The supine is something I have always wanted to figure out and this video has more and better information than I have ever seen in any grammar. Thank you very much.
Before I've been learning latin pronunciation using Erasmian system, but after hearing your beautifu pronunciation of latina restitua I want to switch! Thanks!
for verbs which have a perfect passive participle, the neuter perfect passive participle is the same as the accusative supine (e.g. vīsum, from videō, vidēre).
very precise. the word supine is also used to describe the position that dorsal is down and chest is up, lying like sleeping. prone position is the opposite of supine. mirabile dictu, mirabile visu
The Accusative Supine is similar to Pali's infinitive where a verb can be turned into an infinitive by adding "um" and carries the meaning "in order to". Ex. Aham viharam gantva danam muninam datum icchami - I want to go to the temple to offer monks alms.
Sometimes I find curious grammar, for example Tertullian's _Ad Nationes_ 1.12.3-4 where he describes the assembly of an execution _crux,_ "torture-stake". It goes like this: _scilicet cum antenna et autem illo sedilis excessu._ The first phrase is easy enough, "certainly with a yard" (transom), but the second is curious. I'll break it down: _et autem,_ "but also" _illo,_ pronoun sg masc ablative, "with that, the well known, that thing" _sedilis,_ noun sg masc genitive, "of a seat" _"excessu," supine sg masc ablative, "to be in excess," OR noun sg masc ablative, "departure" (possibly projection, tower, excess for its purpose) Put it together and you have two possibilities: "but also that thing to be in excess of a seat" OR "that/the well-known departure/tower of a seat" Usually scholars just write, "and also that projecting seat." Thanks for your help!
I noticed that some adjectives are in the ablative case but some are in the accusative case incredibile honestum iucundum etc does anyone know the reason for this? Thanks
im a year and a half into latin but did not study as much as i should have an am missing some fundamentals...any chance of me passing now that i am studying?
« possumus dicere » Is the other way you perceive the image ... When we use a similar form of communication, it must be to more people « Ego ad te loquentes»
ahh so thats what wikipedia meant by that second accusative. really, what they meant by fate was that it was "going (motion) to happen (accusative supine)," right?
+jsbks From what I'm reading in Google I gather that replacing the supine with the infinitive with movement is sometimes employed in early poetry, and even there it depends on the verb. Later Classical Latin frowned upon many kinds of not-so-standard usage, including this one, although it may have been more common in conversational or regional speech. But with the Locative form, I'm pretty sure these expressions were just too set in stone to use the infinitive there in any register.
Well, the Romans didn't think so. And even though we translate it in English like an infinitive, it isn't used in the same way as the Latin infinitive is at all (either to show purpose or as an ablative of respect).
Good observation. It fell out of use in the evolution of all romance languages. It was an intermediate state between an inflected verbal noun and a full on infinitive. Infinitives cross-linguistically evolve from case inflected verbal nouns or verbal nouns in adpositional phrases. The case ending and the action nominal forming suffix become one and forgot as separate which produces infinitives "if the verbal noun was complemental" or converbs "if the verbal noun was optional/adverbial". Notice that purpose for specifically motion verbs can be complemental "I went to sleep", and seems to have a directional aspect to it "i went to the event of sleeping". Treat to sleep as to + zero derived action noun "sleep". From the complemental use here "to+bare inf." evolved for use in all complemental positions. The supine was an infinitive on the rise. It's not a case inflected verbal noun "has a specific use" but not an infinitive "not used in all complemental positions". It likely fell out of use in the evolution of romance languages because it evolved into a full infinitive but that already existed. For reading more on the subject of infinitives there is a good paper called "defining non-finites". It's in the references of the wiki page on non-finite verb forms
In these explanations, I always miss a systemic approach. For instance, "hoc faciliter faciō" (I can easily do this) differs from "hoc facile est factū" (one can easily do this) and "hoc facile est facere" (one can easily do this) in whether the statement concerns an agent's capacity level relative to the task difficulty level or whether it concerns the difficulty level of a task relative to an average difficulty level. In addition, the "factū" form is only one option amongst many for that meaning, the other being "facere". It would be great if explanations concentrated in the options of meaning one has in a language and not in the options of formation. However, I know a systemic approach is easier said than done and I praise your efforts.
In the traditional approach: (1) Options of formation (2) Then maybe, options of meaning Not saying that this is the right way, just the way I have been taught and the way many secondary and college classrooms still function. I appreciate your comments, though, in first because it forces me to think about other perspectives in learning. With options of meaning in an ancient language, it's often "these are ways you can say this thing" and any sort of distinction between the options are either (1) hidden in the past, or (2) not as distinct in practice as they are made out to be (because we don't have an infinite amount of examples). I know a systemic approach can be done (many modern languages are learned this way), I think it requires a lot more natural practice and exposure, both of which aren't readily available with Latin. At least this is how I understand it! Thanks for your comment!
@@latintutorial Yes, it is indeed much harder to organize the teaching materials according to options in meaning than it is to organize them following the options in formation. However, I would not fully subscribe to the statement that options in meaning are "hidden in the past". For instance, we have plenty of evidence that «ego haec locūtus, ...» is similar to «ego hīs dictīs, ...» in meaning even though these clauses are different from each other in form. The same similarity in meaning and difference in form happens in free clauses for these lexical items: e.g. «haec locūtus sum» and «haec dīxī». In the latter case, we already talk about different verb types regarding the way semantic features are realized, not about different semantic features, but we do not do the same to the previous examples. Most people still teach 'ablativus absolutus' as if it were a 'passive' structure and as if verb transitivity and verb type had no impact on the verb form and object case. Yes, you are right, it is much harder to organize the contents systemically. However, the evidence is out there. We can understand it, and we could systematize it according to meaning. ;-)
In the video, it's said that the ablative supine does not take a direct object. So how to translate this sentence: "It is fun to do this task"? And does it take an indirect object? As in: "It is necessary to give to other people"?
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The supine is something I have always wanted to figure out and this video has more and better information than I have ever seen in any grammar. Thank you very much.
I wished you were my teacher. You do such an incredible job with these videos, because of you I will pass my exam. You just saved me. THANK YOU!!!!
Wow, thank you!
In addition to the content of this series, I love the clarity and consistency of your pronunciation.
Many thanks! 👍👍
I find Latin so intensely difficult. The other languages I've studied are French, Spanish, and Swahili and Latin is far and away the most difficult
Beautifully explained as always.
Before I've been learning latin pronunciation using Erasmian system, but after hearing your beautifu pronunciation of latina restitua I want to switch! Thanks!
for verbs which have a perfect passive participle, the neuter perfect passive participle is the same as the accusative supine (e.g. vīsum, from videō, vidēre).
wow, the guy said every verb has a supine, but not all have PPP. let that sink in!!!
Thanks for helping me prep for my AP Latin exam!
Are you checking out the AP Latin livestream? 6-6:45 every week day.
very precise. the word supine is also used to describe the position that dorsal is down and chest is up, lying like sleeping. prone position is the opposite of supine.
mirabile dictu, mirabile visu
Supine and prone both coming from Latin, with meanings as you described!
2:48 is auxilium nominative or accusative?
3:38 is Grais matribus ablative or dative?
Excellent and clear. Good job.
Thanks for explaining dude, i hope that you continue to make good vids!
Thanks! I hope the videos I continue to make are good too!
Another good use of the supine is found in Catullus 10, lines 1-2:
Vārus mē meus ad suōs amōrēs /
vīsum dūxerat ē forō ōtiōsum,
Does facio take the supine for purpose if it's describing some type of movement to happen? Eg. Caesar sometimes describes marching with iter + facio.
very solid and clear explanation.. this morphology is one that does not exist in Greek..
Thanks for the explanation.
Honestly sometimes I do other things while listening to these videos, not even listening to what's being said, just cause your voice is relaxing lol
Gratias?
basically you can use the ablative supine for everything if you use the adj optimum
The Accusative Supine is similar to Pali's infinitive where a verb can be turned into an infinitive by adding "um" and carries the meaning "in order to". Ex. Aham viharam gantva danam muninam datum icchami - I want to go to the temple to offer monks alms.
This video helped me a lot. Thank you very much.
But what if I want to show a purpose of an action that doesn't involve motion? What would I then use if not the supine?
You still have good options that are more standard. There's a purpose clause (with ut, ubi, or qui), or a gerund/gerundive with ad or causā.
Sometimes I find curious grammar, for example Tertullian's _Ad Nationes_ 1.12.3-4 where he describes the assembly of an execution _crux,_ "torture-stake". It goes like this: _scilicet cum antenna et autem illo sedilis excessu._ The first phrase is easy enough, "certainly with a yard" (transom), but the second is curious. I'll break it down:
_et autem,_ "but also"
_illo,_ pronoun sg masc ablative, "with that, the well known, that thing"
_sedilis,_ noun sg masc genitive, "of a seat"
_"excessu," supine sg masc ablative, "to be in excess," OR noun sg masc ablative, "departure" (possibly projection, tower, excess for its purpose)
Put it together and you have two possibilities:
"but also that thing to be in excess of a seat" OR "that/the well-known departure/tower of a seat"
Usually scholars just write, "and also that projecting seat."
Thanks for your help!
I noticed that some adjectives are in the ablative case but some are in the accusative case incredibile honestum iucundum etc does anyone know the reason for this? Thanks
It’s not the ablative case, but a neuter third declension accusative form.
im a year and a half into latin but did not study as much as i should have an am missing some fundamentals...any chance of me passing now that i am studying?
chas ` did you pass?
@M. rta. Estne pugna perfecta est?
@M. rta. I said "is the fight over"
Very good explanation - thanks!
Love your stuff! :)
« possumus dicere » Is the other way you perceive the image ... When we use a similar form of communication, it must be to more people
« Ego ad te loquentes»
ahh so thats what wikipedia meant by that second accusative. really, what they meant by fate was that it was "going (motion) to happen (accusative supine)," right?
What is the difference between Ablative of Respect and Ablative of Specification?
AlphaBagel nobody knows haha
now i understand the 4th main part ...thnx
Super - thank you!
Good video. Question: If venatum were replaced by venare, would that convey the same meaning? (Considering venare also means to hunt)
+jsbks From what I'm reading in Google I gather that replacing the supine with the infinitive with movement is sometimes employed in early poetry, and even there it depends on the verb. Later Classical Latin frowned upon many kinds of not-so-standard usage, including this one, although it may have been more common in conversational or regional speech.
But with the Locative form, I'm pretty sure these expressions were just too set in stone to use the infinitive there in any register.
+Sobakus Hmm, insightful. Thanks.
Isn’t the supine completely superfluous when the infinitive exists?
Well, the Romans didn't think so. And even though we translate it in English like an infinitive, it isn't used in the same way as the Latin infinitive is at all (either to show purpose or as an ablative of respect).
Latin doesn't work the way English does.
Good observation. It fell out of use in the evolution of all romance languages. It was an intermediate state between an inflected verbal noun and a full on infinitive.
Infinitives cross-linguistically evolve from case inflected verbal nouns or verbal nouns in adpositional phrases. The case ending and the action nominal forming suffix become one and forgot as separate which produces infinitives "if the verbal noun was complemental" or converbs "if the verbal noun was optional/adverbial".
Notice that purpose for specifically motion verbs can be complemental "I went to sleep", and seems to have a directional aspect to it "i went to the event of sleeping".
Treat to sleep as to + zero derived action noun "sleep". From the complemental use here "to+bare inf." evolved for use in all complemental positions.
The supine was an infinitive on the rise. It's not a case inflected verbal noun "has a specific use" but not an infinitive "not used in all complemental positions".
It likely fell out of use in the evolution of romance languages because it evolved into a full infinitive but that already existed.
For reading more on the subject of infinitives there is a good paper called "defining non-finites". It's in the references of the wiki page on non-finite verb forms
In these explanations, I always miss a systemic approach. For instance, "hoc faciliter faciō" (I can easily do this) differs from "hoc facile est factū" (one can easily do this) and "hoc facile est facere" (one can easily do this) in whether the statement concerns an agent's capacity level relative to the task difficulty level or whether it concerns the difficulty level of a task relative to an average difficulty level. In addition, the "factū" form is only one option amongst many for that meaning, the other being "facere". It would be great if explanations concentrated in the options of meaning one has in a language and not in the options of formation. However, I know a systemic approach is easier said than done and I praise your efforts.
In the traditional approach:
(1) Options of formation
(2) Then maybe, options of meaning
Not saying that this is the right way, just the way I have been taught and the way many secondary and college classrooms still function. I appreciate your comments, though, in first because it forces me to think about other perspectives in learning.
With options of meaning in an ancient language, it's often "these are ways you can say this thing" and any sort of distinction between the options are either (1) hidden in the past, or (2) not as distinct in practice as they are made out to be (because we don't have an infinite amount of examples). I know a systemic approach can be done (many modern languages are learned this way), I think it requires a lot more natural practice and exposure, both of which aren't readily available with Latin.
At least this is how I understand it! Thanks for your comment!
@@latintutorial Yes, it is indeed much harder to organize the teaching materials according to options in meaning than it is to organize them following the options in formation. However, I would not fully subscribe to the statement that options in meaning are "hidden in the past". For instance, we have plenty of evidence that «ego haec locūtus, ...» is similar to «ego hīs dictīs, ...» in meaning even though these clauses are different from each other in form. The same similarity in meaning and difference in form happens in free clauses for these lexical items: e.g. «haec locūtus sum» and «haec dīxī». In the latter case, we already talk about different verb types regarding the way semantic features are realized, not about different semantic features, but we do not do the same to the previous examples. Most people still teach 'ablativus absolutus' as if it were a 'passive' structure and as if verb transitivity and verb type had no impact on the verb form and object case. Yes, you are right, it is much harder to organize the contents systemically. However, the evidence is out there. We can understand it, and we could systematize it according to meaning. ;-)
Discendo is a form of what word?
discere - to learn
So if I wanted to say:
This task is fun to do.
How would I say that?
Hoc negotium est iucundum factu
In the video, it's said that the ablative supine does not take a direct object. So how to translate this sentence:
"It is fun to do this task"?
And does it take an indirect object? As in: "It is necessary to give to other people"?
Oh well then you could just treat an infintive as a noun: 'hoc negotiun curare iucundum est'
CulusMagnus Oh OK. many thanks
if you have a direct object then use the gerund , if I remember right, I think in the genitive.
P.S : not to confuse the Gerund with the Gerundive
r there any for supines in plural?
No
This video is mirabile visu 😎
Haec pellicula valde mihi placuit. Optime vīsū.
THIS IS OP
Latin and Swedish are the only two languages I've encountered that have a Supine -- but the Swedish Supine is nothing like the Latin Supine!
Lee Cox because Swedish is a North Germanic language, while Latin isn't.
Romanian (descendant from Latin) also has a supine, but it isn't marked on the verb but rather with a particle.
~