02/15/93


                           CHAPTER 37

                "Conjugation of Eo; Constructions
                       of Place and Time"


IRREGULAR VERB Eo

Like most of the irregular verbs you've had to learn so far --
"fero", "sum", "volo" -- the irregular forms of the verb "to go"
in Latin are almost entirely limited to the present system of
tenses.  And, as I hope to convince you, even those
irregularities aren't so peculiar as you might think.  With just
a couple of mild reminders, you can produce all the irregular
forms of "eo" without have to be shown them in advance.  Let's
start by looking at the verb in all its principal parts:

                   eo, ire, ii, itus, -a, -um

What's the stem of the first principal part of this verb?
Remembering your rule from Chapter 1, you know that the stem of
the first principal part is the present infinitive less the
infinitive ending "-re".  The stem of the verb is "i-".  So to
form the present tense of "eo" you should simply add the personal
endings.  And that's what you do -- with the following
refinement: when the personal ending starts with a vowel, the
stem change from "i-" to "e-".  Now conjugate the present tense
of "eo." (Check your work on page 178 of Wheelock.)

                          PRESENT TENSE

                      ____________________

                      ____________________

                      ____________________


                      ____________________

                      ____________________

                      ____________________

What about the other tenses of the present system, the imperfect
and the future?  Well, the formula for the imperfect tense for
all verbs is
1st principal part  +  ba  +  personal endings

and "eo" follows the rule without exception.  The future tense of
"eo", however, is slightly odd, since, as a fourth conjugation
verb, it should form the future tense using the tense sign vowels
"-a/e-".  Instead, "eo" uses the "-be-" tense sign before its
personal endings -- the tense sign used by the first and second
conjugation verbs.  Now conjugate the imperfect and future
tenses.

           IMPERFECT                 FUTURE

     ____________________     ____________________

     ____________________     ____________________

     ____________________     ____________________


     ____________________     ____________________

     ____________________     ____________________

     ____________________     ____________________


And what about the subjunctive mood of the present and imperfect
tenses?  There are no irregularities here at all.  The present
subjunctive is, as you should expect, the first principal part +
a + the personal endings; the imperfect subjunctive is, in
effect, the present infinitive plus personal endings.  So
conjugate the present and imperfect subjunctive of "eo".


            PRESENT                 IMPERFECT

    ____________________[1]   ____________________

     ____________________     ____________________

     ____________________     ____________________


     ____________________     ____________________

     ____________________     ____________________

     ____________________     ____________________


The perfect system, as I promised you, contains hardly any
irregular forms.  The third principal part is "ii", which means
the stem for the perfect system of tenses is "i-", to which you
then add the appropriate tense/personal endings.  The only oddity
is that in the perfect tense, when the ending begins with "-is-",
such as the second person singular and plural, the two "i"s
contract to one.  That's an understandable simplification.  The
same thing happens in the perfect infinitive, where "i-" + "isse"
gives you "isse", not "iisse".  So conjugate the perfect system
of tenses:

       PERFECT              PLUPERFECT          FUTURE PERFECT

____________________   ____________________  ____________________

____________________   ____________________  ____________________

____________________   ____________________  ____________________


____________________   ____________________  ____________________

____________________   ____________________  ____________________

____________________   ____________________  ____________________


Finally the perfect system in the subjunctive mood -- the perfect
and pluperfect tenses -- are likewise entirely regular:

perfect        =    "i-" + "-eri-" + personal endings
pluperfect     =    perfect infinitive + personal endings

Conjugate:

            PERFECT                PLUPERFECT

     ____________________     ____________________

     ____________________     ____________________

     ____________________     ____________________


     ____________________     ____________________

     ____________________     ____________________

     ____________________     ____________________

And that's the whole picture.  Wheelock omits the passive voice
of "eo" for the obvious reason that it can only be used in a few
rather special constructions.  (What would the passive voice of
"to be" be, anyway?)  Now, try writing out all the forms of "eo,"
ire, ii, itus" in the present system again. (Remember, the
perfect system is almost completely regular.)

                        INDICATIVE

       PRESENT                FUTURE               IMPERFECT

____________________   ____________________  ____________________

____________________   ____________________  ____________________

____________________   ____________________  ____________________


____________________   ____________________  ____________________

____________________   ____________________  ____________________

____________________   ____________________  ____________________


                            SUBJUNCTIVE
       PRESENT                                     IMPERFECT


____________________                         ____________________

_____________________                        ____________________

____________________                         ____________________


____________________                         ____________________

____________________                         ____________________

____________________                         ____________________


                          PARTICIPLES[2]

                ACTIVE                  PASSIVE

FUTURE   ____________________    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

PRESENT  ____________________

PERFECT  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    ____________________



                            INFINITVES

                ACTIVE                  PASSIVE

FUTURE   ____________________    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

PRESENT  ____________________

PERFECT  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX    ____________________



PLACE CONSTRUCTIONS

This section will present you little trouble.  For the most part,
as you know, Latin uses prepositions to show place where, to
which, and from which.  Like this:

          In urbe sunt.       (They are in the city.)
          Ex urbe venerunt.   (They came from the city.)
          In urbem ibunt.     (They will go into the city.)

There are all kinds of prepositions which will indicate spacial
relationships: "ad", "sub", "de"...  Most "place constructions",
therefore, will be covered by any one of a number of
prepositions.  However, when the location to or from which is a
named city or a small island, Latin discards the prepositions or
uses the locative (LAH kuh tiv) case.


THE LOCATIVE CASE

It seems clear that Latin originally had more cases than the five
or six which survived into the historical period.  One of them
was a case used to show location, which we reasonably call the
"Locative Case," but we might just as easily call it the "place-
where case."  These locative case endings are now entirely
limited to the names of cities small islands, and here's the rule
for its formation:

     (1)  For singular nouns of the 1st and 2nd declension the
          form is identical to the genitive singular of the
          noun's normal declension; the locative of third
          declension nouns in the singular is identical to the
          ablative singular.
     (2)  For plural nouns of all declensions the form is the
          same as the ablative plural.

You might have question right now about this: "How can the name
of a city be plural?"  Good question.  It just happens that the
names of some cities are plural in Latin, but it doesn't mean
that there are more than one of the city.  For example, "Athens"
in Latin is "Athenae, -arum (f); for the city Syracuse,
"Syracusae, -arum (f)."


MOTION TOWARD/FROM CITIES, SMALL ISLANDS, AND "HOME"

In place of the regular prepositions "ad", "de" and so on, which
show this kind of motion, Latin simply uses the names of the
cities and small islands in the accusative case or the ablative
case without the prepositions.  This holds true also the Latin
noun for "home": domus, -us (m).  You'll not see "Ad domum eo",
but "Domum eo".

There is one peculiarity with this word, however.  As you can
tell from the dictionary entry, "domus" is a fourth declension
noun.  But, when it's used in a construction involving motion to
or from or location, then "domus" takes on second declension
endings.  Consequently, the locative for "domus" isn't "domus" --
the genitive case -- but "domi", which would be the gentive case
if "domus" were second declension.  Similarly, to show motion
from home, use "domo", not "domu".  Let's look at some examples
of these place constructions:

1.   Ibit Syracusas.     (He will go to Syracuse.)

2.   Hoc Athenis factum est.  (This happened at Athens.)

3.   Mei amici Romae sunt.    (My friends are at Rome.)

4.   Eos Delphos misit.  (He sent them to Delphi.)

5.   Venit domo.    (He came from home.)

6.   Domi libros scripsit.    (He wrote the books at home.)

7.   Litteras domum miserunt. (They sent the letter home.)


TIME CONSTRUCTIONS

You've been working with the Ablative of Time for several
chapters now.  Let's look at a couple of examples:

Paucibus diebus domum ibunt.  (They will come home in a few
                              days.)
Illo die profecti sunt.  (They set out on that day.)

As you can see, the Latin Ablative of Time has two possible
translations into English.  In the first example, the Ablative of
Time means the time within which something is going to be
accomplished; in the second, it is simply time when something
happened.  For that reason you often see this, "Ablative of Time
When or Within Which", because there are two different English
meaning possible for one Latin construction.  But this isn't new.

The new time construction you get in this chapter does not use
the ablative case, rather it puts the unit of time in the
accusative case.  Its name completely describes its meaning:
Accusative of Duration of Time.  Like this:

Multos dies fugiebant.   (They fled for several days.)
Unum annum regnabimus.   (We will rule for one year.)


VOCABULARY PUZZLES

ut + indic.              You know the subordinating conjunction
                         "ut" as it introduces purpose, result
                         and jussive noun clauses.  "Ut" can also
                         be used, however, to begin a comparison
                         or simile.  When it does, the verb of
                         the clauses is in the indicative mood.
                         This is how you can tell the difference
                         between "ut" meaning "so that" etc.,
                         where the verb is subjunctive, and when
                         it means "as" or "like".  Check the mood
                         of the verb in its clause.

licet (2) licuit         The principal parts of this verb should
                         tip you off that something's odd about
                         this verb.  It is used only in third
                         person -- or the infinitive -- and
                         begins an impersonal construction.  Some
                         examples: "Non licet vobis abire" (It is
                         not permitted for you to leave or You
                         can't leave); "Puto licere nobis venire"
                         (I think we are allowed to leave lit. I
                         think it is permitted for us to leave.)

Soleo (2), solitus sum   First, notice that the verb is semi-
                         deponent, as you can tell by the third
                         entry.  Therefore, "solitus sum" means
                         "I was accustomed".  Next, soleo is a
                         little tricky to translate. "Soleo
                         transire viam" doesn't really mean "I am
                         accustomed to crossing the road," but it
                         means that I cross the road regularly or
                         usually: it is my custom to cross the
                         road.  Try this when you see a form of
                         soleo: translate the verb as the adverb
                         "customarily" or "usually" or
                         "normally", then promote the
                         complementary infinitive to the main
                         verb.  Like this:  "Soletis nobis
                         veritatem dicere (You customarily --
                         normally, usually -- tell us the truth.)

============================================================
============================================================

                              NOTES

     [1]  Don't forget now, the first principal is "i-", which
          changes to "e-" when followed by a vowel.

     [2]  It's true we haven't studied these forms by themselves,
          but there's no need to.  They're perfectly regular.

