|
 |
Latin, why use passive instead of adj | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Questions About Your Target Languages |  | |
| shadowzoid Groupie United States Joined 5494 days ago 76 posts - 85 votes  Speaks: English* Studies: German, Russian | Message 1 of 4 04 April 2010 at 4:34pm | IP Logged | ||
|
In Latin, why use the passive tense instead of an adjective? Like, if I wanted to say
"the dog was being loved," why can't I just say "the loved dog?" It has the same meaning? Maybe I might want to say it one way just like how I would in English, but if I were a beginner, where poeticness doesn't matter, why would I choose the passive? Also, since its Easter, ill use this as an example: Christ is risen. Why is it translated "Christus Ressurexit" (Christ arose) instead of "Christus Resurgitur" 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Johntm Senior Member United StatesRegistered users can see my Skype Name Joined 5233 days ago 616 posts - 725 votes Speaks: English* Studies: Spanish | Message 2 of 4 05 April 2010 at 6:13am | IP Logged | ||
|
Roman writers felt a need to be unnecessarily verbose. And for effect, I guess.
1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Cainntear Pentaglot Senior Member Scotland linguafrankly.blogsp Joined 5822 days ago 4399 posts - 7687 votes Speaks: Lowland Scots, English*, French, Spanish, Scottish Gaelic Studies: Catalan, Italian, German, Irish, Welsh | Message 3 of 4 05 April 2010 at 11:18am | IP Logged | ||
In the English "Christ is risen", "risen" is arguably not an adjective. "I say arguably" because the people who wrote this spoke a different form of English from us, and while we would look at it as an adjective, we wouldn't actually make up a sentence like that, so it's not really "our" language? In some European languages, the perfect tense has two forms: one for transitive verbs (verbs which take a direct object) and one for intransitive verbs (those without a direct object). This is the famous être and avoir of French -- "to be" and "to have". "To be" is used for intransitive and reflexive verb use, and by extension it is used for the impersonal passive. "To have" is used in the case of transitive verbs with distinct subject and object. Looking at older translations of the Bible and older hymns and carols, you'll see this construction lots. Two examples: "Joy to the world, the Lord is come." (To come is intransitive.) "Unto us a child is born." ("Born" comes from the transitive "to bear (a child)" - she will bear me a child, she bore me a child, she has born me a child - and is here being used in the impersonal passive, hence "to be") There are also several fossils in English that are now understood as adjectival constructions, but that have their origins in the same structure: He's dead. I'm gone! You're done for! Why did this distinction die out? Nobody can say for sure, but I'd put my money on it being a result of the fact that "he/she/it has" and "he/she/it is" both contract to the same thing: "he's". 1 person has voted this message useful | |||
| Cabaire Senior Member Germany Joined 5410 days ago 725 posts - 1352 votes | Message 4 of 4 06 April 2010 at 11:40am | IP Logged | ||
|
Like, if I wanted to say
"the dog was being loved," why can't I just say "the loved dog?" "Canis amabatur" is a sentence, "canis amatus" is only a noun with an attribute. They are not grammatically interchangeable. Why is it translated "Christus Ressurexit" (Christ arose) instead of "Christus Resurgitur "Christus resurgitur" is strange, by whom is he risen? 2 persons have voted this message useful |
If you wish to post a reply to this topic you must first login. If you are not already registered you must first register
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
