One fun fact about eo is that as it was passed down through Vulgar Latin into the Romance languages, it merged with vado (and, to some extent, ambulo, as far as French is concerned), so it became even more irregular in the Romance languages than it was in Latin. Another fun fact is that the Latin imperfect of eo survived intact in Spanish: iba, ibas, iba, íbamos, ibais, iban. However, it was completely regularized in Portuguese (the "b" dropped out of the Imperfect). Romanian and Italian took a different tack: Eo only survives in Italian as a defective verb with just the infinitive (ire), the perfect infinitive (essere ito), second-person plural present imperative (ite), and third-person singular and plural Imperfect Indicative (iva, ivano) remaining. Eo was on the whole replaced by an amalgamation of vado and ambulo. Romanian replaced eo with mergo; eo doesn't exist in Romanian in any form.
@@salvatoredidomenico8321 But it is. "To go" in Italian is "andare": vado, vai, va, andiamo, andate, vanno. "Ire" exists, but it's rarely used (since it's somewhat archaic), and only in the forms that I listed. www.verbix.com/webverbix/Italian/ire.html
@@mossy8419 You're right. I had forgotten about the Future and the Conditional in French, perhaps because those two tenses didn't exist in either Classical or Vulgar Latin as such. The Future and the Conditional in all Romance languages except Romanian consisting of a compound of the infinitive and a form of "habeo" only developed after Vulgar Latin had started branching off into the different Romance languages themselves.
Fun fact: The napoletan dialect/language still retains more of ire than standard italian, so instead of "andare" infinitive is "ì" (neapolitan drops the entire -re ending) and "juto" is used instead of "andato"
For iī, wouldn't the first "I", since it begins the word and is immediately followed by another vowel, act as a consonant and the word therefore be pronounced more like "yee" instead of "ih-ee"?
I always thought that "ibam," etc. resulted from a contraction of "iebam," just as "-iebam" eventually contracted to "-ía/-ia" in Spanish and Portuguese and to "-ivo/-ivi/-iva" in Italian and "-iam," etc. in Romanian. The fact that Spanish retained the full "íba, íbas, íba, íbamos, íbais, íban (note the accent shift in the first and second person plural forms) can be accounted for by the fact that linguistic evolution is neither straightforward nor consistent.
Vowels are shortened before t only in last syllabes because of natural tendency of final unstressed syllabes to be weakened in several languages. that's why it´s not shortened before -tis
How do you translate the future passive participle of eo? Eundus. I came across the phrase “vires adquirit eundo”. Just can’t fathom the word eundus. I know it’s an ablative of means tho.
I think you missed the greatest irregularity: Why the hell does a verb whose infinitive is basically the infinitive ending of the i-conjugation form its future in the manner of -are and -ēre verbs? Shouldn't it be rather something like... iam, ies, iet, iemus, ietis ient instead of ibo, ibis, ibit, ibitis, ibunt?
@@latintutorial And the reason for that is that eo is an intransitive verb and as such, it cannot take a direct object. Only verbs that can take a direct object can be used in the full passive voice. Verbs of motion, like eo and venio, can only be used in the passive in the impersonal sense that @latintutorial mentioned, so only the third-person singular exists for them in the passive.
You are seriously good at teaching this language. Congrats!
One fun fact about eo is that as it was passed down through Vulgar Latin into the Romance languages, it merged with vado (and, to some extent, ambulo, as far as French is concerned), so it became even more irregular in the Romance languages than it was in Latin. Another fun fact is that the Latin imperfect of eo survived intact in Spanish: iba, ibas, iba, íbamos, ibais, iban. However, it was completely regularized in Portuguese (the "b" dropped out of the Imperfect).
Romanian and Italian took a different tack: Eo only survives in Italian as a defective verb with just the infinitive (ire), the perfect infinitive (essere ito), second-person plural present imperative (ite), and third-person singular and plural Imperfect Indicative (iva, ivano) remaining. Eo was on the whole replaced by an amalgamation of vado and ambulo. Romanian replaced eo with mergo; eo doesn't exist in Romanian in any form.
what you say about italian is not true ...
@@salvatoredidomenico8321 But it is. "To go" in Italian is "andare": vado, vai, va, andiamo, andate, vanno. "Ire" exists, but it's rarely used (since it's somewhat archaic), and only in the forms that I listed. www.verbix.com/webverbix/Italian/ire.html
Pretty sure the infinitive can also be found in the French future and conditional stems (ir-)
@@mossy8419 You're right. I had forgotten about the Future and the Conditional in French, perhaps because those two tenses didn't exist in either Classical or Vulgar Latin as such. The Future and the Conditional in all Romance languages except Romanian consisting of a compound of the infinitive and a form of "habeo" only developed after Vulgar Latin had started branching off into the different Romance languages themselves.
Fun fact: The napoletan dialect/language still retains more of ire than standard italian, so instead of "andare" infinitive is "ì" (neapolitan drops the entire -re ending) and "juto" is used instead of "andato"
the voice tho!
For iī, wouldn't the first "I", since it begins the word and is immediately followed by another vowel, act as a consonant and the word therefore be pronounced more like "yee" instead of "ih-ee"?
No. It is pronounced like two vowels, /ii/ just more fluidly than this narrator does it.
Ty so much spent hours looking for it but it was here
thank you. i have a quiz on this and fero ferre i watched both and will ace that test
I always thought that "ibam," etc. resulted from a contraction of "iebam," just as "-iebam" eventually contracted to "-ía/-ia" in Spanish and Portuguese and to "-ivo/-ivi/-iva" in Italian and "-iam," etc. in Romanian. The fact that Spanish retained the full "íba, íbas, íba, íbamos, íbais, íban (note the accent shift in the first and second person plural forms) can be accounted for by the fact that linguistic evolution is neither straightforward nor consistent.
You're an amazing tutor
I appreciate that!
ei‐ → ī‐ (before consonants)
ei‐ → e‐ (before vowels)
for ei i am confused on how ī is shortened to i when it is in front of a t but not tis when it is still a t
Vowels are shortened before t only in last syllabes because of natural tendency of final unstressed syllabes to be weakened in several languages. that's why it´s not shortened before -tis
How do you translate the future passive participle of eo? Eundus.
I came across the phrase “vires adquirit eundo”. Just can’t fathom the word eundus. I know it’s an ablative of means tho.
#contraction #vowel_contraction #irregular_verb #irregular_conjugation #third_conjugation #irregular_present #elision #syncope #monophthongization #vowel_shortening #shortening
I think you missed the greatest irregularity:
Why the hell does a verb whose infinitive is basically the infinitive ending of the i-conjugation form its future in the manner of -are and -ēre verbs?
Shouldn't it be rather something like...
iam, ies, iet, iemus, ietis ient instead of ibo, ibis, ibit, ibitis, ibunt?
Let eat go
Why doesn't ire have the majority of the present system in the passive voice?
+Dylan Furr The passive is only used impersonally (essentially with "it" as the subject).
@@latintutorial And the reason for that is that eo is an intransitive verb and as such, it cannot take a direct object. Only verbs that can take a direct object can be used in the full passive voice. Verbs of motion, like eo and venio, can only be used in the passive in the impersonal sense that @latintutorial mentioned, so only the third-person singular exists for them in the passive.
thank you!
one of my favorite Latin verbs. LOL
For some reason, watching this video made me need to go.
eās
*I!
Centurion: “Eunt? What is Eunt?”
Brian: “Go.”
Centurion: “Conjugate the verb, to go.”
Brian: “Uh, Ire… Uhh… eo, is, it, imus, itis, eunt.”
Centurion: “So Eunt is…”
Brian: “Uhh… 3rd-person plural, a present indicate… uhh… ‘they go’.”
Centurion: “But ‘Romans, go home!’ is an order, so you must use the…..”
Brian: “Ahh… Imperative!”
Centurion: “Which is…?”
Brian: “Uhh…. Oh.. oh… I… I!”
Centurion: “How many Romans?”
Brian: “Uh… Uh… Plural, plural…. Ite! Ite!”
Centurion! “Ite.”
I believe this is supposed to be funny but I don't get it XD
1:16 lol
umm... add i9n the monty python video
Stem ei‐
try to speak slower and go over the meanings of what the forms mean
iī → ī
Romanes eunt domus