Verb Conjugation?

[ach0788]

Hello!
I've hit another bump in my so far basic study of latin. haha
I'm a little confused about all the different verb conjugation.
1. Will a verb always have a personal ending of some sort? ( personal ending, future tense personal ending...)
2. Are the basic verb personal endings (-o, -s, -t,--mus,-tis,-nt) present tense?

These are just a couple of the questions i can think of. If you have any advice or helpful websites you know of, all would be appreciated!
Thanks,
alanna

 

[QMF]

Yes a verb will always have an ending, and the present tense question is yes and no. Yes those are the present tense endings, but they repeat in other tenses. Let me do this the easy way by conjugating amare in the active indicative.
Present
amo
amas
amat
amamus
amatis
amant
Imperfect
amabam
amabas
amabat
amabamus
amabatis
amabant
Perfect
amavi
amavisti
amavit
amavimus
amavistis
amaverunt
Pluperfect
amaveram
amaveras
amaverat
amaveramus
amaveratis
amaverant
Future Perfect
amavero
amaveris
amaverit
amaverimus
amaveritis
amaverunt
So as you can see, in the perfect active indicative (never knew the order one lists those), the 2nd person is "-isti" and "-istis" while the first person singular is "-i" and in the imperfect the 1st person singular is "-bam", distinguishing it from the "-bo" of the future. The pluperfect and future perfect simply take the stem of the perfect and add the imperfect and future forms of esse, respectively, hence the "m" at the end of "amaveram". This was probably WAY more info than you were looking for, but unfortunately this isn't even half of the info on Latin verb conjugations There are still 14 more of these sets (although these are all the tenses, then there's the passive and both parts of the subjunctive) so yeah, there's a lot to it. Nice thing is there's only 5/6 (if you count fieri) truly irregular verbs
P.S.
Tell me if you can't figure out the order of the conjugations or if I confused you in any way other than dumping all the tenses on you at once

 

[Cato]

QmF is quite correct in his points. The personal endings are introduced in Latin education mainly as a guideline so that you begin to recognize patterns (and exceptions; -isti in the 2nd sing. perf. is one)in the conjugations. You could just exercise your memory and spend a weekend memorizing all the forms, but most Latin teachers find this too great a task to expect from new Latin students (plus it detracts from more interesting subjects), so they encourage you to spot personal endings.

For example, I always tell early students that if they come across a Latin word that ends in -t, it is 99% certain to be a 3rd person singular active verb. Ditto -nt for 3rd plural active, -tur for 3rd sing. passive, -ntur for 3rd plur. active (smart Latinists will note that tot, quot, sat and a few other Latin words are the exceptions, but this rule of the personal endings is useful enough to at least spot the verb in a lot of sentences, which for beginners is crucial). I certainly wouldn't want students to stop there in understanding verb forms, and I would point out that there are other possible forms of the verb than the 3rd person, but it's a decent enough crutch to start. And like all crutches you eventually lay it aside. I find that to be the best description of why personal endings are introduced.

 

[ach0788]

Much thanks! I see the pattern now, much easier haha.
Now i come to the irregular verbs.
How does esse and possum fit together?

 

[QMF]

Some of posse's endings are, in fact, forms of esse (don't be confused by the pluperfect and future perfect, where all verbs end in forms of esse), where others are simply normal endings. To demonstrate using the present:
sum
es
est
sumus
estis
sunt
pos+sum=possum
pot+es=potes
pot+est=potest
pos+sumus=possumus
pot+estis=potestis
pos+sunt=possunt
Note that when the form of esse begins with e, the second consonant is t, and when it begins with s, it is s. This pattern continues:
pot+eram=poteram
pot+eras=poteras
etc.
pot+ero=potero
pot+eris=poteris
etc.
The perfect tense merely has normal perfect endings and since the part that comes after the pos- or pot- is a vowel, you use pot-. Hence:
potui
potuisti
potuit
etc.
Then you get the pluperfect and future perfect from the perfect, as with all other verbs:
potueram
potueras
etc.
potuero
potueris
etc.

 

[Iynx]

I hadn't seen this thread earlier. In my typical role as Nit-Picker General I feel obliged to point out that Latin verbs do not always have personal endings. Infinitives do not. Imperatives have a very simple system, and in a few instances the endings disappear altogether: dic, duc, fac, fer.

 

[jaffa]

Can I also be a nit picker and point out that the third person plural in the future perfect is amaverint

 

[QMF]

Can I also be a nit picker and point out that the third person plural in the future perfect is amaverint

No it's not. Amaverint is the third person plural of the perfect subjunctive. Not sure where you got that idea, do you think amaverim is the first person singular of the future perfect? Because it's the same situation. The other 4 forms of the two are identical.

 

[Iynx]

1. I agree with QMF that the third person plural perfect indicative should be amaverunt.

2. I also agree that amaverint is the third person plural perfect subjunctive.

3. But that 's where you lose me, QMF. What other 4 things are identical, and to what?

 

[QMF]

Between the perfect subjunctive and the future perfect indicative. Put them next to each other:
amaverim
amaveris
amaverit
amaverimus
amaveritis
amaverint

amavero
amaveris
amaverit
amaverimus
amaveritis
amaverunt

Those two forms vary but the other 4 are the same. Since one normally learns the future perfect indicative before the perfect subjunctive, it makes it easier to conjugate if one remembers it this way.

 

[Iynx]

Oh, no. I've screwed up royally.

It's probably hopeless at this point, but let me try to straighten it out.

1. Jaffa said that the future perfect form (not the perfect form) was amaverint, and he's quite right, I think (sorry, Jaffa, I misunderstood at first).

2. Now I see what you mean, QMF, about the similarities. But they are (I think) not quite so marked as you say.

a. We are agreed that the first-person singular forms are different (-ero vs. -erim).

b. the third-person plurals are different, as per Jaffa (-erint vs. -erunt).

c. with the sole exception of the third-person singular, the other forms all are (sometimes) given long a long vowel in the present subjunctive where the corresponding vowel in the future perfect indicative is invariably short: (-erimus vs. erImus; -eris vs. erIs and eritis vs. erItis).


3. Let me close as I began, by apologizing to the forum, and especially to Jaffa, for my foolish mistake just above.

 

[QMF]

Vowel lengths, vowel lengths....such a bittersweet aspect of the language.