12

Good question! In the beginning, way back in the far-flung times of Proto-Indo-European, the word for "it is" was something like *h₁ésti, and it had a fairly regular present participle, *h₁sónts. In Latin, these forms evolved into est and sōns, respectively (vowels get lengthened before -ns). The latter is where we get forms like absēns > "absent" and ...


7

This is a deponent verb. Both the normal contemplare and the deponent contemplari exist and mean roughly the same thing. I have the impression that the deponent one is more common, but the details surely depend on the era and author. The deponent verb has passive forms but active meaning, and therefore the passive perfect participle has active meaning too. ...


7

The double ss is evidence for a short vowel in ussi (at least at some point) Just a short time after posting this question, I remembered a relevant fact. Even though there wasn't (as far as I know) a regular Latin sound change that would have shortened ū to u in this context, there was a Latin sound change that would have shortened ss to s after a long ...


7

As Sumelic says, both -i and -e can be used as the ablative ending of a participle. Even so, mixing them in the same sentence would probably be unusual. Respicienti is really a dative here; the new a.c.i. (discidisse) has a different construction from the previous one (exclamasse with an ablative absolute Caio dante). The new construction is like Chaerea [...


5

I used corpus searches to constrain the possibility of participle comparison. Here are the observations: Superlative of future participle: The only words with -turissim- are forms of maturissimus. No hits with -surissim- or -xurissim-. Comparative of future participle: Searching for -turior- returns a number of forms of maturior, one promunturiorum, one ...


5

Apparently not always, but the exceptions seem to be rather marginal and hard to find. "The morphome [sic] vs. similarity-based syncretism", by Donca Steriade, says that -⁠sor agent nouns invariably correspond to -⁠sus perfect participles, but gives examples in (23) of -tor agent nouns that don't correspond to -tus participles: converritor vs. ...


5

In his Corso elementare di lingua latina ("Elementary Latin course", 1844), Vincenzo De Angelis deals with this in Volume 1, p. 191: Se il verbo indica azione vi sarà il passivo, come amo ed amor... e perciò amans ed amatus-amaturus ed amandus. Ma ove indicasse uno stato intransitivo, nè il verbo vi sarà con questo doppio valore, e forma; nè participi ...


5

In Latin, like in many languages, the usual present tense can be progressive. For example, "I am acting" would be simply ago. If you want to make a distinction between "I act" and "I am acting", you need to use other words to convey the nature of the action. Usually the context alone is enough, but you can add words like "suddenly" or "continuously". Latin ...


5

In my opinion, the answer to your question is no. Something like agens sum means "while acting, I am". In Latin, participles function a bit like subordinate micro-clauses. incensus irato, pura mente, ovem agens, sum => burning with anger, with a pure mind, leading a sheep, I exist / am. To be and a participle does not create a predicate as in ...


4

Militiae is the genitive singular of militia, which is grammatically singular, but which (like other collective nouns) designates a plurality. Laudantium and dicentium are genitive plural. They agree with militiae ad sensum, but not ad litteram. It is like when you say in English “the whole class are doing their homework”. “Class” is grammatically singular, ...


4

In medieval Latin there were neologisms such as ens. The link also says that the original form was sons with the classical meaning "guilty".


4

We can semantically distinguish an adjective or adverb from a participle. Adjectives and adverbs have no dynamic or temporal force. They cannot take an accusative or clause as their object. They merely describe what they modify. Only such descriptions can take degrees of comparison. Participles that retain any of their dynamic force cannot be made ...


4

Strictly speaking, Iovem should be indirect speech, as you say, without quotation marks, because of the accusative. Then it would be translated as follows: ...and that, when Gaius gave Jupiter (as the password), Chaerea exclaimed... We moderns may be inclined to put Jupiter in quotation marks, lest the passage be read as if Caligula were handing over the ...


3

It seems to be difficult to distinguish participles from nouns/adjectives. This is a problem, because it seems clear that some adjectives with the form of participles have comparative forms. The idea that the use of the comparative form implies that a participle has been converted to an adjective does seem to be out there: In order to distinguish a noun ...


3

Punctuation and macrons might help: Respondēns autem Petrus dīxit, "Domine, sī tū es, iubē mē venīre ad tē super aquās." [29] At ipse ait, "Venī!" Et dēscendēns Petrus dē nāviculā ambulābat super aquam ut venīret ad Iēsum. [30] Vidēns vērō ventum validum timuit et cum coepisset mergī clāmāvit dīcēns, "Domine, salvum mē fac!" Answering, Peter said,...


3

As in English, the presence of a direct object seems to commonly be treated as evidence that a -ns word is a verbal participle rather than a departicipial adjective. "The use of the present participle in Livy", by Alice E. Johnson (1915) gives this as a criterion (pp. 4-5). Johnson ultimately defines the distinction between participle and adjective in ...


2

In my interpretation, multitudo is accompanied by two discrete genitive constructions: the partitive genitive militiae caelestis (so, not the whole heavenly host but just much of it), and then a genitive indicating the contents of the multitude, the substantives laudantium and dicentium: a multitude of the heavenly host, consisting of beings who are praising ...


2

It is true that this may be considered an example of constructio ad sensum et non ad litteram. Nevertheless I prefer another perspective: if laudantium and dicentium are substantivized participles that indicate the composition of the militia, we could even translate as follows "...a large multitude of the heavenly militia of those who praised God..." ...


1

I think that the meanings attributed by sumelic to nasciturus and nascendus ("about to be born" and "needing to be born", respectively) are more or less appropriate (NB: the modal meaning "needing" is not present in all gerundives. Rather the "conditio sine qua non" for gerundives seems to be that their argument must be a Patient/Theme). The form nasciturus ...


1

I think the confusion, here and on the previous question regarding degrees of comparison, stems from conflating syntactical and semantic approaches. Syntax focuses on structural relationships. In syntax, something is called adjectival if it modifies a noun. That modification can be either attributively (within the noun phrase) or predicatively (in a ...


1

How natural does (2b) sound without the nominal predicative? (2) a. Ante Christum natum b. Post Ciceronem consulem If you say post Ciceronem, it simply means "after Cicero". It could mean a number of things: After his death, after his office, behind him in a queue, after his speech… The ambiguity is the same as in English. It does ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible