is done in an unsatisfactory, incorrect, or unskillful way. Origin of Bad - Bad has Middle English origins, coming from the word "badde" which is of uncertain origin but was used to denote something that was not good. Origin of Badly - Badly also stems from Middle English, evolving from "badde" with the addition of "-ly" to create an adverbial form, indicating the manner of an action. Pronunciation - Bad: /bæd/ - Badly: /ˈbæd.li/ Comparing Bad and Badly The primary difference between "bad" and "badly" lies in their grammatical roles: "bad" is an adjective that describes, and "badly" is an adverb that indicates how something is done. The choice between "bad" and "badly" can alter the meaning of a sentence significantly. Comparison Table FeatureBadBadlyFunctionModifies nouns and pronounsModifies verbs, adjectives, and other adverbsExample SentenceShe felt bad about the mistake.She performed badly on the test.IndicatesQuality or stateManner of actionCommon MisuseUsed incorrectly as an adverb in some dialectsSometimes used in place of "bad" colloquially Usage in Sentences with Explanations Use of Bad in Sentences - The milk tastes bad. - Explanation: "Bad" describes the quality of the milk. - He has a bad feeling about this. - Explanation: Describes his feeling, a state of being. - That was a bad decision. - Explanation: "Bad" modifies the noun "decision," indicating its poor quality. - She felt bad for arriving late. - Explanation: Describes her emotional state. - The weather is bad today. - Explanation: "Bad" modifies the noun "weather," describing its condition. Use of Badly in Sentences - He plays tennis badly. - Explanation: Describes the manner in which he plays tennis. - The team performed badly last season. - Explanation: Indicates how the team performed. - I badly need a vacation. - Explanation: Describes the intensity of the need. - This machine operates badly. - Explanation: Refers to the manner of the machine's operation. - She was badly injured in the accident. - Explanation: Describes the extent of her injuries. Conclusion Understanding the difference between "bad" and "badly" is crucial for accurate and clear communication. "Bad" is an adjective that describes nouns and pronouns, whereas "badly" is an adverb that modifies verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs. Their proper use reflects not only grammatical correctness but also the intended meaning of a sentence. Commonly Asked Questions - Can "bad" ever be used as an adverb? - Traditionally, "bad" is not used as an adverb except in informal contexts where colloquial language prevails, such as "I feel bad." - When should I use "badly" instead of "bad"? - Use "badly" when you need to describe how something is done, not the state of something. - Is it correct to say "I feel badly" about something? - Saying "I feel bad" is grammatically correct when expressing regret or sorrow. I feel badly" implies an impairment of your ability to feel. - How can I remember the difference between "bad" and "badly"? - Remember that "bad" describes a state or quality (adjective), while "badly" describes the manner of an action (adverb). FAQ What is the difference between 'bad' and 'badly'? The word 'bad' is an adjective used to describe something negative or of low quality. For example, you can say, "That movie was bad." On the other hand, 'badly' is an adverb that describes how an action is performed or the manner in which something is done. For instance, you could say, "He sang badly during the performance." When should I use 'bad' and 'badly'? You should use 'bad' to describe something negative or of low quality. For instance, you can say, "The food at that restaurant was bad." On the other hand, use 'badly' to describe the way an action is performed or the manner in which something is done. For example, you could say, "She played the piano badly." Are there any synonyms for 'bad' and 'badly'? Yes, there are synonyms that convey similar meanings. Some synonyms for 'bad' include 'poorly,' 'subpar,' 'inferior,' and 'unsatisfactory.' Similarly, synonyms for 'badly' include 'inadequately,' 'unacceptably,' 'deficiently,' and 'unsatisfactorily.' What are the consequences of using 'bad' and 'badly' incorrectly? Incorrect usage of 'bad' and 'badly' can result in conveying inadequate information or expressing unacceptable quality. This can lead to unsatisfactory outcomes or indicate deficiency. Therefore, it is essential to understand the correct usage of these words for effective communication. Read the full article

[deliasamed]

Noun-Modifying (Adjective) Clauses

Noun-Modifying (adjective) Clauses

(Forms and Functions of Subordinate Clauses)

Subordinate clauses can be classified into three main forms based on their functions within a sentence: nominal clauses, noun-modifying (adjective) clauses, and adverbial clauses.   Nominal Clauses (Substantive Clauses): These clauses function as nouns within a sentence. They can serve as the subject, object, or complement of a sentence. Example: What he said surprised everyone. (Nominal clause as the subject)   Noun-Modifying Clauses (Adjective Clauses): These clauses provide additional information about a noun in the main clause. They are introduced by relative pronouns (e.g., who, which, that). Example: The book that I borrowed from the library is fascinating. (Relative clause providing information about the book)    Adverbial Clauses: These clauses function as adverbs, modifying the main clause by providing information about time, place, manner, condition, etc. They are introduced by subordinating conjunctions (e.g., because, although, when, while). Example: Although it was raining, they decided to go for a walk. (Adverbial clause indicating a contrasting condition)            

Adjective Clauses:

Noun-Modifying Clauses, also known as Adjective Clauses, are dependent clauses that function as adjectives in a sentence. These clauses provide additional information about a noun in the main clause. It typically begins with a relative pronoun (such as who, whom, whose, which, or that) or a relative adverb (such as where, when, or why).     Adjective clauses modify, or describe, a specific noun in the main clause. They add details that help to identify or specify the noun more clearly. Example: The girl who is wearing a red dress is my sister. The book that was on the shelf is now missing.     Adjective clauses provide additional information that is often essential for a complete understanding of the noun they modify. Example: I know a person whose brother is a famous actor. Do you see the house where they used to live?     Adjective clauses can serve to identify or restrict the noun they modify. They specify which person, thing, or place is being referred to. Example: The students who completed the assignment early will receive extra credit. The car that is parked outside belongs to my neighbour.     Adjective clauses are flexible and can be positioned immediately after the noun they modify or at the end of the sentence. Example: The woman, who is my aunt, is a talented artist. The dog found the bone in the garden, which had been buried there by the children.     Adjective clauses are introduced by relative pronouns (who, whom, whose, which, that) or relative adverbs (where, when, why), which connect them to the noun in the main clause. Example: This is the place where I first met her. The person whom you recommended has been hired.            

Noun/Pronoun Modifying Clauses Types:

Various types of clauses, including relative clauses, participle clauses, finite noun clauses (appositives), infinitive clauses, and infinitive noun clauses, modify nouns and pronouns:     Relative Clauses: Relative clauses are dependent clauses that provide additional information about a noun in the main clause. They are introduced by relative pronouns (who, whom, whose, which, that) or relative adverbs (where, when, why).  Example: The man who is standing over there is my neighbour. The book that I borrowed from the library is fascinating.       Participle Clauses: Participle clauses are clauses that use present participles (-ing) or past participles (-ed, -en) to modify a noun. They often convey simultaneous or prior action.  Example: The girl, smiling warmly, greeted us at the door. The car, damaged in the accident, was towed away.         Finite Noun Clauses (Appositives): Finite noun clauses, also known as appositives, function as modifiers and provide additional information about a noun. They are finite clauses with a subject and a verb.  Example: She believes that he will arrive soon. Our hope, that the team will win, is strong.       Infinitive Clauses: Infinitive clauses use the base form of a verb (to + verb) to modify a noun. They often express purpose, intent, or result.  Example: He designed a website for users to navigate easily. We set up a cozy corner for the children to relax.         Infinitive Noun Clauses: Infinitive noun clauses function as nouns and are formed with an infinitive (to + verb) as the main element.  Example:  His dream is to travel around the world. The goal of the project is to improve communication.           Key Differences between Infinitive Clauses and Infinitive Noun Clauses:   Function: Infinitive Clauses: Can function as adjectives, adverbs, or nouns. Infinitive Noun Clauses: Specifically function as nouns.      Role: Infinitive Clauses: Provide additional information about an action, purpose, or result. Infinitive Noun Clauses: Act as subjects, objects, or complements, playing the role of a noun in the sentence.   Examples: Infinitive Clauses: to buy groceries, to navigate easily Infinitive Noun Clauses: to finish the project by Friday, to travel around the world                       Noun-Modifying (Adjective) Clauses Nominal (Noun) Clauses Complex Sentences Subordinate Clauses Types of Interrogative Sentences What is a Noun? How to use it? Read the full article

#adjectiveclauses #finitenounclauses #independentclauses #infinitiveclauses #infinitivenounclauses #noun-modifyingclauses #participleclauses #relativeclauses #subordinateclauses