Indeed, historically deponents are descended from a middle/reflexive voice. In historical usage, though, deponents lost this, and can take a direct object. See e.g.:
With plenty other examples, and even verbs like uti can take an accusative in some situations.
One could argue that the forms themselves make the ...
What you've neglected (an easy thing to neglect) is the case that "in" governs with each meaning. "In" plus the ablative connotes coherence and inclusion, and it's roughly equivalent to English "in." "In" plus the accusative, however, means something far closer to English "toward," which, if you think militarily (as the Romans often did), is fairly easy to ...
Using nimis (or related words) before an adjective strengthens it, but in a specific direction: nimis frigidus is "too cold", not "very cold".
You can also reach a similar tone with comparative: frigidior can mean "too cold".
I suggest three ways to emphasize an adjective:
Frigidissimus is a very idiomatic way to say "too cold".
The absolute ...
As far as I can see, your basic premise is doubtful, inasmuch as classical sources appear to have defined virgo in the same way as has been done down to modern times. Certainly, the word was then applied to girls, young women and various males, but generally implying maidenhood, sc. an absence of sexual experience.
There are plenty of examples. Cicero has a ...
My understanding is that deponent verbs, unlike passive verbs, are conjugated the same way as active verbs for a few non-finite forms/constructions.
Specifically, according to the document "Deponent Verbs" from The Latin Library online, deponent verbs use the same forms as active verbs for the present active participle, the future active participle and the ...
Champneys/Rundall have a good run down of the words. They break them down into four categories:
Think = to have an opinion
= to have an opinion and express it—
= to think over, reflect upon—
an animo agito.
= to think of doing something—
With is such a versatile word in English that how's it actually being used is sometimes obscured. Consider the following:
I am going to the store with my friends.
I am making a house with the best tools.
With is used in these sentences, but they're using it very differently. The first expresses accompaniment: the friend are coming along. The second ...
While unrelated to monere (which is instead related to memini), it seems to me that minari overlaps with it partially in the sense that the threats are warnings. This makes sense since the word comes from minae. It seems to me that the type of threats involved with minari seem to warn away someone (or something) from their present course of action lest there ...
"Questions" that are actually requests using the archaic "potin?" are numerous in Plautus, and they appear in Terence as well. I think based on the evidence that a Roman would readily understand this type of request-phrased-as-a-question but might find it somewhat rude or abrupt: the examples in the corpus always seem to carry a hint of exasperation.
mementō is formed from the reduplicated perfect stem (IE *me-mn-), not from the present stem (IE *men-). Thus, morphologically it is a perfect imperative, not a future imperative; the latter is always formed from the present stem. The IE imperative ending *-tōd has various different usages in the daughter languages: Greek -τω forms the 3rd sing. present ...
Note: Not a direct answer, but...
According to A.G. Rigg, 'Morphologoy and Syntax' in Mantello and Rigg, eds, Medieval Latin: An Introduction and Bibliographical Guide (Washington, DC, 1996), 85:
In Classical Latin the past participle is sometimes (though rarely) used predicatively after habere: domitas habere libidines, "to have one's desires tamed," i....
I don't think involvo necessitates a temporal order: for essence to involve or entail existence, it isn't necessary for existence to exist before essence existed. The order is not temporal, nor causal, but merely rational: one thinks of existence when one thinks of essence.
The image involved in the word involvo is that of a cloud encircling and touching a ...
Some cabbages do form a layered spherical structure much like onions.
Therefore cabbages are much more suitable for describing spherical (layered) objects than many other words.
A hollow sphere is not far from a spherical layer, and stratum is a layer.
The connection between (2), (3) and cabbages seems quite clear.
A couple of things remain unclear to me:
I'll offer a few thoughts gleaned from the entry for glauben in Georges: kleine deutsch-lateinisches Handwörterbuch and from Smith's Copious and Critical English-Latin Dictionary. (I'd quote and translate, but my German, while good enough to get a general sense of the text, is unequal to anything like a satisfying translation.)
Credo is closest to "I ...
The common phrase is etiam si (even if), but et can be used as a shorthand for etiam, which would be the only reasonable way of reading it in that sentence. So, there is no significant difference between the two.
First of all, nothing provides a better brief on the semantics of these conjunctions than a good dictionary. L&S has quite exhaustive (if not exhausting) articles on et and ac/atque. You can supplement it with others at hand, for example, the Oxford Latin Dictionary, which is not available online.
In the present narrow context, both conjunctions mean ...
I may be misunderstanding what is exactly unclear here, so I am sorry if I am misinterpreting the question. The sĕro, sertus has the semantics of binding into a bunch: “wreath; join, entwine, interweave, bind together; compose; contrive;” [Whit.] (There is also an irrelevant lemma of sēro).
in-serere, with the regular semantics of in-, directs the action ...
“Paganus” is a religious term only in Christianity, where it is a calque on ἐθνικός, which in turn is a calque on Hebrew gōyīm “nations” (thus already in the Septuagint). If you have access to jstor you might want to look at (the second half of) this article:
especially footnote 110.
I disagree with LaFeeVerte, and would like to posit that aliquis can function as an adjective. A quote from one of my favorite sources, Bennett's Latin Grammar:
Aliquis may be used adjectively, and (occasionally) aliquī substantively.
Unfortunately, no examples are provided to show its adjectival use, but the fact that it can be used as an ...
I can think of three examples, two of which may or may not fit your strict definitions.
The first is optimas. Though it can mean "aristocratic" (as a substantive, "aristocrat"), it most often in its attested use refers specifically to the aristocratic party (in the plural optimates) that opposed the populares, where you get someone like Caesar, clearly a ...
Sexuality of all kinds was largely tolerated in republican Rome, and though various kinds of behaviour met with censure in some quarters, it was probably accepted as inevitable by all, if distasteful to some. 'Unnatural' behaviour is referred to, described, or alleged all over the place: here are some examples:
Cicero (Tusc V, 33) has something to say about ...
Generally, the answer is no. The adjective 'aliqui, aliquae, aliquod' should be used instead.
That being said, however, Virgil (Aeneid, book II, line 48) seems to use 'aliquis' as an adjective, saying 'aut aliquis latet error'. Here both 'aliquis' and 'error' are in the nominative, which suggests that you can use 'aliquis' as an adjective.
But perhaps '...
I think part of the issue here is that "toward" isn't particularly accurate as a a description of the meaning of "in"; "into" would be much more appropriate. Consider that in English you can be in a building or you can go in(to) a building. You may be interested in this question and its answers for further information.
To my understanding, there is indeed a difference!
Latin's "perfect" tense is a fusion of two separate tense-aspect combinations: the "present perfective" (an action that was completed before the present, and affects the present) and the "past aoristic" (an action that takes place in the past, where the duration doesn't matter). The two forms look the same, ...
My suggestion is testis, which means both "testicle" and "witness".
The two meanings of "madam" seem related; both refer to "a female with a significant status" or something like that.
The two meanings of testis seem unrelated.
The potential for humor did not go unnoticed in antiquity.
In Curculio Plautus writes quod amas amato testibus praesentibus.
A girl (not woman. Not "young woman", that's a modern concepts), in most of the ancient cultures (I don't talk about modern cultures, that's different), was a woman who were not married.
When a girl was married, she became a woman (it wasn't a matter of age, but a matter of status: being married = to be a woman. Quite different with the nubility.)
And as a ...
In English any verb which syntactically takes a subject can be reassumed by “do”. “I hate cod but she doesn’t” is perfectly natural even though no actual doing is involved.
Indeed one of the puzzles of modern Latin languages is that they cannot easily resume verbs. Either they just omit the verb altogether (pero ella no?) or they have to change construction....