6 ms·

You're not quite right. Classical Latin had a lot of things that virtually no modern language has: a fully developed passive conjugation, a fully developed conj

You're not quite right. Classical Latin had a lot of things that virtually no modern language has: a fully developed passive conjugation, a fully developed conjunctive, and - the cherry on the cake - a rigorously expressed separation between phases (consecutio temporum). Latin is quite magical, and even if it was actually more crude than some of its contemporaries like Ancient Greek and Sanskrit, it's still sweeter than virtually all modern languages, some of which don't even have a past perfect tense or more than one conjunctive form.

rimliu 7y ago
I have no idea what "fully developed passive conjugation" is, but my language is very old and I imagine very difficult for English speaker to learn. There is an example how fun it can be: http://www.lituanus.org/1987/87_1_04.htm http://www.lituanus.org/1987/87_1_04.htm
- tremon 7y ago
  It means that every conjugation of an active verb has a corresponding passive form, as in your link: esąs - buvęs - būsįas versus esamas - būtas - būsimas . But that's underselling it a bit, because Latin actually had a full 3-dimensional matrix of conjugations: time-based tense (past, present, future), goal-based tense (completed or ongoing), and action (active or passive), with accompanying participles for each case. To compare with your link, I notice Lithuanian seems to lack passive participles ("while being beaten" is the corresponding example), while keeping some of the circumstantial conjugations (frequency, intent, necessity, conjunct phrases) that older languages did have, but Latin did away with. In more analytical languages, most of these constructs have been replaced with auxiliary verbs (as in English: I see versus I'm seen, I'm watching versus I'm being watched). With full conjugations, entire sentences can change in tense or action without affecting word order. This may not seem that special if your native language is like that, but as the OP started out saying, it allows for much more expressiveness in (predominantly written) language.
  - rimliu 7y ago
    If I got it right, Lithuanian does have passive participle (neveikiamasis dalyvis). In the case of "while being eaten" it would be "valgomas". "While being beaten" -> "mušamas". He was silent while being beaten -> Mušamas jis tylėjo. To quote Wikipedia: the Lithuanian language is unique for having fourteen different participial forms of the verb, which can be grouped into five when accounting for inflection by tense. Some of these are also inflected by gender and case. For example, the verb eiti ("to go, to walk") has the active participle forms einąs/einantis ("going, walking", present tense), ėjęs (past tense), eisiąs (future tense), eidavęs (past frequentative tense), the passive participle forms einamas ("being walked", present tense), eitas (“walked” past tense), eisimas (future tense), the adverbial participles einant ("while [he, different subject] is walking" present tense), ėjus (past tense), eisiant (future tense), eidavus (past frequentative tense), the semi-participle eidamas ("while [he, the same subject] is going, walking") and the participle of necessity eitinas ("that which needs to be walked"). The active, passive, and the semi-participles are inflected by gender, and the active, passive, and necessity ones are inflected by case.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    The definition you provide here does not apply to Latin. > every conjugation of an active verb has a corresponding passive form If we're talking about individual verbs, this does not and cannot apply to any language; there are always verbs that for semantic or syntactic reasons cannot take passive forms. (Examples in Latin: "esse" [to be] has no passive because the passive form of "to be" doesn't exist even conceptually; "sequi" [to follow] has no passive because sequi is, from a strictly syntactic perspective, already inflected as if it were a passive verb.) If you're talking at a more general level about whether the language offers the possibility of a passive form for every active form a verb might possess, that still isn't true for Latin -- and in fact, the very example you give is quite badly wrong. > Latin actually had a full 3-dimensional matrix of conjugations: time-based tense (past, present, future), goal-based tense (completed or ongoing), and action (active or passive), with accompanying participles for each case. Side note: in the traditional analysis, a Latin verb is inflected in five dimensions ("tense", "voice", "mood", "person", "number"). What you call "goal-based tense" is traditionally just called "tense", though I agree with you that it is a separate dimension and shouldn't be conflated with actual tense. In linguistics, this dimension is called "aspect". Latin participles do not inflect for person or number. Despite what you say here, they also don't inflect for aspect. They do inflect for tense and voice, but of the six possibilities (past / present / future) x (active / passive), only four are possible in Latin -- the present passive and past active forms do not exist for any verb. [1] (It's possible to make the argument that Latin participles do inflect for aspect, in that some participial forms (the present and the future passive) use the imperfect verb stem and others (the perfect and the future active) use the perfect verb stem. That makes the argument you're making here weaker -- instead of Latin offering four out of six participial forms, it would be offering four out of twelve.) [1] But remember how "sequi" couldn't have a passive form because it's already formally passive? This opens up a possibility for the perfect participle: secutus can mean "having been followed", the normal perfect passive sense, but it can also mean "having followed", in an otherwise impossible perfect active interpretation of the participle. The "passive form, active meaning" state of the verb can be carried through to its participle.
alerighi 7y ago
Italian borrowed all these features from Latin, since it is a directive descendant, tough in Italian these are less strict rules, and nowadays a lot of people doesn't know them and get them wrong (including a lot of politicians, that always get conjunctives wrong).

rimliu 7y ago

I have no idea what "fully developed passive conjugation" is, but my language is very old and I imagine very difficult for English speaker to learn. There is an example how fun it can be: http://www.lituanus.org/1987/87_1_04.htm http://www.lituanus.org/1987/87_1_04.htm

tremon 7y ago
It means that every conjugation of an active verb has a corresponding passive form, as in your link: esąs - buvęs - būsįas versus esamas - būtas - būsimas . But that's underselling it a bit, because Latin actually had a full 3-dimensional matrix of conjugations: time-based tense (past, present, future), goal-based tense (completed or ongoing), and action (active or passive), with accompanying participles for each case. To compare with your link, I notice Lithuanian seems to lack passive participles ("while being beaten" is the corresponding example), while keeping some of the circumstantial conjugations (frequency, intent, necessity, conjunct phrases) that older languages did have, but Latin did away with. In more analytical languages, most of these constructs have been replaced with auxiliary verbs (as in English: I see versus I'm seen, I'm watching versus I'm being watched). With full conjugations, entire sentences can change in tense or action without affecting word order. This may not seem that special if your native language is like that, but as the OP started out saying, it allows for much more expressiveness in (predominantly written) language.
- rimliu 7y ago
  If I got it right, Lithuanian does have passive participle (neveikiamasis dalyvis). In the case of "while being eaten" it would be "valgomas". "While being beaten" -> "mušamas". He was silent while being beaten -> Mušamas jis tylėjo. To quote Wikipedia: the Lithuanian language is unique for having fourteen different participial forms of the verb, which can be grouped into five when accounting for inflection by tense. Some of these are also inflected by gender and case. For example, the verb eiti ("to go, to walk") has the active participle forms einąs/einantis ("going, walking", present tense), ėjęs (past tense), eisiąs (future tense), eidavęs (past frequentative tense), the passive participle forms einamas ("being walked", present tense), eitas (“walked” past tense), eisimas (future tense), the adverbial participles einant ("while [he, different subject] is walking" present tense), ėjus (past tense), eisiant (future tense), eidavus (past frequentative tense), the semi-participle eidamas ("while [he, the same subject] is going, walking") and the participle of necessity eitinas ("that which needs to be walked"). The active, passive, and the semi-participles are inflected by gender, and the active, passive, and necessity ones are inflected by case.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  The definition you provide here does not apply to Latin. > every conjugation of an active verb has a corresponding passive form If we're talking about individual verbs, this does not and cannot apply to any language; there are always verbs that for semantic or syntactic reasons cannot take passive forms. (Examples in Latin: "esse" [to be] has no passive because the passive form of "to be" doesn't exist even conceptually; "sequi" [to follow] has no passive because sequi is, from a strictly syntactic perspective, already inflected as if it were a passive verb.) If you're talking at a more general level about whether the language offers the possibility of a passive form for every active form a verb might possess, that still isn't true for Latin -- and in fact, the very example you give is quite badly wrong. > Latin actually had a full 3-dimensional matrix of conjugations: time-based tense (past, present, future), goal-based tense (completed or ongoing), and action (active or passive), with accompanying participles for each case. Side note: in the traditional analysis, a Latin verb is inflected in five dimensions ("tense", "voice", "mood", "person", "number"). What you call "goal-based tense" is traditionally just called "tense", though I agree with you that it is a separate dimension and shouldn't be conflated with actual tense. In linguistics, this dimension is called "aspect". Latin participles do not inflect for person or number. Despite what you say here, they also don't inflect for aspect. They do inflect for tense and voice, but of the six possibilities (past / present / future) x (active / passive), only four are possible in Latin -- the present passive and past active forms do not exist for any verb. [1] (It's possible to make the argument that Latin participles do inflect for aspect, in that some participial forms (the present and the future passive) use the imperfect verb stem and others (the perfect and the future active) use the perfect verb stem. That makes the argument you're making here weaker -- instead of Latin offering four out of six participial forms, it would be offering four out of twelve.) [1] But remember how "sequi" couldn't have a passive form because it's already formally passive? This opens up a possibility for the perfect participle: secutus can mean "having been followed", the normal perfect passive sense, but it can also mean "having followed", in an otherwise impossible perfect active interpretation of the participle. The "passive form, active meaning" state of the verb can be carried through to its participle.

alerighi 7y ago

Italian borrowed all these features from Latin, since it is a directive descendant, tough in Italian these are less strict rules, and nowadays a lot of people doesn't know them and get them wrong (including a lot of politicians, that always get conjunctives wrong).