Past Participium/Participle standing alone

[Godmy]

As we all know, present participle in latin makes an adjective from active voice of some verb: laudans = "the one, who is praising" (not "the one who is being praised).

So I expected, that the past participle will have the same function, but in past.
(Understant - not the past participle with verb 'esse' which makes perfect passive voice, but past participle alone).
Thought, that 'Puer laudatus gaudet.' will be 'The boy, who was praising, is happy.'
but it looks, that it's the passive voice variant: 'The praised boy is happy.'

If it is so, then present participle and past participle differ in more than in just time, but even in voice.
So does that mean, that in latin is no kind of past participle, which would say by one word "which was praising" same as present laudans says "which is praising" ?

Thank you for your asnwers!
(Excuse some mistakes for I'm not a native speaker.)

 

[Nikolaos]

In Latin, there is no past-perfect-active participle, and there is no present-passive participle. The only way that I know of to express "which was praising" would be qui laudabat.

I am only a novice, though, so wait for another to answer.

 

[Godmy]

In Latin, there is no past-perfect-active participle, and there is no present-passive participle. The only way that I know of to express "which was praising" would be qui laudabat.

I am only a novice, though, so wait for another to answer.

I will wait, but nevertheless thank you very much for this answer. I just want to have no doubts anymore about these things - that's mainly why am I asking.

 

[cinefactus]

You seem to have a pretty good handle on things. The exception are deponent verbs which have an active past participle. As Nick says, there are other ways of conveying the meaning...

 

[Godmy]

You seem to have a pretty good handle on things. The exception are deponent verbs which have an active past participle. As Nick says, there are other ways of conveying the meaning...

Oh, so the deponent verbs have active present participle and even the past one active... hm, that's interesting new 'perk' of deponent verbs for me thhen

Thank you for these information.

 

[Bitmap]

Oh, so the deponent verbs have active present participle

yes ... like all verbs

 

[Godmy]

Oh, so the deponent verbs have active present participle

yes ... like all verbs

If you just take a half of my sentence and post an answer on it (as you did), then it's not (sorry) very good of you. Because, the sentence gets then meaning like I just discovered that deponent verbs have active present participle - but that's not what was my sentence about, the words "and even" had there great importance for the meaning.

Anyway, thanks for the answer. And thanks to the others for their answers!

 

[Akela]

Bitmap, this forum is meant to encourage beginners to learn Latin, not hinder them. The only silly question is the one that was never asked.

I'd rather not delete any more of your posts.

 

[Bitmap]

I don't see how I hindered him ... or how I wrote anything about a "silly question".

 

[cinefactus]

Pax

I think it is just an issue of misunderstood communication Bitmap. I am guessing that your intent was to clarify the issue, but as you only quoted half of his post the OP felt that you were making fun of him.

Am I right?

 

[Bitmap]

Sorry, I answered the post quickly and didn't read what it said further up ... but for your benefit:

If it is so, then present participle and past participle differ in more than in just time, but even in voice.
So does that mean, that in latin is no kind of past participle, which would say by one word "which was praising" same as present laudans says "which is praising" ?

You shouldn't be deceived by the term "present" and "past" participle. What we refer to as the "present" participle should probably more clearly be called a participle of simultaneous action (or something along those lines) as it indicates what happens or what someone is doing at the same time of the action in the superordinate clause.

In other words, if you have a sentence in the past, the "present" participle will also refer to the past action:

present main clause:
puer laudans gaudet = "The boy who is praising is happy"
past main clause:
puer laudans gaudebat = "The boy who was praising was happy

For that reason you shouldn't translate the PPP in the continuous aspect into English. It's more like "after having done something", e.g.
puer laudatus gaudet = "after having been praised, the boy is happy"
with a deponent:
puer profectus gaudet = "(after) having left, the boy is happy"

Sometimes, you can also make use of the crypto-active implications of an ablative absolute to dodge the problem of only having passive past participles:
Caesar Gallis victis in Italiam rediit.
"After the Gauls had been beaten, Caesar returned to Italy" - since the action which an ablative absolute expresses often refers back to the subject as the originator/author of that action, (i.e., in our example, since it is clear that Caesar was the one by whom the Gauls were beaten) this may also be translated as "After having beaten the Gauls, Caesar returned to Italy". This is what some people call "crypto-active".

However, if you haven't heard about that sort of ablative yet, you shouldn't bother with it, yet.

 

[Bitmap]

Another exception (apart from deponents and semi-deponents) that I can think of are some verbs that have to do with eating/drinking. e.g. prandeo means to have breakfast, but the PPP pransus does not mean that you've been eaten for breakfast, but just that you have had breakfast.
e.g. Marcus pransus domum relinquit = After (having had) breakfast, Marcus leaves the house.
This also works with cenare (to dine)

Potare (to drink) has two past particles:
the regular one, potatus = someone/something that was drunk (i.e. passive)
potus = someone who has drunk (i.e. active)

e.g.
Caesar vinum potus nunc ebrius est = Having drunk wine, Caesar is drunk now.
(with the crypto-active ablative i mentioned above, you can also use the passive form: Caesar vino potato ebrius est)
vinum a Caesare potatum appellatur Falernum = The wine (that was) drunk by Caesar is called "Falernum"

 

[Godmy]

Thank you very much Bitmap for you extensive explanation and absolutely perfect clarifying of the whole issue That gives me much better picture about Latin participia and their possible substitutes than I've ever had before!

I'm sorry for our yersterday's dispute, haven't meant to get you irritated.
(Cinefactus sees the point correctly)

Also thanks to Akela

- After all, I got very good experience with this place and I'm grateful for all the attention to my problem.