Supines in Latin 

Wow, thank you!

Are you checking out the AP Latin livestream? 6-6:45 every week day.

wow, the guy said every verb has a supine, but not all have PPP. let that sink in!!!

In the traditional approach: (1) Options of formation (2) Then maybe, options of meaning Not saying that this is the right way, just the way I have been taught and the way many secondary and college classrooms still function. I appreciate your comments, though, in first because it forces me to think about other perspectives in learning. With options of meaning in an ancient language, it's often "these are ways you can say this thing" and any sort of distinction between the options are either (1) hidden in the past, or (2) not as distinct in practice as they are made out to be (because we don't have an infinite amount of examples). I know a systemic approach can be done (many modern languages are learned this way), I think it requires a lot more natural practice and exposure, both of which aren't readily available with Latin. At least this is how I understand it! Thanks for your comment!

@@latintutorial Yes, it is indeed much harder to organize the teaching materials according to options in meaning than it is to organize them following the options in formation. However, I would not fully subscribe to the statement that options in meaning are "hidden in the past". For instance, we have plenty of evidence that «ego haec locūtus, ...» is similar to «ego hīs dictīs, ...» in meaning even though these clauses are different from each other in form. The same similarity in meaning and difference in form happens in free clauses for these lexical items: e.g. «haec locūtus sum» and «haec dīxī». In the latter case, we already talk about different verb types regarding the way semantic features are realized, not about different semantic features, but we do not do the same to the previous examples. Most people still teach 'ablativus absolutus' as if it were a 'passive' structure and as if verb transitivity and verb type had no impact on the verb form and object case. Yes, you are right, it is much harder to organize the contents systemically. However, the evidence is out there. We can understand it, and we could systematize it according to meaning. ;-)

Supine and prone both coming from Latin, with meanings as you described!

Thanks! I hope the videos I continue to make are good too!

Gratias?

+jsbks From what I'm reading in Google I gather that replacing the supine with the infinitive with movement is sometimes employed in early poetry, and even there it depends on the verb. Later Classical Latin frowned upon many kinds of not-so-standard usage, including this one, although it may have been more common in conversational or regional speech. But with the Locative form, I'm pretty sure these expressions were just too set in stone to use the infinitive there in any register.

+Sobakus Hmm, insightful. Thanks.

You still have good options that are more standard. There's a purpose clause (with ut, ubi, or qui), or a gerund/gerundive with ad or causā.

AlphaBagel nobody knows haha

chas ` did you pass?

@M. rta. Estne pugna perfecta est?

@M. rta. I said "is the fight over"

It’s not the ablative case, but a neuter third declension accusative form.

Well, the Romans didn't think so. And even though we translate it in English like an infinitive, it isn't used in the same way as the Latin infinitive is at all (either to show purpose or as an ablative of respect).

Latin doesn't work the way English does.

Good observation. It fell out of use in the evolution of all romance languages. It was an intermediate state between an inflected verbal noun and a full on infinitive. Infinitives cross-linguistically evolve from case inflected verbal nouns or verbal nouns in adpositional phrases. The case ending and the action nominal forming suffix become one and forgot as separate which produces infinitives "if the verbal noun was complemental" or converbs "if the verbal noun was optional/adverbial". Notice that purpose for specifically motion verbs can be complemental "I went to sleep", and seems to have a directional aspect to it "i went to the event of sleeping". Treat to sleep as to + zero derived action noun "sleep". From the complemental use here "to+bare inf." evolved for use in all complemental positions. The supine was an infinitive on the rise. It's not a case inflected verbal noun "has a specific use" but not an infinitive "not used in all complemental positions". It likely fell out of use in the evolution of romance languages because it evolved into a full infinitive but that already existed. For reading more on the subject of infinitives there is a good paper called "defining non-finites". It's in the references of the wiki page on non-finite verb forms

discere - to learn

Hoc negotium est iucundum factu

In the video, it's said that the ablative supine does not take a direct object. So how to translate this sentence: "It is fun to do this task"? And does it take an indirect object? As in: "It is necessary to give to other people"?

Oh well then you could just treat an infintive as a noun: 'hoc negotiun curare iucundum est'

CulusMagnus Oh OK. many thanks

if you have a direct object then use the gerund , if I remember right, I think in the genitive. P.S : not to confuse the Gerund with the Gerundive

No

It perhaps gets its name from “falling back” to relying on the verb, despite having case endings.

Lee Cox because Swedish is a North Germanic language, while Latin isn't.

Romanian (descendant from Latin) also has a supine, but it isn't marked on the verb but rather with a particle.