#latin vocabulary | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

interretialia · 2 years

Text

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;

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;

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

190 notes · View notes