# adsecūtūrus esse <vs> adsecutum iri [future active infinitive]



## UkrainianPolyglot

According to Bennett's New Latin Grammar to say "_he seems to be about to gain honors" _he uses "*vidētur honōrēs adsecūtūrus esse". *But I thought the Future Infinitive is adsecutum iri??? Is Bennett in error or are there multiple ways of expressing the Future Infinitive?


----------



## wandle

Bennett is correct.

*vidētur honōrēs adsecūtūrus esse * This is the future infinitive active.
_*adsecutum iri*_ This is the future infinitive passive.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete omnes!

Welcome, Sir UkrainianPolyglot (even if the handle is a bit of a mouthful!).

Bennett is correct. The fut. infin. act. is regularly formed from the future participle (supine stem + _-urus_, _-ura_, _-urum_) with _esse_, and this applies to all verbs (except _esse_ itself, which has the only conjugated fut. infin. form, _fore_). Note that the participle in this part of the verb declines according to NGC (number, gender, case).

There is also the (exceedingly rare) future _*passive*_ infin., of the form e.g. _portatum iri_, _factum iri_, &c. This is formed from the (indeclinable) supine itself, + _iri_, a kind of passive infinitive of _eo_, _ire_.

But (this is I believe the source of UkrPol's puzzlement), the _portatum iri_ form can never be formed or used with *deponent *verbs such as _adsequor_, for although their forms look passive, their sense is active, and this applies to their infinitives as well, so:

_adsequi_ = to pursue
_adsecutus esse_ = to have pursued
_adsecuturus esse_ = to be (going to/about to) pursue

Verbs such as these have only one form that is passive in sense, namely the gerundive (_adsequendus_) - which is passive for all verbs, just as the fut. participle is always active.

Is this helpful?

Σ
_
pace _wandle (# 2), with whom I have cross-posted, I don't believe that a fut. pass. infin. thus formed from a deponent verb exists anywhere in classical literature.


----------



## UkrainianPolyglot

wandle said:


> Bennett is correct.
> 
> *vidētur honōrēs adsecūtūrus esse * This is the future infinitive active.
> _*adsecutum iri*_ This is the future infinitive passive.



Oh now I see. I was misled by Wiktionary which classified the verb as a deponent. Can't rely on Wiktionary it seems.


----------



## UkrainianPolyglot

Scholiast said:


> salvete omnes!
> 
> Welcome, Sir UkrainianPolyglot (even if the handle is a bit of a mouthful!).
> 
> Bennett is correct. The fut. infin. act. is regularly formed from the future participle (supine stem + _-urus_, _-ura_, _-urum_) with _esse_, and this applies to all verbs (except _esse_ itself, which has the only conjugated fut. infin. form, _fore_). Note that the participle in this part of the verb declines according to NGC (number, gender, case).
> 
> There is also the (exceedingly rare) future _*passive*_ infin., of the form e.g. _portatum iri_, _factum iri_, &c. This is formed from the (indeclinable) supine itself, + _iri_, a kind of passive infinitive of _eo_, _ire_.
> 
> But (this is I believe the source of UkrPol's puzzlement), the _portatum iri_ form can never be formed or used with *deponent *verbs such as_adsequor_, for although their forms look passive, their sense is active, and this applies to their infinitives as well, so:
> 
> _adsequi_ = to pursue
> _adsecutus esse_ = to have pursued
> _adsecuturus esse_ = to be (going to/about to) pursue
> 
> Verbs such as these have only one form that is passive in sense, namely the gerundive (_adsequendus_) - which is passive for all verbs, just as the fut. participle is always active.
> 
> Is this helpful?
> 
> Σ
> _
> pace _wandle (# 2), with whom I have cross-posted, I don't believe that a fut. pass. infin. thus formed from a deponent verb exists anywhere in classical literature.



Could you please clarify some things?

Is adsequi deponent or not?

Are adsecuturus esse and adsecutum iri synonyms or do you both represent different voices?

If they represent different voices, explain to me why that would be acceptable if that's a deponent?

Thanks a lot.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete iterum!


> Can't rely on Wiktionary it seems.


 Absolutely not!!!!!!! My students are forbidden to touch it - and "Google translate" - these are pernicious.

_adsequor_ is indeed deponent. The principle is, if a simple verb is deponent (as _sequor_ is), then so are its compounds.

_adsecutum iri_ does not exist - or at least, I'd be very surprised (and impressed!) if wandle or anyone else can find an example of such a "future passive" infinitive from a deponent verb.

Σ


----------



## UkrainianPolyglot

Scholiast said:


> salvete iterum!
> Absolutely not!!!!!!! My students are forbidden to touch it - and "Google translate" - these are pernicious.
> 
> _adsequor_ is indeed deponent. The principle is, if a simple verb is deponent (as _sequor_ is), then so are its compounds.
> 
> _adsecutum iri_ does not exist - or at least, I'd be very surprised (and impressed!) if wandle or anyone else can find an example of such a "future passive" infinitive from a deponent verb.
> 
> Σ



All that happened is that someone put adsecutum iri for Future Active Infinitive on Wiktionary... Now it all makes sense. I will be more cautious next time. Can you recommend any reliable and efficient online Latin dictionary?


----------



## wandle

Scholiast said:


> _adsecutum iri_ does not exist - or at least, I'd be very surprised (and impressed!) if wandle or anyone else can find an example of such a "future passive" infinitive from a deponent verb.
> Σ


Sorry, that was a slip on my part! The future passive infinitive is formed from the supine stem plus *iri* but this cannot be done with a deponent verb.


----------



## Scholiast

amicis sodalibus conlegis ad novum epochae Christianae annum s. p. d. Scholiasta



> Can you recommend any reliable and efficient online Latin dictionary?



The online _locus classicus_ for English-speaking users is Lewis and Short, at the Perseus site:

www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text;j...FA5F70EBB0B37A1?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059

Good luck.


----------

