01/05/93

                             CHAPTER 15

         "The Imperfect Indicative Active; Ablative of Time"


FORMING THE IMPERFECT TENSE

Up to this chapter, you have learned five of the six tenses of
Latin verbs.  You've seen that the tenses fall into two main
classes: the present system -- the tenses formed off the first
principal part; and the perfect system -- the tenses which use
the third and fourth principal parts.  The perfect system tenses
are the perfect, pluperfect, and future perfect.  The present
system tenses are the present, future, and, as you'll see now,
the imperfect.  You remember that the present system works like
this:

FIRST PRINCIPAL PART    +  TENSE SIGN   +  PERSONAL ENDINGS

In the present tense, there is no tense sign, so the personal
endings are added directly to the first principal part. The tense
sign for the future tense is "-be-" for the first and second
conjugations, but "-a-" or "-e-" for the third and fourth.  The
imperfect tense also is formed precisely according to this
pattern: stem + tense sign + personal endings.  So to form the
imperfect tense you need to know its tense sign and the personal
endings it uses.

     The tense sign for the imperfect tense is "-ba-", which is
added to the lengthened stem of the first principal part.  So
what do we mean by  lengthened?  It means that the stem vowel, if
it is not already long, is made long.  This obviously applies
only to the third conjugation, where the stem vowel is a short
"-e-". It becomes long "-e-". The stem vowel of the first and
second conjugations are already long -- "-a-" and "-e-" -- so
they aren't affected by lengthening.  But something odd happens
to the stem vowels of the third conjugation i-stem and the fourth
conjugation.  Their stems vowels lengthen to "-ie-" before the
tense sign "-ba-".  Finally, the imperfect tense uses the
alternative ending "-m" in place of "-o" for the first person
singular ending.  This makes some sense.  Suppose the imperfect
were to use "-o" for the first person singular.  What would
happen?  Well, think back: what happens in the first person
singular of first conjugation verbs, whose stem vowel is long
"-a-"?  The "-a-" is elides with the "-o-" and is lost: "lauda +
o = laudo".  Now if the imperfect were to use "-o" instead of
"-m", the same thing would happen and the ending of the verb
would be "-bo", which is the same as the future.  So, perhaps to
avoid confusion, the imperfect tense uses the "-m".  Enough on
that.  So here, then, is the formula for forming the imperfect
tense, with notes on the things to remember.

FIRST PRINCIPAL PART + ba + PERSONAL ENDINGS

(1)  the stem vowel lengthens;
(2)  the stem vowel for third i-stem and fourth conjugation verbs
     is "-ie-";
(3)  the first person singular ending is "-m".

Now conjugate the imperfect tense for the four conjugations.
(Check your work on page 70 of Wheelock.)


      1              2             3             3i              4

    laudo          moneo         duco           capio          audio

_____________  ____________  ____________   ____________
____________

_____________  ____________  ____________   ____________
____________

_____________  ____________  ____________   ____________
____________


_____________  ____________  ____________   ____________
____________

_____________  ____________  ____________   ____________
____________

_____________  ____________  ____________   ____________
____________


THE MEANING OF THE IMPERFECT TENSE

I told you back in Chapter 12 that there is a good reason the
present, future, and imperfect are all collected together under one
system -- the present system.  Now I'll show you why.  All three
tenses have an aspect of incompleteness about them; a sense that
the action they're describing is in a state of going-on.  With the
simple future, obviously, the action can't be thought of as having
been already finished.  Then it wouldn't be in the future.  The
present, too, is used to talk about something that is going on
right as we're talking about it.  There's something about the stem
of these tenses that infects them with this notion of
unfulfillment, of continuation, rather than perfection or
completeness.

     The imperfect tense, too, although it refers to a past action
which, presumably, has already been completed by the time the
speaker is talking about it -- the imperfect tense, too, indicates
an action that was going on in the past over a length time, or that
occurred again and again in the past, and hence is not viewed by
the speaker of ever having reached a definite point of completion.
Let's look at some examples of the English imperfect tense; you'll
have an instinctive sense for the imperfective idea in the verbs,
but try to develop some consciousness about it.

A.   Even though the game still was going on, I left the stadium.
B.   David always used to like to go to the zoo.
C.   She would always come on Tuesdays.

     In example A, contrast the imperfect tense "was going on",
with the preterit "left".  The fact that "I left" is viewed by the
speaker as an action that had a definite end; it's something he did
in a finite amount of time and something he completed.  The fact
that the game was still going on, however, is viewed as the general
context in which he performed the action of leaving.  The game was
going on before he left, and, presumably, it continued to go on
after he left.  The game is viewed as an action with no explicitly
conceived beginning and no definite end.  Now, of course, the game
did start at some definite time in the past, and it's probably over
by now, but the way the speaker chose to represent it for his own
needs was as an action that extended over an indefinite period of
time.  In another context he might say, "The game started at 3:30
and ended at 7:00".  The point is, there's nothing "inherently"
imperfective about the game; the speaker's portrayal of it will
make it either perfect or imperfect.

     In examples B and C, we have something slightly different.
Here English expressions "used to like" and "would come" are
indicating things which occurred repeatedly in the past.  The Latin
imperfect has this sense as well.  Because a repeated or habitual
action also has the sense of incompleteness -- he or she never
stopped doing whatever he or she used to do -- the imperfect tense
is also used to express this meaning: repeated or habitual action.

     Another use of the Latin imperfect is to show a "state of
being" something was in the past: "He was six feet tall" or "I was
able to see".  Here the sense of continuity is almost a part of the
meaning of the verbs.  When you say "He was", you're generally
talking about something that had some duration in the past: "He was
six feet tall".  This is why the imperfect tense of the Latin verbs
"sum" and "possum" are used much more frequently than the perfects
"fui" and "potui".  Still, in actual practice, the differences
between "eram" and "fui", "poteram" and "potui" are often
imperceptible.  So let's gather our wits about the imperfect in
Latin.

     (1)   It's formed from the lengthened stem of the first
           principal part.  The tense sign is "-ba-", and it uses
           the "-m" ending for the first person singular.
     (2)   It's used to talk about an action in the past which the
           writer perceives as going on for sometime when another
           action occurred.  Here our English equivalent might be
           the preterit of "to be" plus the present participle: "was
           looking", "were flying", etc.  E.g., "It was raining hard
           in Frisco."
     (3)   It's also used to talk about a repeated or habitual
           action in the past.  Our English translations might be
           "used" plus the present infinitive, or "would".  E.gg.,
           "George used to go to the park on Tuesdays"; "George
           would go to the park on Tuesdays".
     (4)   It's also used to talk about a state of being in the
           past.  For this reason the verbs which tell you the
           condition of someone or something in the past are usually
           in the imperfect tense.  E.gg., "Magister discipulos
           docere non poterat" (The teacher couldn't teach his
           students).  "Meae filiae pulchrae erant" (My daughters
           were beautiful).

     English has a variety of ways of expressing the Latin
imperfect tense, as you can see in these three examples.  The
different ways are not identical, and you'll have to decide which
is best by looking at the context of the Latin imperfect.


DRILLS

Translate the following short sentences.

1.   Patres suos filios amabant.


     ____________________________________________________________

2.   Eram stultus.


     ____________________________________________________________

3.   Tyrannus mortem timebat.


     ____________________________________________________________

4.   Rex ista pericula vicit.


     ____________________________________________________________

5.   Rex ista pericula vincebat.


     ____________________________________________________________

6.   You (pl.) were not with me.


     ____________________________________________________________

7.   We could not see him.


     ____________________________________________________________

8.   The king was speaking for a long time.


     ____________________________________________________________

9.   The gods used to give men freedom.


     ____________________________________________________________

10.  Caesar himself would always run in these roads.


     ____________________________________________________________


ABLATIVE OF TIME: WHEN AND WITHIN WHICH

As you saw in the last chapter, the ablative case can either be
used with a governing preposition or by itself.  When there is a
preposition, the ablative poses no special problems per se.  You
simply translate the preposition and then the noun.  The meaning of
the preposition overrides any special senses attached to the
ablative case.  (The one preposition, however, you need to watch
out for is "cum", which can either mean "with" in the sense of
accompaniment or "with" in the sense of manner.)  The only use of
the ablative case without a preposition you know so far is the
instrumental ablative or ablative of means.

     Another prepositionless use of the ablative case is called the
Ablative of Time.  You can easily spot such a use in Latin.  If you
see a noun in the ablative case which is not governed by a
preposition, and if the noun is some unit of time, then you have an
Ablative of Time.  But what makes this use of the ablative beastly
difficulty for English speaking students is not the Latin, but the
variety of English translations we can use to represent the Latin
expression of time.

     You see, Latin has one construction -- a noun expressing a
unit of time in the ablative case -- and English has two ways of
translating it, and they both mean something quite different.  We
call the construction in Latin the Ablative of Time When or Time
Within Which, not because Latin has two different construction, but
because English does, and when we translate the Latin construction
into English, we have to choose which of the two English
construction best fits the context.  Let's start by looking at some
English expressions of time which use prepositions.

     1.    "They'll be here in an hour".
     2.    "They came on Tuesday".
     3.    "In less than five minutes they were all gone".
     4.    "Snow never falls in the summer".
     5.    "It'll be snowing in a couple of months".
     6.    "At that time in human history, there were no alarm
           clocks".
     7.    "Within a couple of hours, Caesar had conquered all of
           Asia".
     8.    "In the Middle Ages, things were different".

     I don't doubt that you had no trouble understanding these
sentences and recognizing, in particular, the meaning of the
expressions of time.  You don't have to scratch your heads and
puzzle over them because their exact meanings are embedded
unconsciously in your linguistic repertoire.  But to translate the
Latin Ablative of Time, you must force yourself to understand
consciously what these different expressions of time are telling
you.

     Despite the variety of lexical forms, these expressions of
time above fall into only two classes.  Let's try something.
Before I try to explain the different expressions to you, read
these sentences carefully and try to divide them into two groups
based on their expressions of time.   Trust your instincts.  Hints:
(1) don't rely solely on the prepositions to tell you the
differences (some prepositions can be used in both expressions of
time); (2) there are an equal number of sentences in each group.
Give it a shot (but you'd probably better use pencil).  Put all the
sentences that have temporal expressions like that of sentence #1
into Class A; all those like that of sentence #2 into Class B

                               CLASS A

1.   "They'll be here in an hour".

2.

3.

4.
                               CLASS B

1.   "They came on Tuesday".

2.

3.

4.

     How did you do?  The answer is that the odd numbered sentences
comprise one category of expressions of time, and the even numbered
another.  You undoubtedly did fairly well at this exercise, again,
because your native feel for English helped you "sense" the
differences and similarities, even though you might not be able to
explain your reasons to a non-native speaker of English.  If you
made errors, correct them now.

     Now let's do the tough work.  Precisely what is the difference
between the temporal expressions in Classes A and B?  Well, imagine
that a foreign student of English is asking you this question.  How
would you answer it?  Try.  It's hard, isn't it?  Let's give it a
try.

     The expressions of time in Class A involve a duration of time
but with a definite beginning or end to the action clearly in mind.
Sentence #1 tells you that it'll will be another hour (the duration
of time) before they start being here (start of something).
Sentence #2 tells you that it took an hour (duration of time), but
they finally did leave (end of something).  And so on with the rest
in Class A.

     Now notice that the prepositions "in" or "within" can both be
used in this kind of expression.  That would present no problem, if
it weren't for the fact that "in" can be used in the other kind of
temporal expression, too.  Look at the examples under Class B;
you'll see "in" used there, too.  The way to tell whether "in" is
being used in the sense of Class A is to try to replace it with the
preposition "within".  If the sentence still makes good English
idiom, then "in" means time in the sense explained above.  This is
why we call this expression of time "Time Within Which", because
the English preposition "within" always connotes the proper sense.

WORKS:          "I'll see you in two days"  =  "I'll see you within
            two days".
DOESN'T WORK:   "It rains in the summer"  ~  "It rains within the
                summer".

How about Class B; how would you explain the meaning of the
expressions of time here?  These expression tell you the time at
which something is, was or will be taking place.  There is no
implied sense of the duration of the action with an emphasis on it
beginning or its end.  This is why we call it "Time When".  "I
teach Latin on Monday" simply identifies the time I teach as if it
were a single point on a time line.  Again, English has a variety
of prepositions it uses to express this kind of time, as you can
see:  "See me on Monday at five o'clock in the afternoon".

     Okay, so much for English.  Remember, the reason we looked at
all this was that these two different expression of time in English
can both be used for one expression of time in Latin: the
prepositionless ablative case.  What you have to do when you're
translating from Latin to English is decide which English
expression is the more appropriate.  So let's look at the Latin.

     Consider the following Latin sentences.  Try to decide how
best to translate the expression of time into English:  "Paucis
horis Caesar in Asiam venit".  Which would be best: "within a few
hours" or "at, on, or in a few hours"?  Undoubtedly "within (or
in) a few hours" is the better here.  Not "At a few hours, Caesar
went into Asia", but "In (or within) a few hours, Caesar went into
Asia".  Next: "Aetate pueri ludebant" ("ludo" = to play). "Within
the summer" or "in the summer"?  The last, obviously, since it can
be thought to answer the question "time when", not "time within
which".  One last example: "Una hora Asiam totam vici".  Is this
telling time "within which" or "time when"?  Certainly "time within
which" because there's a sense of duration of time with a terminus
of the action in mind: "I conquered all Asia within (or in) one
hour".

     I know that some of these distinctions can be rather hair
splitting.  You just have to work with them a lot and keep you mind
in high gear at all times.  Here is one last test you can use to
decide whether an expression of time is a Time When or Time Within
Which construction.  Try to rephrase the sentence in question in
the following way:

                "It takes (or took or will take) X Y Z"

     [Where X is the subject of the original sentence; Y is the
     expression of time, and Z is the infinitive of the original
     conjugated verb.]

If the resulting sentence preserves the meaning of the original
sentence, then the expression of time is Time Within Which. "In
three years I'll be out of this place" = "It will take me three
years to be out of this place". The rewritten sentence means the
same thing as the original sentence, so "in three years" is an
expression of Time Within Which.  "In the cenozoic era, dinosaurs
walked on the earth" ~ "It took dinosaurs the cenozoic era to walk
on the earth". The rewritten sentence does not mean the same thing
as the original sentence, therefore, "in the cenozoic era" is not
an expression of Time Within Which, but Time When.

VOCABULARY PUZZLES

miser, -a, -um       You haven't seen an adjective like this for a
                     while. It uses the case endings of the first
                     and second declensions, but in place of the
                     "-us" ending for the masculine nominative
                     singular, it uses the other ending "-er".  Is
                     the "-e-" of "-er" part of the stem?

iacio                There is nothing terribly unusual about this
                     verb.  It's a normal third conjugation i-stem.
                     The tricky part comes in recognizing it in a
                     compound verb (when a prefix is attached to
                     it).  The first principal part loses the vowel
                     "-a-" altogether: "e + iacio = eicio", which
                     is  pronounced "eh YI ki oh".  In the third
                     principal part, the vowel returns, but this
                     time as the long "-e-", which is the normal
                     vowel for the third principal part: "e + ieci
                     = eieci", which is pronounced "eh YEAH kee.

inter + acc.         It means either "among or between", so we need
                     to fret over which is the best English
                     translation.  Do you remember when standard
                     English calls for "among" and when "between"?
                     Use "between" with two objects; "among" for
                     three or more.  "This is a secret just between
                     you and me".  "This is a secret we keep among
                     the family members only".

