@@polyMATHY_Luke salut Luke te știu de pe ecolingvist și îmi place cum pronunți limba latina. Cred ca este posibil sa ai sânge latin Felicitări din România pentru tot ce faci
It's as if you can read minds, I had just read about the future perfect and subjunctive perfect in LLPSI and was wondering what the deal was with their seemingly syncretic forms. Great timing!
Thank you for the great video! I've always benefited from your videos. As a tangent, I would just like to point out an alternative etymology that I've read in P.420 of Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin by Michael Weiss, that: - The future perfect is the subjunctive of the s-desiderative of the perfect stem; and - The perfect subjunctive is the optative of the s-desiderative of the perfect stem; and so in particular they have nothing to do with the verb "sum", which happens to also have an "s". To elaborate, the s-desiderative is a feature of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) which indicates "I want to do X", which is preserved in the Old Latin forms "faxō" and "faxim" of the verb "faciō", and the proposed etymology here is that "fēcerō" and "fēcerim" come from the same construction but applied to the perfect stem "fēc-". In fact, the author says that "amāv-er-ō and amāverim are exactly parallel to faxō and faxim". I'm aware that this might be a bit too technical, but I just wanted to put forward what I've learnt in case others are curious about this; and your point still stands, that etymologically the future perfect should have a short vowel and the perfect subjunctive should have a long vowel.
For me the coolest stuff in latin remains the future imperative and I remember it from an incipit of a Foscolo's poem (that I think he took from the laws of the 12 tables): "Deorum manum iura sancta sunto", that should translate something like "the rights of the gods Manii will be made sacred", but that "sunto" in latin tells you everything and it cannot really be translated
I think sunto is a future imperative actually. The future participle may always end in -urus for all I know. Anyways I too think Latin's verbal conjugation is pretty cool and largely unmatched in the daughter languages, especially the 'implicit' conjugation.
Obviously we’d need to learn that that it’s common to see both forms, but I like the idea that there is a distinction, so I side with the grammarians when I write my own Latin. I believe Wheelock’s also teaches it with this “grammarian’s preference”, so that may be I bias I have ingrained into me from a decade or so ago lol.
It's completely unnecessary to theorize on an epenthetic schwa (a vowel that was possibly foreign to their phonological system) while there are a lot of languages today that have epenthetic /e/ when they have awkward consonant clusters, such as Spanish, or even epenthetic /i/, like most forms of Brazilian Portuguese. The need for the schwa as an intermediate stage is a very widespread piece of BS repeated by English-speaking linguists who have a natural bias/predilection for the schwa and they wrongly believe there's something universal about this sound. Yes, it's true that the schwa comes up in many languages as the protagonist of elisions and epentheses, but there are plenty of other vowels that do so as well. For example, the "French schwa" is nowhere near a schwa phonetically, but it's called "schwa" due to its phonological behaviour. And by the way, I was taught the distinction between future perfect (short vowel) and the perfect subjunctive (long vowel) just like you presented it at the beginning of this video.
I agree about the schwa, and other intermediate vowels. It’s entirely possible that it’s as you describe, but we don’t know the exact nature of the vowel system of Proto-Latin, and ‘e’ and a schwa are equally likely even for long periods. Schwas do however occur phonetically in Italian and Spanish, in cases of doubt or hesitation, but not phonemically. So it’s not truly “foreign.” What probably occurred in Proto Latin more likely is an instantaneous change from schwa to /e/ in the space of minutes to days.
@@polyMATHY_Luke As a native Spanish speaker and an English teacher myself, I'd say that Spanish speakers from all countries hesitate in /e/. Spanish-speaking learners of English have to be taught how to hesitate with a schwa and I'd say that the schwa is 100% foreign to the Spanish phonological system. I may be wrong in how universal this is for Spanish speakers, but I'm sure this is true for the vast majority of us. I can't speak for Italian though.
@@lennih in Italian it's more rare but it does occur in hesitation and in other instances. It is way more common though to find schwas in other languages of the Italian peninsula, the most iconic being Neapolitan and other southern languages. I found your critique about this aspect very interesting! It might have been another intermediate sound. Though, I agree with Luke when he says that over long periods of time we can assume many options. Thanks for the contribution!
Subjunctive exists in Germanic languages as well, especially in German. It even exists in English like in the US national anthem ..."And be our motto: in God is our trust", where 'be' is not the infinitive but the present subjunctive. But Latin has many MORE forms of it of course.
@@francisdec1615 In England we have the subjunctive, but we hardly realise, e.g. 'God Save the Queen'. In England, they do not teach the subjunctive in schools in any meaningful way and positively avoid teaching it in foreign language teaching, which is disastrous for Spanish as it is essential that one might get a grip on it from the start.
@@EdMcF1 In Swedish we have special subjunctive forms. 'God save the Queen' would be 'Gud bevare drottningen' in Swedish. The infinitive is 'bevara', the present indicative is 'bevarar' and the present subjunctive is 'bevare'. But those forms are rare and rarely used in a normal conversation. Also note that this is cognate with English 'beware' but has a different meaning.
The etymologie section is really interesting to me. Would you be able to recommend a source for further study on the etymologie and historical linguistics of classical latin?
Palmer (in "The Latin Language") suggests that the -eris form is developed from the IE subjunctive and the -erīs from from the IE optative. The explanation you gave for the formation of the subjunctive -esis => -ezis =>eris he holds true for both. Otherwise, I thought it was a great explanation. :)
Luke, by watching your videos, now I understand distinguishing long and short vowels in Latin is very important and it is a fundamental part of the language. But then I get confused because when I see Latin texts inscribed in the Middel Ages or something, there aren't any apexes on any of the vowels. No 'long I's either. Is there a particular reason for that or am I just missing something?
Like all languages, Latin changed. In Late Antiquity, vowel length started to become less important, or less consistently pronounced (some Latin dialects have probably done that long before, so what we learn as "correct" Latin is based on the dialect of the city of Rome). We can see that in poetry as well, with newer forms of poetry like Christian hymns being increasingly dependent on rhyme and stress, not vowel length, or oratorical rhythm losing the length aspect. And in medieval Latin, vowel length was not as important as in classical Antiquity.
The latin texts normally don't indicate long vowels even in the classic age. The difference was very important, but not in orthography (even if some grammarians insisted that apexes be used). Then in Middle Age the difference in vowel length was gradually lost.
Funny enough, Spanish, along with Portuguese, are the only Romance languages to preserve these two very similar tenses, Spanish has it as its Future Subjunctive, but it is rarely ever used.
might be interesting to point out that that doesn't (necessarily) mean that vowel length was a less strong distinction than vowel quality. for one bc it relates to stress. but there are instances in German for example where we confuse umlauted and non-umlauted vowels - they sound very different, but for some reason even we native speakers aren't quite sure which one to pick at times.
@@lapatatadelplato6520 But in the OP's comment, it reads as if people would confuse Ä with A. And as far as I can see, that simply doesn't happen. (There is one instance - for "he asks", sometimes people say "er fragt", sometimes "er frägt". But that is not a confusion over the umlaut, that is a difference in dialect.)
Maximās grātiās, Lūcī! I've been thinking about this very topic for the past few weeks, and I've been meaning to pull out my reference books to refresh my memory on this. Not only have you saved me that effort, but the etymology you taught me will make it easier for me to never forget these rules again. I love this video!
Oh man do I love these videos! It's super fascinating, and the fluency you have in explaining this relatively tricky subject makes it even better! Please keep making them, RUclips should add an "Optimus" buttom for your videos :) P.S. I liked the kid in the bloopers jaja
Num rēctē meminī hanc fōrmārum cōnfūsiōnem coepisse cum vōcālēs longae ante S, T, et NT fīnālēs correptae sunt ita ut "fēcerīt" "fēcerit" fieret et "fēcerīnt" "fēcerint"?
OK, now we are looking at poets and orators, as well as anyone who was able to write or speak at length in beautiful forms. And all of that is very valid, as we have the work of these writers to compare with one another and judge. BUT-- what of the ordinary person, even a professional, but not necessarily a person who was formally educated, how much of these rich tenses would we have heard at a party, in the home, in basilicas, stores, shops etc? I can think of ordinary conversations in English, German, Spanish, etc. where I don't hear subtle usage as one might find in a poem or a legal defense or support statement. Not that the common people who spoke a vulgar Latin or a dialectic Latin, but of those who could speak and write well enough to be understood, but who just didn't go to these heights? So was this usage (as you describe) really something literary rather than streetwise, and who then finessed these fancy conjugations, a minority elite or the average person? No matter, this is extremely interesting, the study of Latin linguistics! I can't get enough!
It's an important question. Mostly this perception, which has been, as I complain in the video, pushed by professors for ages, comes from our own distance in Modern English from poetry. I haven't read a single poem I could name that was written in the past few decades in which I've actually lived, because poetry in English has essentially gone extinct as an innovative artform; we all look to Byron and Shakespeare and others centuries removed from us; Whitman is usually the most modern we get, and that was 150 years ago. Thus many forms of expression seen in poetry seem "literary" to us but they weren't when they were composed. This is also true for the ancient Romans who, while certainly embuing their works with more than a little culture and reference, just as Shakespeare they were writing for the common audience of their day, using the language of the day. The best English comparison in the 21st century is rap music, where authors compose with great skill and reference in the dialect of their audience and of themselves. The mix of fēcerīmus for fēcerimus and vice versa was neither literary nor lowbrow, because it was both: it was just how Latin was for all speakers by the 1cBC, save a few grammarians who complained about it. Most English speakers say "who is it for?" and not "whom is it for?" and we accept this as perfectly normal today. Thus also fēcerīmus for fēcerimus in Classical Latin.
I should mention, as a native Spanish speaker, that almost all conjugations are used regularly, with people not noticing that they're using some weird form. It's just natural. That said, perfect forms in modern Spanish are composite with the verb "haber" (eg: "we will have eaten" = "Habremos comido" or "Vamos a haber comido", perfect subjunctive of "to be" is something like "hubiera sido") But the same happens with non-composite forms! I wouldn't find it strange that people used "weird" conjugations, though perhaps the general sentence structure was simpler
@@RicanStudio you can argue that music is poetry, but it's your choice to use the word poetry like that. I would rather distinguish poetry (where the only thing you have are the signified, the signifier and time) from music (where you are always forced into a strict meter and have an extra element that with its complexity takes the attention away from the mere words)
@@Icsant3 Exactly, and not only in spanish. Even in italian all conjugations are used regularly. Only ineducated people don't use well the subjunctive.
Itaque locutio: “Quamvis res quae facere debebamus fecerimus, hoc non edimus” (“edimus” perfectum est) dissimilis est locutioni: “Cum fecerimus res quae facere debemus, hoc edemus”
Dissimilis est sed intellegere nón possum te quid velle. Dicere volo Lúcius eadem esse nón dixit. Etenim Latina tua satis bóna est. Infeliciter egó occasionés multás nón habeó ut cum aliquó Latine loquar.
Thank you for this. Surprisingly, my Wheelock’s textbook actually does teach the vowel length difference, but after going back to both of those chapters and trying to find what I can online on this topic, am still a little lost when it comes to distinguishing the two in actual usage in texts without macrons. I know there are people who say there is enough overlap in the meaning to where it doesn’t really matter, but I am not quite satisfied with leaving it in ambiguity. In reading texts without macrons, I am struggling to distinguish between the two forms. Any advice?
I'd love to see some quotes from Latin writings/speeches together with alternative ways the sentences could have been arranged, which would have yielded a different rhythm of lengths & emphases which would have affected the message and/or its delivery. I have a vague impression that it would be comparable to the word choices & phrase choices that are made in the more carefully-composed examples of American rap.
That’s a tough call, whether to use the merged/confused form. I’d say teach the proscribed version, but note in textbook that it merged in later Classical Latin. Allow the merged version in spoken Latin.
Such a relief 😅 The rare instances I've had to have used one of these forms in conversation, I never remember where the stress goes and just pick one or the other as I go. Now I know that Romans were mixing them too! Gratias summas, Luci!
I studied at Liceo Classico latin and my only doubt is about the future perfect tense: the third plural person should be ending in -erunt whereas the perfect subjunctive in -erint.
There are a couple of villages in India where children of settlers have been brought up speaking Sanskrit. That started in the past hundred years. The same was done on a larger scale for Hebrew in Israel. It would be more difficult to do that for Latin, since most of its fluent everyday speakers are celibate.
I might be wrong, but seems like "fēcerīmus" and "fēcissēmus" show that rhotacization happens on apical S but 'ss' digraph forms a regular alveolar S, thus still present in italian "facessimo" (though with a bit of change in the vowel length). A good idea would be you to show us verb tenses etymology on modern romance languages. Valeās!
Correct, only single, ungeminated 's' between vowels underwent rhotacism, but geminated 'ss' didn't. You can perfectly think of it as neither of the 's' being between two vowels: rules of synchronic phonological changes are almost entirely phenomenological. As a purely phonological process, it completed by the 2nd century BC. Just like all phonological changes, this one was very thorough, quick and systematic. This is why we have _opus, operis_ and _mōs, mōris._ It is _not_ the source of the much later change like _honos_ > _honor,_ however. _honos_ was used more often than _honor_ in classical writing (Cicero used _honor_ only in his literally last year of life), then Quintillian, who wrote about the Latin language extensively just one or two generations later, calls _honos_ antiquated, but still later, Tacitus writes _honos_ nearly exclusively. Why only a narrow class of masculine multisyllabic nouns of the 3rd decl. developed such an instability of their bare stem terminal phoneme is largely unknown. For example, monosyllabic _**mōr,_ although masculine, never occurs. What is clear is that this change was not phonological.
@@tylere.8436 I don't know the story. What's the evidence against the normal rhotacism pattern _flosis_ > _floris?_ Plautus has flos/floris, an expected systematic change. Do you imply it used to be _flor,_ somehow escaping rhotacism, and only followed the flock later, by analogy? That would be very unusual; phonological processes are commonly quite thorough (as opposed to analogical, which at times are quite haphazard). I'm not up to digging through CIL right now, so please tell me, I'm super intrigued! :)
George Lane (item 882 in his grammar) and Allen & Greenough (169.c in their grammar) agree that the future perfect stem has a short i. As for the perfect subjunctive stem, Lane (876) says that the long ī is the norm. Allen & Greenough (169.d) agree that long ī is the norm in theory, but say that there's so much confusion with the future perfect stem that it has become short i over time; however, they never go into detail about how they quantified that, unlike Lane, who documents the extent of the vowel length confusion for both future perfect and perfect subjunctive that you also talk about. Therefore I think Lane argues more persuasively for his conclusion, which should be considered the correct one.
Lane and Allen & Greenough were all tremendous scholars. But they’re about a century out of date; see the paper in the description which has recently collected analytical data.
Great video! I have a somewhat related question. Would you happen to know how the variation between the synonymous perf. subj. forms in -ra and -se in Spanish (hiciéramos vs hiciésemos) ties in with this etymologically? Does the former come from the Latin perf. subj. (maybe with a contamination of the posttonic vowel "a" from the pres. subj.?) and the latter from Latin pluperf. subj.?
The -ra imperfect subjunctive in Spanish (hiciera) comes from the pluperfect *indicative* in Latin (fēceram), and the -se variation (hiciese) comes from the pluperfect subjunctive (fēcissem). Source: www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/i.e.mackenzie/hisverb.htm
I'm not really sure how to interpret fecerim or the perfect subjunctive generally. If feci is I have done, and fecero is I will have done, I'm not sure how to interpret fecerim. A lot of this is because I'm not hugely familiar with how the perfect subjunctive is defined, even in English (though no doubt I use it intuitively anyway), but based on a brief Google search, I would be inclined to also translate it as I have done, but I'm not sure if that is correct or if it adequately conveys perfect subjunctiveness outside the context of a sentence. Would have helped if you had casually provided a translation of that as well.
His Neoteric poetry was basically the avant-garde/Modernism of his time, rejecting the verbose epics of Homer in favor of succint poetry that focused on the everyday and common life.
@@tylere.8436 And this succint style appeals to me, and I normally do not like poetry very much, just by this verbose, talkative style hahae (and I don't know poetry, so this simple style is more understandable for me hahae).
As if a 1000 kisses could become an accomplished fact > more of a wish, a possibility = SUBJ! - however, my colleague is a professore di grammatica [English, German, Italian] & we just spent a good half-hour arguing delightfully over your ideas here & we arrived at the conclusion CONTURBABIMUS stems from the turbulence of Babel & it is not necessarily 'paired' at all > so, many thanks! PS Is that Borromini's St Agnes in Piazza Navona? God bless Italy!
The fēcerīmus in Cat.V is, however, paired with conturbābimus. In any case, Catullus is just one example among many; see the paper in the description which gives the statistical analysis. It is of course necessarily the future perfect, since it is not referring to a past action, but to what will have occurred (here I use the future perfect in English). The English translation of the relevant lines: “then, when we have performed many thousands, we shall shake them into confusion” In English “when” may not be followed by the future or future perfect, only by present and past tenses. “When I have performed at Carnegie Hall, I’ll really be a star then!” is “Cum apud Carnegie Hall recitāverō, praeclārus erō!” Cat.V fēcerīmus is future perfect, not perfect subjunctive, because of the fundamental rules of Latin grammar.
The video I had forgotten I needed for a long time! Always wondered about that since the endings are nearly identical in form, those TSJCL tests would always exploit that confusion on their tests😂
Then again, if I still pronounced Latin the way I was taught in high school then I’d still be pronouncing short “u” as “uh” and short “i” as “it,” etc etc, your content has really helped me grow in my knowledge and skill with Latin post-high school, especially with phonology. Still need to work on the vocab and fluency though!
Thank you. I have learned that in both history and science, these people are astoundingly stubborn to admit to getting overruled. "what you won't find in textbooks or teaching" is a common theme. Keep up the good work.
Thanks! I appreciate it. Yeah, it’s really interesting how the reality differs from the textbook standard. It doesn’t mean that standard isn’t useful, of course, but it’s important not to confuse it for the only description of reality.
Considering spanish and its variations, it's almost impossible to say that every latin speaker used the retracted s, in fact, didn't the spanish get the retracted s from the greeks instead of the romans?. See ya.
No. These terms are synonymous. In English however we use the term subjunctive, while Italian for example says il congiuntivo. In Latin the translation of subjunctive is either subjūnctīvus or conjūnctīvus: latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries/?t=sh24675
Another great and interesting video. As said by many others here, "Māximus grātias, Lūcī!" (Hope I got the spellings right.) I'm convinced that, even if Latin ever was a dead language... that it has risen from the grave! 🙌🙌🙌🙌
As an italian ex-latin student, after having watched many of your videos, your pronuntiation of many words is incorrect. Seems like you completely miss "GL", "GN", "CE" etc sounds which are still "active" in italian but which probably you don't own being an native english speaker. That would give you a huge boost if you learnt this stuff right! I hope you don't mind my suggestion.. anyway, great contents and videos! Keep up!
È molto triste che non vi insegnano il fatto che la pronuncia scolastica non ha niente a che fare con la pronuncia del latino classico. Guarda: ruclips.net/video/XeqTuPZv9as/видео.html
@@polyMATHY_Luke Wow, thank you SO much for linking this video! Now I am a little bit ashamed about my comment, but at least writing it down and finding such a nice person like you on the other side helped me learning something so cool! Thanks to your channel I feel revitalized to go back on books and seriously learn latin "again". Thank you!!!
The current Wheelock's Latin and Collar and Daniell's First Year Latin from 1918 both have the short -e- for the future perfect indicative and the long -ē- for the perfect subjunctive.
I think this adds to the Romans'/Latin's love of ambiguity as highlighted in the tome: "Quasi Labor Intus: Ambiguity in Latin Literature" in which in the Introduction the authors write how the Roman authors delighted themselves in using the ambiguous nature of their language, quite similar to what you have highlighted here over these two verb forms.
Although having said that I have just had a look at some of my dissertation prep and realised that I managed to leave most of what I'd picked up on out of the final text. :(
Amīce, iterum tibi grātiās mille agimus nōs omnēs Lingae Latīnae amatōrēs! Opera tua nōn inventa, sonī linguae cum loquī conārer, mihi sine sale audiēbantur. Sed post omnia quae tū hīc fēcistī, multō mūtāti sunt mihi sōnī hūius linguae ut cum iam litterās antīquōrum legam, mē paene vērās poētārum vōcēs ipsōrum audīre posse crēdam. Quod tū et amīcus tuus cum Lingae Graecae Antīquae sōnīs faciēbātis quoque valdē mihi interest. Sed sōnī fastigiōrum (dīcere cōnor ‘the pitch accents’) linguae adhuc mihi incomprehensibilēs sunt. Expectābimusne nōs, spectātōrēs tuī, aliquid dē hōc? Certē ego nōn sōlus quī tāle vīdere valdē amem. Gratiās mille iterum tibi!
Ciao Luke, conosci la bardcore (o tavernwave)? È un genere musicale diventato virale su RUclips durante il primo periodo di lockdown 2020 che consiste nel prendere canzoni pop e rock e riadattarle con sonorità del Medioevo. Ma ce ne sono anche alcune in Latino (riadattate e cantate da persone che non conoscono perfettamente la lingua) che potrebbero interessarti. Sarebbe bello ascoltare un tuo parere.
The perfect subjunctive etymology seems to hold also for Italian, but why wasn't there any rotacism in Italian for the same verb? Ex. latin fēc-ə-sīmus became fēcerīmus, but in italian the equivalent is facessimo which is actually much close to the way it formed?
The Italian imperfect subjunctive forms don't seem to be derived from the Latin perfect subjunctive, but from the Latin pluperfect subjunctive (I'm not sure how to account for the accent shift in the plural forms).
@@projectgodwill4635 - When I studied Spanish, I found that hicieramos/hiciesemos to be an interesting thing that both forms existed. However, as far as I have heard, hardly anyone uses those in common speech. Perhaps in scholarly writing. But when you provided that point "hicieramos/hiciesemos" I immediately got the idea of how two seemingly different pronunciations could be interchangeable, or so I understand. Interesting!
@@BFDT-4 I don't know much about Spanish, but rhotacism is probably more likely to happen in Spanish due to the retracted S pronunciation which Luke talked about. They have the same S as Latin.
"facessimo" isn't the perfect subjunctive, but the imperfect subjunctive. In any case, the rhotacism came when a single "s" (pronounced /z/) is between vowels. The double "ss" is pronounced /s:/ (geminated or long s) and this sound remain unalterated. Then "ausosa" became "aurora" (in italian "aurora"), but "clarissimus" remained "clarissimus" (in italian "chiarissimo").
Ahaha presumo che sei italiano? Queste sono le forme correttissime del latino classico, cioè del 1 secolo. La pronuncia tradizionale italiana ossia ecclesiastica, benché sia bella, non ha niente a che fare con la pronuncia antica.
@@polyMATHY_Luke it's historically accurate, but teaching that pronunciation would be like teaching 16th century English. Latin was refined throughout the centuries and the one we should learn differs in many sounds, but it is only natural that Latin speakers should learn it. I guess you should *know* about ancient pronunciations and vocabulary, though, so if that's what you're going for then I'd say you're fine. Still, you do quite an amazing job with this channel and I appreciate that!
I hate to be the one to ask this but...Just like Brian Griffin asked Stewie: Why do you stress so much the h on coolwhip? haha or rather on why and what.
It's not "stress;" it's a different phoneme. While 'wh' and 'w' have merged for many English speakers, it's still a distinct phoneme for quite a few. It's typically heard in the Western US and Canada, and in Scottish English.
Wow, you never fail to make my jaw drop, Luke. It amazes me how you can take such a specific subject and turn it into the most interesting 8-min video. Well done! Grātiās, Lucīi :)
Surely Catullus is saying 'then when many 1000's [kisses] we may have done' not as an accomplished fact? Each translation is another alteration > individuated, subjective, unique.
It's accomplishment in the future (she hasn't given him the thousand kisses yet that he has asked for) which is called the future perfect. We know it must be future perfect and not perfect subjunctive because it is paired with "conturbābimus" in the next clause.
How did Latin grammar become so complicated? It makes English grammar look very simple. Maybe that is why so many non-English speakers lean it so easy..
English grammar is also complicated if you try to study it scientifically. I would say that most speakers use it without fully understanding it rationally. Learners included, as they learn a lot more from listening to natives and picking up structures naturally than by memorising them from a textbook (although the latter helps a lot to figure out things more clearly and is an important resource as well, I think that the correct use of the studied forms comes with practice and intuitivity - e.g. the perfect aspect).
It also started clicking as you started explaining where the perfect subjunctive comes from, is that where the form “faxim” comes from? That would make sense if fēcerim comes from fēc-sim… if I recall I was sorta taught it as an archaic/alternative form of fēcerim? Or was it fēcero?
I've read somewhere (probably in a textbook) that in antiquity languages generally didn't have a future tense, and later it emerged from subjunctive... is that not true? It makes sense to me given the similarity of the forms. But you seem to be saying that these two developed completely independently and only later converged...
Uh, oh! The fact that "is" is redundant in many Romance languages is . . . it is affecting your English writing . The word "is" needs to be inserted after the first word in your text description of this video!
Which ones is it redundant in? Some are pro-drop, allowing you to drop the subject, but I'm not aware of any Romance language that allows you to drop the copula.
it is funny how Spanish has kept both the "s" and "r" versions, "hiciera" and "hiciese", and the fact that the use of them and conditional is also being confused by current speakers
hiciera comes from the the Latin pluperfect indicative: feceram. hiciese comes from Latin pluperfect subjunctive: fecissem. So it seems the inherited forms being both pluperfect in origin would be confusing. This is what happened to the Spanish future perfect form: hiciere. That rarely used form was from the confusion of the Latin future perfect and the perfect subjunctive.
There is a typo where "fēcerint" is written "fērerint." I hope this doesn't cause too much confusion.
The work done by Luke is outstanding. The Italian State or at least Rome as a city should recognize this work!
Troppo gentile.
@@polyMATHY_Luke salut Luke te știu de pe ecolingvist și îmi place cum pronunți limba latina. Cred ca este posibil sa ai sânge latin
Felicitări din România pentru tot ce faci
@@polyMATHY_Luke famo na petizione a guartieri
In summary, they won't tell me about the future.
I’m so glad to found another Vietnamese Latin learner like me…
It's as if you can read minds, I had just read about the future perfect and subjunctive perfect in LLPSI and was wondering what the deal was with their seemingly syncretic forms. Great timing!
🙌
I like how the video is split into 'intro' and 'outtakes' as if we just watch this show for the outtakes!
Solution is to bring back Old Latin *siem sies siet* so nobody could mistake them for short vowels
Another Latin grammar related video, thank you so much. Although my head hurt a bit because I am just a Latin beginner…
My intro Latin textbook by Shelmerdine does do this for the perfect subjunctive!
Thank you for the great video! I've always benefited from your videos. As a tangent, I would just like to point out an alternative etymology that I've read in P.420 of Outline of the Historical and Comparative Grammar of Latin by Michael Weiss, that:
- The future perfect is the subjunctive of the s-desiderative of the perfect stem; and
- The perfect subjunctive is the optative of the s-desiderative of the perfect stem;
and so in particular they have nothing to do with the verb "sum", which happens to also have an "s".
To elaborate, the s-desiderative is a feature of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) which indicates "I want to do X", which is preserved in the Old Latin forms "faxō" and "faxim" of the verb "faciō", and the proposed etymology here is that "fēcerō" and "fēcerim" come from the same construction but applied to the perfect stem "fēc-". In fact, the author says that "amāv-er-ō and amāverim are exactly parallel to faxō and faxim".
I'm aware that this might be a bit too technical, but I just wanted to put forward what I've learnt in case others are curious about this; and your point still stands, that etymologically the future perfect should have a short vowel and the perfect subjunctive should have a long vowel.
Wow! This is a fascinating alternative.
(Sadly,) I think "What they won't tell you in Latin class : vowel length" would have been enough to be true 😂
For me the coolest stuff in latin remains the future imperative and I remember it from an incipit of a Foscolo's poem (that I think he took from the laws of the 12 tables):
"Deorum manum iura sancta sunto", that should translate something like "the rights of the gods Manii will be made sacred", but that "sunto" in latin tells you everything and it cannot really be translated
I think sunto is a future imperative actually. The future participle may always end in -urus for all I know.
Anyways I too think Latin's verbal conjugation is pretty cool and largely unmatched in the daughter languages, especially the 'implicit' conjugation.
@@marce3893 you are actually right, I correct it immediatly thanks!
Iam, monitu tuō, līmitem facere inter coniūnctīvum perfēctum et indicatīvum futūrum perfēctum memorāreque eōs possum! Gratiās tibi!
E linguā eripuisti.
Obviously we’d need to learn that that it’s common to see both forms, but I like the idea that there is a distinction, so I side with the grammarians when I write my own Latin. I believe Wheelock’s also teaches it with this “grammarian’s preference”, so that may be I bias I have ingrained into me from a decade or so ago lol.
It's completely unnecessary to theorize on an epenthetic schwa (a vowel that was possibly foreign to their phonological system) while there are a lot of languages today that have epenthetic /e/ when they have awkward consonant clusters, such as Spanish, or even epenthetic /i/, like most forms of Brazilian Portuguese. The need for the schwa as an intermediate stage is a very widespread piece of BS repeated by English-speaking linguists who have a natural bias/predilection for the schwa and they wrongly believe there's something universal about this sound. Yes, it's true that the schwa comes up in many languages as the protagonist of elisions and epentheses, but there are plenty of other vowels that do so as well. For example, the "French schwa" is nowhere near a schwa phonetically, but it's called "schwa" due to its phonological behaviour. And by the way, I was taught the distinction between future perfect (short vowel) and the perfect subjunctive (long vowel) just like you presented it at the beginning of this video.
I agree about the schwa, and other intermediate vowels. It’s entirely possible that it’s as you describe, but we don’t know the exact nature of the vowel system of Proto-Latin, and ‘e’ and a schwa are equally likely even for long periods. Schwas do however occur phonetically in Italian and Spanish, in cases of doubt or hesitation, but not phonemically. So it’s not truly “foreign.” What probably occurred in Proto Latin more likely is an instantaneous change from schwa to /e/ in the space of minutes to days.
@@polyMATHY_Luke As a native Spanish speaker and an English teacher myself, I'd say that Spanish speakers from all countries hesitate in /e/. Spanish-speaking learners of English have to be taught how to hesitate with a schwa and I'd say that the schwa is 100% foreign to the Spanish phonological system. I may be wrong in how universal this is for Spanish speakers, but I'm sure this is true for the vast majority of us. I can't speak for Italian though.
@@lennih in Italian it's more rare but it does occur in hesitation and in other instances. It is way more common though to find schwas in other languages of the Italian peninsula, the most iconic being Neapolitan and other southern languages.
I found your critique about this aspect very interesting! It might have been another intermediate sound. Though, I agree with Luke when he says that over long periods of time we can assume many options. Thanks for the contribution!
I just think fēxīmus is neat. :)
4:32 - fererint ;)
It's not a typo, it's an even older more correct version of the perfect subjunctive 😂😂😂
6.5 years of formal Spanish classes have prepared me for this video with terms like subjunctive.
Subjunctive exists in Germanic languages as well, especially in German. It even exists in English like in the US national anthem ..."And be our motto: in God is our trust", where 'be' is not the infinitive but the present subjunctive. But Latin has many MORE forms of it of course.
@@francisdec1615 In England we have the subjunctive, but we hardly realise, e.g. 'God Save the Queen'. In England, they do not teach the subjunctive in schools in any meaningful way and positively avoid teaching it in foreign language teaching, which is disastrous for Spanish as it is essential that one might get a grip on it from the start.
@@EdMcF1 In Swedish we have special subjunctive forms. 'God save the Queen' would be 'Gud bevare drottningen' in Swedish. The infinitive is 'bevara', the present indicative is 'bevarar' and the present subjunctive is 'bevare'. But those forms are rare and rarely used in a normal conversation.
Also note that this is cognate with English 'beware' but has a different meaning.
In Portuguese we have a quote that says: "the future belongs to god"; the more I learn Latin more I become stressed. ;)
The etymologie section is really interesting to me. Would you be able to recommend a source for further study on the etymologie and historical linguistics of classical latin?
Palmer (in "The Latin Language") suggests that the -eris form is developed from the IE subjunctive and the -erīs from from the IE optative. The explanation you gave for the formation of the subjunctive -esis => -ezis =>eris he holds true for both. Otherwise, I thought it was a great explanation. :)
Luke, by watching your videos, now I understand distinguishing long and short vowels in Latin is very important and it is a fundamental part of the language. But then I get confused because when I see Latin texts inscribed in the Middel Ages or something, there aren't any apexes on any of the vowels. No 'long I's either. Is there a particular reason for that or am I just missing something?
Like all languages, Latin changed. In Late Antiquity, vowel length started to become less important, or less consistently pronounced (some Latin dialects have probably done that long before, so what we learn as "correct" Latin is based on the dialect of the city of Rome). We can see that in poetry as well, with newer forms of poetry like Christian hymns being increasingly dependent on rhyme and stress, not vowel length, or oratorical rhythm losing the length aspect.
And in medieval Latin, vowel length was not as important as in classical Antiquity.
The latin texts normally don't indicate long vowels even in the classic age. The difference was very important, but not in orthography (even if some grammarians insisted that apexes be used). Then in Middle Age the difference in vowel length was gradually lost.
Thank you, Luke! I've often wondered why these verb forms were so similar. Now I know. Cool!
I *believe* that most textbooks except for Oerberg’s distinguish the vowel lengths of the future subjunctive and the future perfect…?
Typing too fast. I mean, the perfect subjunctive. :P
The Spanish language is keen on using the subjunctive tense more so than other Romance languages.
Funny enough, Spanish, along with Portuguese, are the only Romance languages to preserve these two very similar tenses, Spanish has it as its Future Subjunctive, but it is rarely ever used.
might be interesting to point out that that doesn't (necessarily) mean that vowel length was a less strong distinction than vowel quality. for one bc it relates to stress. but there are instances in German for example where we confuse umlauted and non-umlauted vowels - they sound very different, but for some reason even we native speakers aren't quite sure which one to pick at times.
I am a native speaker of German and I can't think of a word where there is an ambiguity between umlaut and non-umlaut vowel in standard German.
@@lapatatadelplato6520 But in the OP's comment, it reads as if people would confuse Ä with A. And as far as I can see, that simply doesn't happen.
(There is one instance - for "he asks", sometimes people say "er fragt", sometimes "er frägt". But that is not a confusion over the umlaut, that is a difference in dialect.)
Maximās grātiās, Lūcī! I've been thinking about this very topic for the past few weeks, and I've been meaning to pull out my reference books to refresh my memory on this. Not only have you saved me that effort, but the etymology you taught me will make it easier for me to never forget these rules again.
I love this video!
Et tibi agō grātiās! You reminded me to add the paper I learned this from to the description. The link is there now.
Oh man do I love these videos!
It's super fascinating, and the fluency you have in explaining this relatively tricky subject makes it even better! Please keep making them, RUclips should add an "Optimus" buttom for your videos :)
P.S. I liked the kid in the bloopers jaja
Haha thank you. More to come.
2:29. that sounds interesting, how is that sound change spelled? I tried writing protocism but I got something completely unrelated.
Rhotacism
Num rēctē meminī hanc fōrmārum cōnfūsiōnem coepisse cum vōcālēs longae ante S, T, et NT fīnālēs correptae sunt ita ut "fēcerīt" "fēcerit" fieret et "fēcerīnt" "fēcerint"?
Etiam! Cēterum: in epigrammatīs Pompeiōrum vidēmus longās retentās esse. Sed in Urbe regulāriter corripiuntur.
OK, now we are looking at poets and orators, as well as anyone who was able to write or speak at length in beautiful forms. And all of that is very valid, as we have the work of these writers to compare with one another and judge.
BUT-- what of the ordinary person, even a professional, but not necessarily a person who was formally educated, how much of these rich tenses would we have heard at a party, in the home, in basilicas, stores, shops etc? I can think of ordinary conversations in English, German, Spanish, etc. where I don't hear subtle usage as one might find in a poem or a legal defense or support statement. Not that the common people who spoke a vulgar Latin or a dialectic Latin, but of those who could speak and write well enough to be understood, but who just didn't go to these heights?
So was this usage (as you describe) really something literary rather than streetwise, and who then finessed these fancy conjugations, a minority elite or the average person?
No matter, this is extremely interesting, the study of Latin linguistics! I can't get enough!
It's an important question. Mostly this perception, which has been, as I complain in the video, pushed by professors for ages, comes from our own distance in Modern English from poetry. I haven't read a single poem I could name that was written in the past few decades in which I've actually lived, because poetry in English has essentially gone extinct as an innovative artform; we all look to Byron and Shakespeare and others centuries removed from us; Whitman is usually the most modern we get, and that was 150 years ago.
Thus many forms of expression seen in poetry seem "literary" to us but they weren't when they were composed. This is also true for the ancient Romans who, while certainly embuing their works with more than a little culture and reference, just as Shakespeare they were writing for the common audience of their day, using the language of the day. The best English comparison in the 21st century is rap music, where authors compose with great skill and reference in the dialect of their audience and of themselves.
The mix of fēcerīmus for fēcerimus and vice versa was neither literary nor lowbrow, because it was both: it was just how Latin was for all speakers by the 1cBC, save a few grammarians who complained about it. Most English speakers say "who is it for?" and not "whom is it for?" and we accept this as perfectly normal today. Thus also fēcerīmus for fēcerimus in Classical Latin.
I should mention, as a native Spanish speaker, that almost all conjugations are used regularly, with people not noticing that they're using some weird form. It's just natural.
That said, perfect forms in modern Spanish are composite with the verb "haber" (eg: "we will have eaten" = "Habremos comido" or "Vamos a haber comido", perfect subjunctive of "to be" is something like "hubiera sido")
But the same happens with non-composite forms! I wouldn't find it strange that people used "weird" conjugations, though perhaps the general sentence structure was simpler
@@polyMATHY_Luke dude we have music, i.e. lyrics. That’s modern poetry. Robert Burns would be proud.
@@RicanStudio you can argue that music is poetry, but it's your choice to use the word poetry like that. I would rather distinguish poetry (where the only thing you have are the signified, the signifier and time) from music (where you are always forced into a strict meter and have an extra element that with its complexity takes the attention away from the mere words)
@@Icsant3 Exactly, and not only in spanish. Even in italian all conjugations are used regularly. Only ineducated people don't use well the subjunctive.
TLDW - Learn Hawaiian: aspect and tense are easier.
The intro goes to 7:43 and then directly into outtakes... sooooooooo yeah hello
Itaque locutio:
“Quamvis res quae facere debebamus fecerimus, hoc non edimus” (“edimus” perfectum est)
dissimilis est locutioni:
“Cum fecerimus res quae facere debemus, hoc edemus”
Dissimilis est sed intellegere nón possum te quid velle. Dicere volo Lúcius eadem esse nón dixit. Etenim Latina tua satis bóna est. Infeliciter egó occasionés multás nón habeó ut cum aliquó Latine loquar.
Thank you for this. Surprisingly, my Wheelock’s textbook actually does teach the vowel length difference, but after going back to both of those chapters and trying to find what I can online on this topic, am still a little lost when it comes to distinguishing the two in actual usage in texts without macrons.
I know there are people who say there is enough overlap in the meaning to where it doesn’t really matter, but I am not quite satisfied with leaving it in ambiguity. In reading texts without macrons, I am struggling to distinguish between the two forms. Any advice?
I'd love to see some quotes from Latin writings/speeches together with alternative ways the sentences could have been arranged, which would have yielded a different rhythm of lengths & emphases which would have affected the message and/or its delivery.
I have a vague impression that it would be comparable to the word choices & phrase choices that are made in the more carefully-composed examples of American rap.
That’s a tough call, whether to use the merged/confused form.
I’d say teach the proscribed version, but note in textbook that it merged in later Classical Latin. Allow the merged version in spoken Latin.
Mi Catulli, quod in Domitiani stadio desidersne?
Such a relief 😅 The rare instances I've had to have used one of these forms in conversation, I never remember where the stress goes and just pick one or the other as I go. Now I know that Romans were mixing them too! Gratias summas, Luci!
capitulus alterum et tricesimum of Familia Romana brought me here.
That's great! Yes, I hope this video it helpful.
Great video; but Catullus was an idiot for getting mixed up with Clodia Pulchra.
I studied at Liceo Classico latin and my only doubt is about the future perfect tense: the third plural person should be ending in -erunt whereas the perfect subjunctive in -erint.
You could consider oratory to be a form of poetry complete with its own conventions. Classical spoken word, even.
Please bring back the Legio XIII pod! You and Julius are amazing!
if you taught your kid Latin growing up would they be considered a native latin speaker?
There are a couple of villages in India where children of settlers have been brought up speaking Sanskrit. That started in the past hundred years. The same was done on a larger scale for Hebrew in Israel. It would be more difficult to do that for Latin, since most of its fluent everyday speakers are celibate.
I might be wrong, but seems like "fēcerīmus" and "fēcissēmus" show that rhotacization happens on apical S but 'ss' digraph forms a regular alveolar S, thus still present in italian "facessimo" (though with a bit of change in the vowel length). A good idea would be you to show us verb tenses etymology on modern romance languages. Valeās!
Correct, only single, ungeminated 's' between vowels underwent rhotacism, but geminated 'ss' didn't. You can perfectly think of it as neither of the 's' being between two vowels: rules of synchronic phonological changes are almost entirely phenomenological. As a purely phonological process, it completed by the 2nd century BC. Just like all phonological changes, this one was very thorough, quick and systematic. This is why we have _opus, operis_ and _mōs, mōris._ It is _not_ the source of the much later change like _honos_ > _honor,_ however. _honos_ was used more often than _honor_ in classical writing (Cicero used _honor_ only in his literally last year of life), then Quintillian, who wrote about the Latin language extensively just one or two generations later, calls _honos_ antiquated, but still later, Tacitus writes _honos_ nearly exclusively. Why only a narrow class of masculine multisyllabic nouns of the 3rd decl. developed such an instability of their bare stem terminal phoneme is largely unknown. For example, monosyllabic _**mōr,_ although masculine, never occurs. What is clear is that this change was not phonological.
@@cykkm Well yeah, the honos to honor change was by analogy. But funny enough we still have flos and not flor. So analogy wasn't even consistent.
@@tylere.8436 I don't know the story. What's the evidence against the normal rhotacism pattern _flosis_ > _floris?_ Plautus has flos/floris, an expected systematic change. Do you imply it used to be _flor,_ somehow escaping rhotacism, and only followed the flock later, by analogy? That would be very unusual; phonological processes are commonly quite thorough (as opposed to analogical, which at times are quite haphazard). I'm not up to digging through CIL right now, so please tell me, I'm super intrigued! :)
This has always confused me especially while reading Latin out loud. A much needed discussion.
I already felt like there was something behind that verse, now I know it!
George Lane (item 882 in his grammar) and Allen & Greenough (169.c in their grammar) agree that the future perfect stem has a short i. As for the perfect subjunctive stem, Lane (876) says that the long ī is the norm. Allen & Greenough (169.d) agree that long ī is the norm in theory, but say that there's so much confusion with the future perfect stem that it has become short i over time; however, they never go into detail about how they quantified that, unlike Lane, who documents the extent of the vowel length confusion for both future perfect and perfect subjunctive that you also talk about. Therefore I think Lane argues more persuasively for his conclusion, which should be considered the correct one.
Lane and Allen & Greenough were all tremendous scholars. But they’re about a century out of date; see the paper in the description which has recently collected analytical data.
Am for long with perfect, and short with future
Great video! I have a somewhat related question. Would you happen to know how the variation between the synonymous perf. subj. forms in -ra and -se in Spanish (hiciéramos vs hiciésemos) ties in with this etymologically?
Does the former come from the Latin perf. subj. (maybe with a contamination of the posttonic vowel "a" from the pres. subj.?) and the latter from Latin pluperf. subj.?
The -ra imperfect subjunctive in Spanish (hiciera) comes from the pluperfect *indicative* in Latin (fēceram), and the -se variation (hiciese) comes from the pluperfect subjunctive (fēcissem).
Source: www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/i.e.mackenzie/hisverb.htm
@@kennylau2010 Interesting, thank you!
I'm not really sure how to interpret fecerim or the perfect subjunctive generally. If feci is I have done, and fecero is I will have done, I'm not sure how to interpret fecerim. A lot of this is because I'm not hugely familiar with how the perfect subjunctive is defined, even in English (though no doubt I use it intuitively anyway), but based on a brief Google search, I would be inclined to also translate it as I have done, but I'm not sure if that is correct or if it adequately conveys perfect subjunctiveness outside the context of a sentence. Would have helped if you had casually provided a translation of that as well.
I should have done, I would have done
much like the Greeks
When you say “prose spoken rhythms” I think of rap.
Thanks Luke!
Catullus is genius!
He is my favorite.
@@odietamo9376 My too.
His Neoteric poetry was basically the avant-garde/Modernism of his time, rejecting the verbose epics of Homer in favor of succint poetry that focused on the everyday and common life.
@@tylere.8436 And this succint style appeals to me, and I normally do not like poetry very much, just by this verbose, talkative style hahae (and I don't know poetry, so this simple style is more understandable for me hahae).
As if a 1000 kisses could become an accomplished fact > more of a wish, a possibility = SUBJ! - however, my colleague is a professore di grammatica [English, German, Italian] & we just spent a good half-hour arguing delightfully over your ideas here & we arrived at the conclusion CONTURBABIMUS stems from the turbulence of Babel & it is not necessarily 'paired' at all > so, many thanks! PS Is that Borromini's St Agnes in Piazza Navona? God bless Italy!
The fēcerīmus in Cat.V is, however, paired with conturbābimus. In any case, Catullus is just one example among many; see the paper in the description which gives the statistical analysis.
It is of course necessarily the future perfect, since it is not referring to a past action, but to what will have occurred (here I use the future perfect in English).
The English translation of the relevant lines:
“then, when we have performed many thousands,
we shall shake them into confusion”
In English “when” may not be followed by the future or future perfect, only by present and past tenses. “When I have performed at Carnegie Hall, I’ll really be a star then!” is “Cum apud Carnegie Hall recitāverō, praeclārus erō!”
Cat.V fēcerīmus is future perfect, not perfect subjunctive, because of the fundamental rules of Latin grammar.
Macte Luci! Etiam deus ipse Ovidius sic! Met. 6: haustus aquae mihi nectar erit, vitamque fatebor accepisse simul: vitam dederitis in unda" :D
Bellissimē, frā! Grātiās
The video I had forgotten I needed for a long time! Always wondered about that since the endings are nearly identical in form, those TSJCL tests would always exploit that confusion on their tests😂
Then again, if I still pronounced Latin the way I was taught in high school then I’d still be pronouncing short “u” as “uh” and short “i” as “it,” etc etc, your content has really helped me grow in my knowledge and skill with Latin post-high school, especially with phonology. Still need to work on the vocab and fluency though!
Multi bene.
Thanks for your content. Are there any sources you could recommend to learn more about the etymology of endings, like the stuff you talk about here?
That’s a good question. Learning Latin and Greek is helpful of course. Otherwise I can recommend etymonline and wiktionary to get started
Excellent video! Gratias tibi ago!
Thanks!
Thanks for your generous support! I really appreciate it!
Awesome as always!
Thank you. I have learned that in both history and science, these people are astoundingly stubborn to admit to getting overruled. "what you won't find in textbooks or teaching" is a common theme. Keep up the good work.
Thanks! I appreciate it. Yeah, it’s really interesting how the reality differs from the textbook standard. It doesn’t mean that standard isn’t useful, of course, but it’s important not to confuse it for the only description of reality.
@@polyMATHY_Luke Yeah but Oerberg has all of these long vowels doesn't he?
Considering spanish and its variations, it's almost impossible to say that every latin speaker used the retracted s, in fact, didn't the spanish get the retracted s from the greeks instead of the romans?. See ya.
Nope, see this video: ruclips.net/video/NqbV6bLpC-U/видео.html
Thanks
why he lookin like johnny sins
It has to be the conjunctive and not the subjunctive. The latter exists in French and English but not in Latin.
No. These terms are synonymous. In English however we use the term subjunctive, while Italian for example says il congiuntivo. In Latin the translation of subjunctive is either subjūnctīvus or conjūnctīvus: latinitium.com/latin-dictionaries/?t=sh24675
Another great and interesting video. As said by many others here, "Māximus grātias, Lūcī!" (Hope I got the spellings right.)
I'm convinced that, even if Latin ever was a dead language... that it has risen from the grave! 🙌🙌🙌🙌
As an italian ex-latin student, after having watched many of your videos, your pronuntiation of many words is incorrect. Seems like you completely miss "GL", "GN", "CE" etc sounds which are still "active" in italian but which probably you don't own being an native english speaker. That would give you a huge boost if you learnt this stuff right! I hope you don't mind my suggestion.. anyway, great contents and videos! Keep up!
È molto triste che non vi insegnano il fatto che la pronuncia scolastica non ha niente a che fare con la pronuncia del latino classico. Guarda: ruclips.net/video/XeqTuPZv9as/видео.html
@@polyMATHY_Luke Wow, thank you SO much for linking this video! Now I am a little bit ashamed about my comment, but at least writing it down and finding such a nice person like you on the other side helped me learning something so cool! Thanks to your channel I feel revitalized to go back on books and seriously learn latin "again".
Thank you!!!
The current Wheelock's Latin and Collar and Daniell's First Year Latin from 1918 both have the short -e- for the future perfect indicative and the long -ē- for the perfect subjunctive.
So Morgan Freeman read Catulus perfectly: see Ancient Literature Dude channel here in YT.
I think this adds to the Romans'/Latin's love of ambiguity as highlighted in the tome: "Quasi Labor Intus: Ambiguity in Latin Literature" in which in the Introduction the authors write how the Roman authors delighted themselves in using the ambiguous nature of their language, quite similar to what you have highlighted here over these two verb forms.
Is it bad that I did my dissertation on Catullus' use of metre and thought of this.
Although having said that I have just had a look at some of my dissertation prep and realised that I managed to leave most of what I'd picked up on out of the final text. :(
Amīce, iterum tibi grātiās mille agimus nōs omnēs Lingae Latīnae amatōrēs!
Opera tua nōn inventa, sonī linguae cum loquī conārer, mihi sine sale audiēbantur. Sed post omnia quae tū hīc fēcistī, multō mūtāti sunt mihi sōnī hūius linguae ut cum iam litterās antīquōrum legam, mē paene vērās poētārum vōcēs ipsōrum audīre posse crēdam.
Quod tū et amīcus tuus cum Lingae Graecae Antīquae sōnīs faciēbātis quoque valdē mihi interest. Sed sōnī fastigiōrum (dīcere cōnor ‘the pitch accents’) linguae adhuc mihi incomprehensibilēs sunt. Expectābimusne nōs, spectātōrēs tuī, aliquid dē hōc? Certē ego nōn sōlus quī tāle vīdere valdē amem.
Gratiās mille iterum tibi!
Really interesting and helpful! Since the vowel length difference is not consistent, is the main way of determining the difference the context?
Certainly! As a poetry reader you need only scan the verse correctly as you know how to do.
@@polyMATHY_Luke Bene! Gratias tibi :)
question how do we know that this is how latin is supposed be pronounce?
ruclips.net/video/Ft8XUE7honc/видео.html
Ciao Luke, conosci la bardcore (o tavernwave)? È un genere musicale diventato virale su RUclips durante il primo periodo di lockdown 2020 che consiste nel prendere canzoni pop e rock e riadattarle con sonorità del Medioevo. Ma ce ne sono anche alcune in Latino (riadattate e cantate da persone che non conoscono perfettamente la lingua) che potrebbero interessarti. Sarebbe bello ascoltare un tuo parere.
The perfect subjunctive etymology seems to hold also for Italian, but why wasn't there any rotacism in Italian for the same verb? Ex. latin fēc-ə-sīmus became fēcerīmus, but in italian the equivalent is facessimo which is actually much close to the way it formed?
The Italian imperfect subjunctive forms don't seem to be derived from the Latin perfect subjunctive, but from the Latin pluperfect subjunctive (I'm not sure how to account for the accent shift in the plural forms).
@@christianspanfellner3293 you are right, my bad
@@projectgodwill4635 - When I studied Spanish, I found that hicieramos/hiciesemos to be an interesting thing that both forms existed. However, as far as I have heard, hardly anyone uses those in common speech. Perhaps in scholarly writing.
But when you provided that point "hicieramos/hiciesemos" I immediately got the idea of how two seemingly different pronunciations could be interchangeable, or so I understand.
Interesting!
@@BFDT-4 I don't know much about Spanish, but rhotacism is probably more likely to happen in Spanish due to the retracted S pronunciation which Luke talked about. They have the same S as Latin.
"facessimo" isn't the perfect subjunctive, but the imperfect subjunctive.
In any case, the rhotacism came when a single "s" (pronounced /z/) is between vowels. The double "ss" is pronounced /s:/ (geminated or long s) and this sound remain unalterated. Then "ausosa" became "aurora" (in italian "aurora"), but "clarissimus" remained "clarissimus" (in italian "chiarissimo").
Not a big Catullus fan, that's a me problem. Great grammar lesson. More Please.
Please use the correct pronunciation on those forms of Facere!!!!!!! It's just unbearable to listen to!!!
Ahaha presumo che sei italiano? Queste sono le forme correttissime del latino classico, cioè del 1 secolo. La pronuncia tradizionale italiana ossia ecclesiastica, benché sia bella, non ha niente a che fare con la pronuncia antica.
@@polyMATHY_Luke it's historically accurate, but teaching that pronunciation would be like teaching 16th century English. Latin was refined throughout the centuries and the one we should learn differs in many sounds, but it is only natural that Latin speakers should learn it. I guess you should *know* about ancient pronunciations and vocabulary, though, so if that's what you're going for then I'd say you're fine. Still, you do quite an amazing job with this channel and I appreciate that!
Lucius quaestiōnem rursum solvit, quam prōpōnere volēbam.
There's a little mistake 5:00 : "fererint"
Typos happen
I hate to be the one to ask this but...Just like Brian Griffin asked Stewie: Why do you stress so much the h on coolwhip? haha or rather on why and what.
It's not "stress;" it's a different phoneme. While 'wh' and 'w' have merged for many English speakers, it's still a distinct phoneme for quite a few. It's typically heard in the Western US and Canada, and in Scottish English.
@@polyMATHY_Luke Hahahaha thank you.
Wow, you never fail to make my jaw drop, Luke. It amazes me how you can take such a specific subject and turn it into the most interesting 8-min video. Well done! Grātiās, Lucīi :)
Excellent! As always.
Thanks!
Surely Catullus is saying 'then when many 1000's [kisses] we may have done' not as an accomplished fact? Each translation is another alteration > individuated, subjective, unique.
It's accomplishment in the future (she hasn't given him the thousand kisses yet that he has asked for) which is called the future perfect. We know it must be future perfect and not perfect subjunctive because it is paired with "conturbābimus" in the next clause.
How did Latin grammar become so complicated? It makes English grammar look very simple. Maybe that is why so many non-English speakers lean it so easy..
English grammar is also complicated if you try to study it scientifically. I would say that most speakers use it without fully understanding it rationally. Learners included, as they learn a lot more from listening to natives and picking up structures naturally than by memorising them from a textbook (although the latter helps a lot to figure out things more clearly and is an important resource as well, I think that the correct use of the studied forms comes with practice and intuitivity - e.g. the perfect aspect).
It also started clicking as you started explaining where the perfect subjunctive comes from, is that where the form “faxim” comes from? That would make sense if fēcerim comes from fēc-sim… if I recall I was sorta taught it as an archaic/alternative form of fēcerim? Or was it fēcero?
I don’t recall what the precise formation is, but I would assume fac+sim
I've read somewhere (probably in a textbook) that in antiquity languages generally didn't have a future tense, and later it emerged from subjunctive... is that not true? It makes sense to me given the similarity of the forms. But you seem to be saying that these two developed completely independently and only later converged...
This doesn't seem to have occurred in Latin's synthetic future. English takes it from the verb for desire.
Uh, oh! The fact that "is" is redundant in many Romance languages is . . . it is affecting your English writing . The word "is" needs to be inserted after the first word in your text description of this video!
Which ones is it redundant in? Some are pro-drop, allowing you to drop the subject, but I'm not aware of any Romance language that allows you to drop the copula.
it is funny how Spanish has kept both the "s" and "r" versions, "hiciera" and "hiciese", and the fact that the use of them and conditional is also being confused by current speakers
hiciera comes from the the Latin pluperfect indicative: feceram.
hiciese comes from Latin pluperfect subjunctive: fecissem.
So it seems the inherited forms being both pluperfect in origin would be confusing. This is what happened to the Spanish future perfect form: hiciere. That rarely used form was from the confusion of the Latin future perfect and the perfect subjunctive.
Ottimo! Grazie mille Luke. Dii tecum.
Ahahahah, sei sempre più Alberto Angela
Sanksrit does the same to 's'.
Shit, Johnny sins knows Latin?
I love it! Utter chaos :)
Scansion in poetry is so hard to do other than just make it up. I wish I learned more about it in school.
Check my playlist on scansion. I now write poems in Latin, which I never thought I would do, so you can too.
impressive!
Χάριτάς σοι οἶδα, ὦ Ἰωάννη!
Here to approve your work and the mustache in the making
Thank you, Yianni
I come to this channel from time to time hoping only to see British Luke once more.
He shall reappear.