I've never seen anything except this provide passive forms of the verb esse. And even with that most of the passive forms are crossed out. Why is this? It would make sense for there to be no passive forms of esse, because of the structure of sentences with est: nominative est nominative. There is no object to become the subject, but then why does the website provide passive forms? How would these work? Or are these just approximations to what such a word would look like?

  • 2
    That conjugation table seems to be of very low quality, and I advice against trusting it at all. In addition to the errors others have mentioned, let me point out that the future participle is not esurus but futurus. – Joonas Ilmavirta May 8 '16 at 4:49
  • The passive forms of esse on that website are crossed out - it means they don't exist. – Alex B. May 8 '16 at 15:37

There are no passive forms of esse, for the reason you state -- it's not a transitive verb. Intransitive verbs cannot be passivized, with the minor exception of "impersonal passive" forms (in the 3sg. only), which are not used with esse. The crossed-out forms on that site don't exist. (Neither do some of the forms that aren't crossed out, like the gerundive esendus and several others. On the other hand, the "II imperative" forms actually do exist even though they are crossed out for some reason.) Presumably the site generates forms by an algorithm, which doesn't necessarily know which forms really exist.

  • Random side question: what is the deal with II imperative and II future, do they refer to future imperative and future perfect respectively? – tox123 May 7 '16 at 23:09
  • 1
    The reason supplied in this answer (and the below) is incorrect: plenty of intransitive verbs can be used impersonally with 3rd person passive forms, e.g. itur: "via qua itur ad Deum" = "the way by which it is gone [or: one goes] to God". – brianpck May 8 '16 at 1:14
  • 1
    @brianpck. ire can be a transitive verb, with direct object viam. Active: viam it, passive: via itur. – fdb May 8 '16 at 10:08
  • 1
    @brianpck. “ire vias,” Prop. 1, 1, 17: “exsequias,” Ter. Ph. 5, 8, 37: “pompam funeris,” Ov. F. 6, 663 et saep. – fdb May 8 '16 at 19:47
  • 2
    @brianpck Ire viam, vivere vitam etc. are examples of the internal accusative mentioned by TKR in his or her comment; I believe it is usually a stylistic or rhetorical embellishment, and it is uncommon, as you say. I agree with you that with most intransitive verbs this is not done, while they still allow the impersonal passive; so I don't think that should be considered a determining factor. – Cerberus May 9 '16 at 1:40

This thing you linked to is total rubbish. It was obviously produced by a machine. The passive forms given there are fictitious. The verb "to be" does not take a direct object and thus cannot be passive; this is true in Latin and all languages. I suggest you buy a Latin grammar and stop using machine-generated websites.

  • 2
    You are right: verbix.com/webverbix/… – tox123 May 7 '16 at 23:11
  • I don't find the intransitive therefore unable to be passive argument convincing. How then do you explain such forms as itur, potestur, nequitur, statur, etc.? – Anonym Sep 3 '18 at 18:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.