# conservemus



## ksvik

Kinda of an odd question but I'm working on some ideas for work. Ran across the latin verb conservo and the fact that latin can indicate subject without an article. So I seemed to have figured out that the 1st person, plural, present, active, subjunctive of conservo is conservemus. It seems to me that this should mean "Let us preserve-maintain-keep safe-etc" or "We shall preserve-maintain-keep safe-etc" My question--Am I on the right track? Or is my understanding on how the verbs work way off? Any help would be of thanks.


----------



## cajzl

> ... that latin can indicate subject without an article.


Probably you wanted to say: ... without a personal pronoun.

conservemus = let us .... (Spanish is similar)
conservabimus = we shall ...


----------



## Anne345

1st person, plural, present, active, subjunctive of conservo is conservemus. It seems to me that this should mean "Let us preserve-maintain-keep safe-etc"  *Correct.* 

1st person, plural, future, active, indicative of conservo is *conservabimus* and it means "We shall preserve-maintain-keep safe-etc"


----------



## robbie_SWE

Couldn't "conservemus" actually be two/three words forged into one??

*con (with) + servem (service?) + us ("us/we")*

 robbie


----------



## Anne345

con-serv-e-mus 

con = cum = with
serv(o) = beware
e : suffix of subjonctive for first group of conjugation
mus : flexional ending for fist plural person


----------



## cajzl

There is the conjunctive mode _(coniunctivus modus)_ in Latin.


----------



## Anne345

conjunctive mode = subjunctive mode !


----------



## judkinsc

Con- prefix meaning "together/with"
servo- "to save;"  The main verb.
e- thematic vowel indicating subjunctive here
mus- "conjugated ending, denoting 1st person plural"


Take it as a iussive/hortatory subjunctive, and it's "let."

"Let- us- save- together" is then how the word works together.  Very simplified though, and it doesn't acknowledge how the verb would work in any other case except the subjunctive as displayed.

You had it right, however.

Latin is certainly capable of displaying a verb with an inferred subject of "he, she, they, it" and so on; however, it doesn't actually do that until you take it out of context.  There's almost always a subject somewhere in the writing, although it may be mentioned only once at the beginning of the book and then conveniently not mentioned again, although many verbs may be dependent upon it.

Thus, Latin can certainly be written without explicitly mentioning the subject everytime, but it does not mean that it does not "have" a subject.


----------



## judkinsc

robbie_SWE said:


> Couldn't "conservemus" actually be two/three words forged into one??
> 
> *con (with) + servem (service?) + us ("us/we")*
> 
> robbie






I'm afraid you frighten me.


----------



## judkinsc

There are four conjugations in Latin: that is, four patterns in which a verb conjugates in a specific way.  e.g:  1st conj.  Laudo, laudare, laudavi, laudatus "to praise;" 2nd conj. moneo, monere, monui, monitus,  -long first "e". 

Now, this is important for the thematic vowel, specifically.  The vowel will change depending on conjugation, tense, and mood.

1st person, plural, future, active, indicative of these two verbs: _laudabimus_ and _monebimus_.  You see the difference in the "a" and "e".

In the 3rd and 4th conj., the "bi" which indicates the future is also a different form.  It loses that and becomes an "e" itself.  Thus, forms from the third conjugation where "rego, regere, rexi, rectus" (short first "e" on -ere-) becomes _regemus _in the first person, plural, future, active, indicative.  Now, the "bi" has disappeared and the thematic has shifted.  The present thematic vowel in the 3rd conj. is "i" and it follows with an "e" in the future, even though the "e" is used for the present in the 2nd conjugation.


So, this is how Latin begins to work.  I like the language, and I like the crystalline structure.  There is a lot to memorize when you first start to learn it, but you learn the patterns and it becomes easier.


----------



## robbie_SWE

judkinsc said:


> I'm afraid you frighten me.


 
Why do I frighten you?? 

 robbie


----------



## judkinsc

robbie_SWE said:


> Why do I frighten you??
> 
> robbie



I've seen people treat a word as if it were based on rules familiar to them, often before, and it looks like you did that here.


The real rules that it follows are inherent to the Latin, and taking them out as above removes a sense of order from the language, and renders Latin itself meaningless, as well as the study of it.


It becomes, in fact, through the perceptions of the reader, that nothing but the present and the inherent qualities of the present exist: that there is nothing beyond or outside one's own knowledge.

That frightens me.


----------



## robbie_SWE

judkinsc said:


> I've seen people treat a word as if it were based on rules familiar to them, often before, and it looks like you did that here.
> 
> 
> The real rules that it follows are inherent to the Latin, and taking them out as above removes a sense of order from the language, and renders Latin itself meaningless, as well as the study of it.
> 
> 
> It becomes, in fact, through the perceptions of the reader, that nothing but the present and the inherent qualities of the present exist: that there is nothing beyond or outside one's own knowledge.
> 
> That frightens me.


 
But I was actually on the right track! I haven't studied Latin in its pure form, but that's my method of dealing with words in all languages. I basically cut them up into smaller words, which make more sense. 

And that should not frighten anyone. 

robbie


----------

