Color-coded chart #4: Infinitives/Participles/Gerund etc.

Callaina

Feles Curiosissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Location:
Canada
It's been a while since I posted one of these -- so time for another chart! :)

Recently I learned a large number of various forms (infinitives, participles, gerund, etc.) constructed from the four principal parts. I found myself having some difficulty remembering which form was built on which part (and how!), and finally got tired of looking them up, so I made this. :)

I've shown here anything (that I know of) which is derived from one of the principal parts, and isn't itself a finite verb form. This includes:
- Participles (past, present, future);
- Infinitives (past, present, and future);
- Gerund and gerundive;
- and for good measure, I tossed in the Supine (which I haven't formally learned yet, but whatever, it doesn't look overly complex.) ;)

The chart is pretty self-explanatory. Forms with an active meaning are listed in red while those with a passive meaning are listed in blue. I chose the verb amō, amāre, amāvī, amātum mainly because it was the one my textbook used for most of its examples; but you can use any model verb you'd like. (Just be aware that a few of the forms are constructed with ē or e (instead of ā or a) for Conjugations 2-4; I've shown this in italics in the relevant places.)

And the usual disclaimer: I'm still a student and this is just my own best attempt to create a study aid for myself. I've done my best to ensure the information here is accurate, but I cannot guarantee it. If you spot any mistakes or omissions (or simply have any comments/feedback!) please let me know!

participles etc.jpg

And now, a couple questions for the experts here (hey, you knew they were coming, right?) :D

- I would have expected all active forms to be constructed from a single principal part (e.g. 2nd) and all passive forms to be constructed from another (e.g. 4th.) In fact, though, there isn't any clear separation between the two (for example, the future active participle/infinitive is constructed from the 4th principal part and looks quite similar to the passive past participle/infinitive -- and the gerund/gerundive are nearly identical!) How did this come about, historically? I'm curious...
- The supine and accusative form of the gerund (with ad) seem to cover more or less the same range of uses: "for the purpose of/in order to doing X." Why do two separate forms exist at all? And is one more commonly used than the other? (Or am I wrong and there's a subtle difference in meaning here that I'm not seeing yet...)

Thanks! :)
 

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patronus

Location:
USA
The only mistake/typo I see is in the present infinitives cell: you have amari categorized as "active" instead of "passive".
- The supine and accusative form of the gerund (with ad) seem to cover more or less the same range of uses: "for the purpose of/in order to doing X." Why do two separate forms exist at all? And is one more commonly used than the other? (Or am I wrong and there's a subtle difference in meaning here that I'm not seeing yet...)
The accusative supine and ad + gerund mean exactly the same thing, but the accusative supine is used only with verbs of motion (e.g. currere, festinare, ambulare, etc.). Regarding the etymology of the supine, however, you'll have to consult Imber Ranae. :confused:
 

Callaina

Feles Curiosissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Location:
Canada
The only mistake/typo I see is in the present infinitives cell: you have amari categorized as "active" instead of "passive".
The accusative supine and ad + gerund mean exactly the same thing, but the accusative supine is used only with verbs of motion (e.g. currere, festinare, ambulare, etc.). Regarding the etymology of the supine, however, you'll have to consult Imber Ranae. :confused:

Gah! Sorry about the mistake, will fix as soon as I can get to a computer! Thanks for the tip (& info re the supine!)

Sigh...apparently the deadline to edit has passed, so I'm reposting the corrected version below. Apologies to all :oops:

participles etc.jpg


And one more question for Imber Ranae, if/when he gets here: :D

Both the past active infinitive and the pluperfect active subjunctive have -isse as their added ending. This can't be coincidence, but I'm curious which came first and how this developed. Thanks! :)
 

Imber Ranae

Ranunculus Iracundus

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
Grand Rapids, Michigan
- I would have expected all active forms to be constructed from a single principal part (e.g. 2nd) and all passive forms to be constructed from another (e.g. 4th.) In fact, though, there isn't any clear separation between the two (for example, the future active participle/infinitive is constructed from the 4th principal part and looks quite similar to the passive past participle/infinitive -- and the gerund/gerundive are nearly identical!) How did this come about, historically? I'm curious...
Again, there's no quick or even definitive I can give to this. The suffix in -t that the 4th principal part derives from apparently had a number of distinct uses in Indo-European, which led to it developing active or passive meanings in different kinds of constructions, but I don't know all the details, to be honest.

I provided my own conjecture as to how a grammatically active gerund might have developed from the grammatically passive gerundive in another thread, which I believe PP linked you to already, but in fact there's no scholarly consensus on the question of whether the gerund and gerundive are even necessarily related. I think they almost certainly are, but no one can say for sure that they are, and if so which came first.
- The supine and accusative form of the gerund (with ad) seem to cover more or less the same range of uses: "for the purpose of/in order to doing X." Why do two separate forms exist at all? And is one more commonly used than the other? (Or am I wrong and there's a subtle difference in meaning here that I'm not seeing yet...)
As Ignis said, the accusative supine is far more limited in use, and as a consequence comparatively rare. It appears to be an old accusative of end of motion that developed a final sense to it, which explains its restriction to verbs of motion or aim.
Both the past active infinitive and the pluperfect active subjunctive have -isse as their added ending. This can't be coincidence, but I'm curious which came first and how this developed. Thanks! :)
The pluperfect subjunctive is formed from the perfect active infinitive, probably on analogy with the imperfect subjunctive which appears based on the present infinitive, though technically it isn't.
 

Callaina

Feles Curiosissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Location:
Canada
Thanks for the info! :)

As Ignis said, the accusative supine is far more limited in use, and as a consequence comparatively rare. It appears to be an old accusative of end of motion that developed a final sense to it, which explains its restriction to verbs of motion or aim.
It must be quite rare, since (as far as I know) I've never seen it in all the reading you guys have thrown at me ;)

The pluperfect subjunctive is formed from the perfect active infinitive, probably on analogy with the imperfect subjunctive which appears based on the present infinitive, though technically it isn't.
Can you say more about this last bit -- if it isn't based on the present infinitive, where did it come from?
 

Imber Ranae

Ranunculus Iracundus

  • Civis Illustris

Location:
Grand Rapids, Michigan
It must be quite rare, since (as far as I know) I've never seen it in all the reading you guys have thrown at me ;)
What readings have we thrown at you? I thought you were just randomly translating things we quoted in the expressions/quotations thread. I'm sure some accusative supines are to be found in that thread, though maybe not in those posts that you've looked into.
Can you say more about this last bit -- if it isn't based on the present infinitive, where did it come from?
Again, there's no definitive answer, but you can see a discussion of some of the possibilities here(.pdf), starting on page 87.
 

Callaina

Feles Curiosissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Location:
Canada
What readings have we thrown at you?
I was just joking. I meant stuff from the thread. ;)

I'm sure some accusative supines are to be found in that thread, though maybe not in those posts that you've looked into.
I don't recall seeing any, though it's possible that when I did I had no clue what they were.

Again, there's no definitive answer, but you can see a discussion of some of the possibilities here(.pdf), starting on page 87.
Excellent, I'll take a look!
 

Callaina

Feles Curiosissima

  • Civis Illustris

  • Patrona

Location:
Canada
Glancing over this again, I realized (to my embarrassment) there's another error; the gerund and gerundive have to be constructed from the first principal part, not the second, because for 3-io and 4th conjugation verbs, the -i in the stem needs to be retained.

Again, obviously too late to edit, but below is a corrected (hopefully thoroughly this time!) corrected version.

I'm not sure anyone besides me ever looks at these, but just in case, my sincere apologies to my fellow beginners for any confusion I might have caused!! :oops:
participles etc.jpg
 
Top