# How Rome had changed in ten years !



## Lamb67

How Rome had changed in ten years !

 Quam Roma mutata erat  in dedem annos!


----------



## Starfrown

Lamb67 said:


> How Rome had changed in ten years !
> 
> Quam Roma mutata erat in decem annos!


 
_mutata erat_ is passive, meaning: "had been changed." The active equivalent is _mutaverat_.

To designate the time within which something occurred, Romans used the ablative case without a preposition.

Thus:

_Quam Roma mutaverat decem annis!_


----------



## Fred_C

Hi,


Starfrown said:


> _mutata erat_ is passive, meaning: "had been changed." The active equivalent is _mutaverat_.


Yes, but no.
"to change" in the intransitive meaning of "to become different" must be said using the verb "mutari" which is a _deponent_ verb.
Therefore "mutata erat" is correct, and "mutaverat" is incorrect. ("mutare" is always a transitive verb meaning "to change something")



> To designate the time within which something occurred, Romans used the ablative case without a preposition.
> 
> Thus:
> 
> _Quam Roma mutaverat_ mutata erat_ decem annis!_


This is right.

I think the first adverb "quam" can only modify an other adverb or an adjective. You need "quantum", instead.

"Quantum Roma mutata erat decem annis!"


----------



## Lamb67

Quantum Roma se _mutaverat decem annis ! _
_reflexive or passive forms of verbs in Latin to represent some instransitive in English_


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

Fred_C said:


> Hi,
> 
> I think the first adverb "quam" can only modify an other adverb or an adjective. You need "quantum", instead.
> 
> "Quantum Roma mutata erat decem annis!"


 
Both of them can be used. See Cicero, for example : " Vide _quam_ ad me litterae non perferantur".


----------



## Fred_C

Lamb67 said:


> Quantum Roma se _mutaverat decem annis ! _
> _reflexive or passive forms of verbs in Latin to represent some instransitive in English_


I may be wrong once again, but I think that the reflexive form is not quite common with every verb to represent an intransitive meaning.

It is common with "exercere", where you can find both "exerceri" and "se exercere" to mean "practise", but I think that with "mutari", you can hardly ever come across "se mutare"...

The explanation of the difference is because practising is a voluntary action, whereas a change in personality/appearance occurs even without your consentment.



> Both of them can be used. See Cicero, for example : " Vide _quam_ ad me litterae non perferantur".


Oh, fair enough.


----------



## Starfrown

Fred_C said:


> Yes, but no.
> "to change" in the intransitive meaning of "to become different" must be said using the verb "mutari" which is a _deponent_ verb.
> Therefore "mutata erat" is correct, and "mutaverat" is incorrect. ("mutare" is always a transitive verb meaning "to change something")


 
Carelessness on my part. The original "mutata erat" was perfectly correct.

I am not certain, though, that _mutaverat_ could absolutely not be used. _Muto,mutare,mutavi,mutatum_ is one of a group of transitives that may be used in a passive, or reflexive/reciprocal sense. See pages 166-7 here.

Consider Livy:

_Mores quidem populi Romani quantum mutaverint, vel hic dies argumento erit._

What do you think? I'm really not sure.


----------



## Fred_C

Starfrown said:


> Consider Livy:
> 
> _Mores quidem populi Romani quantum mutaverint, vel hic dies argumento erit._
> 
> What do you think? I'm really not sure.


 
It was noticed, by looking at excerpts quoted by Petronius (or perhaps someone else...), that the intransitive use of active verbs instead of deponent verbs was common in the non-written version of latin. (vulgar latin)

Perhaps the examples given in the "copious latin grammar" are just samples when this particularity was inadvertently usurpated in the written language also...?
I do not know.
Anyway, I do not think that this is something worth remembering, for the production of latin material.


----------

