īnfīnītīvus passīvī

[Siegfried Zaytsev]

(from LLPSI, p. 75)
'Portā|rī', 'vidē|rī', 'pōn|ī', 'audī|rī' īnfīnītīvus passīvī est. Īnfīnītīvus passīvī: -rī/-ī.

Is 'passīvī' here the genetive of 'passīvum' so that 'īnfīnītīvus passīvī' would mean 'the infinitive of the passive voice'?

Can I also say "īnfīnītīvus passīvus', using 'passīvus' as an adjective? Or is 'īnfīnītīvus passīvī' the standard term in use?

 

[Gregorius Textor]

I, too, would like to know why it is 'īnfīnītīvus passīvī' rather than ''īnfīnītīvus passīvus' --- and I have a related question:

On the previous page (p. 74, Cap. X, lines 133, 134, and 154) he has 'Īnfīnītīvus' divided into 'Āctīvum' and 'Passīvum', where I would expect to see 'Āctīvus' and 'Passīvus'.

I'm guessing that 'īnfīnītīvus' is masculine to agree with the implied noun 'modus' (mood, voice) which it modifies. But in both cases, why do the forms 'Āctīvum' and 'Passīvum', and (from the original post) 'passīvī', seem not to agree with '(modus) 'īnfīnītīvus'?

Ho! I think I've answered my question about 'Āctīvum' and 'Passīvum' by peeking at Cap. XXXV, Ars Grammatica: they're neuter because they modify the (implied) neuter noun 'genus' (which here, I think, must be understood as 'voice' rather than 'gender').

From Cap. XXXV, lines 60 ff.: Modī verbōrum sunt indicātīvus, imperātīvus optātīvus, coniūnctīvus, īnfīnītīvus.

Lines 65 ff: Genera verbōrum sunt āctīva, passīva, neutra, dēpōnentia (though here I would expect 'āctīvum, passīvum, neutrum, dēpōnentium', so I'm still a bit puzzled).

Aha! It's because they modify (implied) 'vōx' (voice), which is feminine! So, then, 'genus' (above) did not mean 'voice' or 'gender', but 'kind'.

But then back on p. 74, 'Āctīvum' and 'Passīvum' is still a puzzle.

And now I'm more than ever confused about the original question, 'īnfīnītīvus passīvī'.

I think that in both cases, the solution must rest on the fact that there are implied nouns which are being modified by 'Āctīvum', 'Passīvum', 'passīvī', and which they have to agree with, but I can't figure out what those nouns are!

And a look at THREAD: latin-grammatical-terms tells me that 'genus' does indeed mean 'voice'.

Feeling completely confused now.

 

[Godmy]

Latin (like Czech today follows that tradition) uses the terminology by Donatus (Ars Minor, check the last chapter in LLPSI: Familia Romana, as quoted above!). The term voice in that tradition is not vōx or modus (the term voice comes from the competing Greek grammar tradition φωνή used more in some parts of the Western Europe throughout the middleages & today... just like Donatus was used pretty much everywhere else: Germany e.g.) but it is "genus" (gender). Hence actīvum and passīvum (the terms actīvum and passīvum is also used in Czech when Latin terminology is applied, we have also Czech terminology where we literally translate it as "rod" (=gender) ).

And that's why it's neuter as an adjective and also as the secondary (derived from it) substantive.

Modus then is for indicative, infinitive, imperative, conjunctive (=subjunctive) (+ the virtual ones like optative, jussive, hortative etc.) and that's why those are masculine (either as adjectives or consequently nouns).

 

[Gregorius Textor]

For restoring my sense of sanity regarding "modus indicativus | infinitivus | cet." (masc.) and "genus activum | passivum" (neut.), thanks!!!

But now what about the OP's question: how do we explain "[modus] infinitivus [genus] passivi", where "passivi" can be masc. or neut. gen. sing., or masc. nom. plural, none of which agree with "genus"?

 

[Godmy]

īnfīnītīvus passīvī - would be merely secondary nouns derived from the respective adjectives and taking the gender of the original noun. Īnfīnītīvus, ī <- 1. noun; passīvum, ī - another noun ... one took masculine after modus, the other took neuter after genus, but they are both nouns now.

They aren't adjectives here!

 

[Godmy]

... but neither is adjective here!

Hence, we only explain how the nouns got the gender they have, but the original adjectives are not used here per se.

 

[Gregorius Textor]

I'm afraid I'm still confused. Okay, I can see that "infinitivus" could be a noun, just as in English "infinitive" is sometimes a noun, and likewise 'passivum'. But still, how do we understand "infinitivus passivi": is it as the OP suggested,

'the infinitive of the passive voice'?

or maybe more exactly (to agree with what you say about their being nouns and not adjectives) "the infinitive of the passive"?

 

[Godmy]

Yes, it's literally infinitive of the passive!

I was confused myself about what the confusion was about... I suppose it's normal for me, since in Czech such phrase is common place in the Czech grammar: infinitiv pasíva

 

[Gregorius Textor]

Great, thanks for clearing this up!