# The to and the Imperative



## SunnRise

a Q: Is it possible to drop the "-o" from the 3rd person Sing. + Imperative? e.g "amat" instead of "amato" (or any other verb).


----------



## stevelogan

SunnRise said:


> a Q: Is it possible to drop the "-o" from the 3rd person Sing. + Imperative? e.g "amat" instead of "amato" (or any other verb).



Sorry, may you rephrase ? _amatus (est)_ ([you are] loved) is an other form and tempo and modus... it is different from the imperative _ama_ (You love), so I don't get the question...my  bad.


----------



## SunnRise

Excuse me, I know that amato: is not Passive! to say ([you are] loved), the passive is amor.   amat: is not Imperative! it's Indicative. means: you love, you do love, you are loving.   Am I mistaken? correct me please. thank you, Stev.


----------



## CapnPrep

Like stevelogan, I'm not really sure what your question is. Are you asking about how to form the singular future imperative? For regular verbs, yes, you can add _-ō_ to the 3rd sing. pres. ind. form (_-ōr_ for the passive), remembering to restore the long vowel in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th conjugations:

amăt → am*ā*tō 
vidĕt → vid*ē*tō 
capĭt → c*a*pĭtō [note stress placement] 
audĭt → aud*ī*tō


----------



## stevelogan

SunnRise said:


> Excuse me, I know that amato: is not Passive! to say ([you are] loved), the passive is amor.   amat: is not Imperative! it's Indicative. means: you love, you do love, you are loving.   Am I mistaken? correct me please. thank you, Stev.



Maybe it could be far more comprehensible with an example...? 

I found these: 

_- "Alcibiades, ineunte adulescentia, *amatus* est__ a multis", _it uses "love" in passive form.
- _"Cognitum est proprie in cognoscete, amans in *amato*"__._ This is middle age latin, and amato means "the person you love", it is a noun... 
- "*Lucius*_ hanc _*puellam*_ quae canem habuit _*amat*_". Lucius loves that girl which...3rd person indicative present...

Then there are the *imperative* forms of amare, this modus is "defective" does not use all the persons, but express more than the imperative form of many modern european Languages because it has the 2nd and 3d singular and plural person at *present* and *future*.

present 
ama (tu), love thou
amet (ille), let him love 
*amate (vos)*: you do love (plural) 
*ament (illi)*: they do love (plural)

future
*amato (tu), you will love.*
*amato (ille), he will love.*
amatote (vos), you (plural) will love
amanto (illi), they will love

amato is 2nd and 3rd future imperative

So what exactly means  "to drop -o".... ?_


----------



## SunnRise

SunnRise said:


> Excuse me, I know that amato: is not Passive! to say ([you are] loved), the passive is amor.   amat: is not Imperative! it's Indicative. means: you love, you do love, you are loving.   Am I mistaken? correct me please. thank you, Stev.


  sorry, I made a mistake, amat: stands for: he instead of "you".


----------



## SunnRise

CapnPrep said:


> Are you asking about how to form the singular future imperative? For regular verbs, yes, you can add _-ō_ to the 3rd sing. pres. ind. form
> [/LIST]


 yes. but I ask if it's possible to add NOT "o".  





stevelogan said:


> Then there are the *imperative* forms of amare, this modus is "defective" does not use all the persons, but express more than imperative form in many modern european Languages because it has the 2nd and 3d singular and plural person at *present* and *future*.  [/I]present _ ama (tu), love thou amet (ille), let him love   _future_ *amato (tu), you will love.* *amato (ille), he will love.*  amato is 2nd and 3rd future imperative _


    maybe this is much more to my point. however I don't know how did you form this "amet". Is there a 3rd present Imperative?    it's true that(amato is 2nd and 3rd future imperative) , but can any one write it (amat) without "o" for the 3rd future Imp.?


----------



## stevelogan

SunnRise said:


> maybe this is much more to my point. however I don't know how did you form this "amet". Is there a 3rd present Imperative?    it's true that(amato is 2nd and 3rd future imperative) , but can any one write it (amat) without "o" for the 3rd future Imp.?



Mmmm no, as far as I know. The infinitive form of verb is in -are, it is regular, this is its declension, and the 3rd future imperative is "amato".
You can say "ames", or "amet" (with the E and not the A) in the subjunctive form (2nd 3rd present) with exhortative purpose.
For example like in,_ qui me amat, *amet* et canem meum (_who loves me, must love my dog too)

This is a way to express the imperative, but in form of an exhortation , and in grammar you can use the subjunctive present form. 

But why you ask that?


----------



## SunnRise

stevelogan said:


> Mmmm no, as far as I know. The infinitive form of verb is in -are, it is regular, this is its declension, and the 3rd future imperative is "amato".
> You can say "ames", or "amet" (with the E and not the A) in the subjunctive form (2nd 3rd present) with exhortative purpose.
> For example like in,_ qui me amat, *amet* et canem meum (_who loves me, must love my dog too)
> 
> This is a way to express the imperative, but in form of an exhortation , and in grammar you can use the subjunctive present form.
> 
> But why you ask that?



I knew it's Subj. but explain more please, how could you render it this way (let him..)?

someone wrote: Atque aliquis decat,, and rendered it thus: (and let any one say, OR, but someone may say), can you explain this please? this is the Q.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete



> someone wrote: Atque aliquis decat,, and rendered it thus: (and let any  one say, OR, but someone may say), can you explain this please? this is  the Q.



I come late to this thread, so apologies if I have missed something.

The direct answer to the "Q" is in two parts.

1. "atque aliquis d_*i*_cat" would be correct. (_dico_, _dicere_ &c.). 
2. This is 3rd pers. sing., subjunctive. Rhetorically, this looks like a concessive clause ("Someone may say [xyz],_ but I tell you..._"). Or indeed, "Say what they like [unspecified persons]..."

These formulations are close enough to "But someone may say..." &c.


----------



## stevelogan

SunnRise said:


> I knew it's Subj. but explain more please, how could you render it this way (let him..)?
> 
> someone wrote: Atque aliquis decat,, and rendered it thus: (and let any one say, OR, but someone may say), can you explain this please? this is the Q.



So the question is...? 
You'd like  to know how to say dicere in subj form or...you want to say the meaning of a latin sentence or... do you have a grammar question...?

It might be more easy if you'd write the complete sentence in English, or in Latin, and ask for what you need/want.


----------



## SunnRise

stevelogan,
 my question is answered if you explain this (This[i.e amet] is a way to express the imperative, but in form of an exhortation)


----------



## SunnRise

Scholiast said:


> saluete
> 
> 
> 1. "atque aliquis d_*i*_cat" would be correct. (_dico_, _dicere_ &c.).



when I come to think of it I find myself erred in writing many words. e.g amas for amat, amor for amoris, and this decat for dicat. and after writing it dawns at me that I've erred.
maybe for I haven't practiced Latin for months or years like ye


----------



## stevelogan

SunnRise said:


> stevelogan,
> my question is answered if you explain this (This[i.e amet] is a way to express the imperative, but in form of an exhortation)



Sorry I thought it was quite self explanatory: you can use subjunctive form to exhort/command someone, exhorting is a way to express imperatives.... 
It is the same in english that does not have an autonomous imperative form (it has not even past and future) an use the clause "let" that is an exhortation (a command, a call to action) to create the imperative.... "let us go"...


----------



## relativamente

Imperative in Latin has two forms for orders to be obeyed now or rather soon, ama, dic, lege, etc and orders to be obeyed in longer time or always, amato, dicito, legito. The first form is the only to have passed to vulgar whereas to second is typical of more formal Latin. For example in the "lex duodecim tabularum" is used a lot the form with ending -to


----------



## SunnRise

stevelogan said:


> Sorry I thought it was quite self explanatory: you can use subjunctive form to exhort/command someone, exhorting is a way to express imperatives....
> It is the same in english that does not have an autonomous imperative form (it has not even past and future) an use the clause "let" that is an exhortation (a command, a call to action) to create the imperative.... "let us go"...



yes but I needed a further explanation to affirm it. what Grammar book do ya use? thanks steve



relativamente said:


> Imperative in Latin has two forms for orders to be obeyed now or rather soon, ama, dic, lege, etc and orders to be obeyed in longer time or always, amato, dicito, legito. The first form is the only to have passed to vulgar whereas to second is typical of more formal Latin. For example in the "lex duodecim tabularum" is used a lot the form with ending -to



thank you


----------



## Cagey

<The rules of the forum allow us to>  questions about Latin in specific contexts.  We cannot give general instruction in Latin.  

You will do better to consult a grammar book or textbook.  We do not recommend books, but you may find online help in our: Resources Collection (links).


----------



## SunnRise

Cagey said:


> We can answer questions about Latin in specific contexts.  We cannot give general instruction in Latin.
> 
> You will do better to consult a grammar book or textbook.  We do not recommend books, but you may find online help in our: Resources Collection (links).



I meant to ask where exactly I can find that point so that I may know more about it. thanks


----------



## Cagey

SunnRise said:


> I meant to ask where exactly I can find that point so that I may know more about it. thanks


If I understand your question correctly, in English, this use of the subjunctive is sometimes called the 'jussive subjunctive' and sometimes the 'hortatory subjunctive'.  

It is explained in _Bennett's New Latin Grammar_ (1918) in section 275 on the jussive subjunctive.   This book is available online in the  LatinLibrary.com, one of the sources listed in our stick.  See Bennett's New Latin Grammar, .  

In _Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar_ (1903) it is called a "hortatory subjunctive" and discussed in section 439.  

If you are using a grammar book or textbook written in English, you should be able to find the explanation listed under one of the terms.


----------

