# 'four principal parts' of amo, amare: meaning? [also: supine]



## tunami56

Our first assignment is to memorize a list of vocab words, most of which are verbs. The professor said to memorize "all four principal parts" for these verbs. An example is for the verb amo memorize amo, amare, amavi and amatum. However, he didn't explain exactly what each of those mean, and I don't want to memorize all of my vocab without understanding the difference between amo and amare, for example. Can anyone explain exactly what these verb forms mean? Thank you.


----------



## Cagey

This follows the traditional pattern for presenting Latin verbs:
*amo*: _I love_ (first person singular [=I] present tense)
*amare*: _to love_ (present infinitive)
*amavi*: _I have loved_ (first person singular [=I] present perfect)
*amatum*: _loved / having been loved_ (past participle, passive.)​    There is more to say about each of these, as your teacher will explain as you go on.  I am simplifying the descriptions, especially of the last one.


----------



## aviv chadash

amo = I love
amare = To love
amavi = I have loved
amatum = The supine, and is difficult to explain! See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supine
How much information are you after (I can only help to a certain extent, but others will be able to help alot more)?
Basically, these four 'principle parts' are sufficient to determine all the forms of a verb. For example, I shall love: I can use the first and second principle parts to find what I am looking for, and its amabo. For They have loved, I use the third principle part, and I get amaverunt.
These two examples are from the indicative mood, active voice, and from both one of the simple tenses (the future) and one of the perfect tenses (the perfect - I think this is also called the past perfect, but I have only really seen it referred to as the perfect*).
I hope that helps.
* I stand corrected.
N.B. Identifying the various forms of the verbs in this way doesn't work for irregular verbs, they are a pain!


----------



## XiaoRoel

No me parece buena la explicación del supino latino de la Wikipedia.
En latín el _*infinitivo*_ (nominativo-acusativo neutro: SUJ u OD), el _*gerundio*_ (acusativo CC con preposiciones, genitivo CN, dativo OI y ablativo CC) y el *supino* (en* -um* CC de finalidad de verbos de movimiento; en *-u* CC de adjetivos o de _fas/nefas est_) forman en conjunto una *declinación del verbo* que así, sin dejar de ser verbo, se convierte en un *substantivo neutro*.


----------



## tunami56

Thanks guys, this is exactly what I needed to know!


----------



## aviv chadash

XiaoRoel said:


> No me parece buena la explicación del supino latino de la Wikipedia.


My apologies. It's a rather bad habit I suppose, but Wiki is normally the first point of call! I haven't studied the supine in any detail yet (it has only been mentioned), but Cagey's response obviously compensates for my mis-direction to wiki!


----------



## Ben Jamin

Cagey said:


> This follows the traditional pattern for presenting Latin verbs:
> *amo*: _I love_ (first person singular [=I] present tense)
> *amare*: _to love_ (present infinitive)
> *amavi*: _I have loved_ (first person singular [=I] present perfect)
> *amatum*: _loved / having been loved_ (past participle, passive.)​There is more to say about each of these, as your teacher will explain as you go on. I am simplifying the descriptions, especially of the last one.


 
I think that it is not correct to translate preteritum with present perfect. 
Amavi: I loved (once in the past), it has nothing to do with the present time. It can also mean "I fell in love".

Veni, vidi, vici: I came, I saw, I won.


----------



## Cagey

XiaoRoel said:


> No me parece buena la explicación del supino latino de la Wikipedia.
> En latín el _*infinitivo*_ (nominativo-acusativo neutro: SUJ u OD), el _*gerundio*_ (acusativo CC con preposiciones, genitivo CN, dativo OI y ablativo CC) y el *supino* (en* -um* CC de finalidad de verbos de movimiento; en *-u* CC de adjetivos o de _fas/nefas est_) forman en conjunto una *declinación del verbo* que así, sin dejar de ser verbo, se convierte en un *substantivo neutro*.


[My translation:]

Wikipedia's explanation of the Latin supine doesn't seem good to me.

In Latin, the *infinitive* (nominative - accusative neuter: subject or direct object), the *gerundive*  (accusative circumstantial complement with prepositions, genitive noun  complement, dative indirect object and ablative circumstantial  complement) and the *supine* (in *-um* circumstantial complement of the end of verbs of movement; in *-u* circumstantial complement of adjectives or of _fas/nefas est) _together form a declension of the verb which thus, without ceasing to be a verb, is converted into a neuter substantive.


----------



## Cagey

Ben Jamin said:


> I think that it is not correct to translate preteritum with present perfect.
> Amavi: I loved (once in the past), it has nothing to do with the present time. It can also mean "I fell in love".
> 
> Veni, vidi, vici: I came, I saw, I won.


The third principal part is often translated as the present perfect in English, as it often functions as the English perfect does.  In certain contexts, we also translate it as the simple past, as you do above.  However, since we sometimes translate the imperfect as the simple past as well, we use the present perfect translation when we want make it clear which form of the Latin verb we are discussing. 

In Latin, that verb form sometimes introduces a primary sequence and sometimes a secondary sequence.  In Latin it sometimes relates to the present, just as the English present perfect does.


----------

