4

Salvete omnes,

As I've mentioned a couple times on here, I am working on adding macrons to a specific text, I can't really use an auto-macronizer (nor will I, or do I want to). But there is a bit of a snag that I run into from time to time, so I figured I'd reach out and see who all has tried and true methods for eliminating ambiguity. Bear in mind here, while I have a decent idea of how to identify forms, this will also serve to help other Latinists as well. Do not feel you have to answer all the questions at once, I will be happy with multiple possible answers.

On to the questions:

  1. Do you have any tips for separating 1st declension nouns, adjectives, and similarly ending pronouns in the nominative vs. the vocative (i.e. nauta vs nautā, qua vs quā, bona vs bonā) Currently I typically use context, especially prepositions and if present nouns of other declensions, which works most of the time.

  2. Do you have any tried and true methods for identifying subjunctives, now I don't mean a run of the mill present or imperfect subjunctive, specifically I have 1000s of sentences which could be Future Perfect Active Indicative or Perfect Active Subjunctive. Sometimes I have another clause with a subjunctive of another tense or a regular Future Indicative which helps to clear it up, but any and all methods you have will be appreciated.

  3. Do you have any methods you use to identify if a 3rd conjugation verb (typical -ere ending) is a: 3rd pl. perf. act. ind. b: 2nd sg. fut. pass. ind. c: pres. act. inf. d: 2nd sg. pres. pass. imp. e: 2nd sg. pres. pass. ind. I know 90% of the time it's the infinitive, but any tips you have are welcome.

This is a long process I'm going through, and I'll have to double check my work (I'm about 70% complete with the text already), so I'd love to get a checklist together to really nail this down. The text is well over 1500 (8.5 x 11) pages long.

Improve this question
8
  • Just to check—it sounds like you want to macronize the text without parsing (much less translating) it?
    – Draconis ♦
    Commented Oct 24, 2020 at 0:06
  • (The reason I ask is because "how do I tell the difference between these forms while translating" and "how do I tell the difference between these forms in isolation" will have somewhat different answers.)
    – Draconis ♦
    Commented Oct 24, 2020 at 0:09
  • Well, I can parse, but that isn't always helpful and definitely not quick. For example, you can immediately identify some nouns based on a verb or preposition or quick context, occidente solis for example, the falling/setting of the sun would be occidente sōlis, but occīdente is also a word, as is solīs. Parsing wouldn't get me there, because occidente and occīcente are the same form of participle. Parsing is good for figuring out most grammar, but with fueris vs fuerīs, they are both translated in a similar fashion, (should you have been vs. you will have been) makes it a bit harder.
    – Colin
    Commented Oct 24, 2020 at 0:15
  • I should also specify I'm doing this as a book to publish, I can get it to be "close enough" but I want it to be as perfect as I can get it, also tools like Perseus Tufts form identifier is hit or miss.
    – Colin
    Commented Oct 24, 2020 at 0:17
  • 2
    Note that apparently, in Classical Latin, the long vowel and short vowel forms of the future perfect indicative and perfect subjunctive were not consistently distinguished according to their meaning: see Alex B.'s answer here: "Vowel length in future perfect indicative and perfect conjunctive"
    – Asteroides
    Commented Oct 24, 2020 at 4:53

0

Reset to default

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.