# Past Participle of Careo (Caritus)



## Jemand2841

Does a verb like _careo_ (I lack) which generally takes an ablative object has a productive past participle, i.e. _caritus_ (lacked)? Most importantly, is there a situation that _caritus_ can be used in a grammatically correct way? For example, _quid caritus est? _(what is lacked?). Thanks!


----------



## Starless74

Hello,
for the full declension, see here: *careo*
_careo_ has no perfect participle and _caritus/a/um_ does not exist anyway.


----------



## Jemand2841

Starless74 said:


> Hello,
> for the full declension, see here: *careo*
> _careo_ has no perfect participle and _caritus/a/um_ does not exist anyway.


Thank you for your reply!

I am a bit suspicious of that source, since I can't see why it has a passive form either. Why would it lack a perfect passive participle but not a passive construction?


----------



## bearded

Jemand2841 said:


> For example, _quid caritus est? _


Starless is right: it does not exist. But, if it existed, it would be _caritum_ in that phrase anyway - in agreement with _quid,_ which is neuter.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete omnes!

A note of clarification: _careo_, _carere_ is an intransitive verb. That means that (like intransitive verbs in English, such as 'to go', 'to become', 'to sin') it cannot take a passive voice or form, such as any non-deponent past participle in Latin would be.

Some grammar-books may say that verbs such as _carere_ 'take an ablative object'. This is not strictly right. On its own _carere_ means 'to be in need', _uti_ 'to make use', and the ablative noun(s) that accompany them define, virtually as if they were adverbs, what the grammatical subject is in need _of_ or makes use _of_.

Σ


----------



## Sobakus

Being intransitive does not preclude a verb from having passive forms, since these forms are also used in impersonal constructions:

_ītur_ "there's a going to" :: _itum est_ "there's been a going to" — _carētur_ "there's a lack of" :: _caritum est_ "there's been a lack of".​​Note that instead of _quid caritu*m* est?_ you would normally say _quō/quā rē._ That said, transitive usage with the accusative is also attested, together with a passive gerundive _carendus, _and even gerund + genitive _tuī carendum erat _"I had to be without you". In addition _caritum_ also represents the supine: _caritum īre_ "to be in for a lack of". I have to note that none of my usage examples are classically attested.

I also have to disagree with esteemed Scholiast regarding ablative objects: what the ablative represents is nothing other than the thematic role of the verb's patient (the entity directly affected by the event), or alternatively, in the case of _ūtī_, the instrument (the entity used to effect the event). This thematic role is semantically necessitated, and is as obligatory with these verbs as the thematic roles of the agent (for _ūtī_) or the experiencer (for _carēre_), in both cases expressed with the nominative in the active voice and prepositionally (_ab_) in the passive. Saying "I lack" begs the question "*what *do you lack?", and makes no sense on its own; the same goes for "I use". In this they're no different from patients of transitive verbs that are expressed with the accusative - in fact both these verbs occasionally show this transitive behaviour, predictably more frequently in the case of _ūtī_ given its "more transitive" meaning. One can thus generalise that if a verb is intransitive, it will express the patient in the ablative (with the genitive being the other option), and otherwise in the accusative.

In such cases we talk about it being the verb's argument as opposed to an adjunct, and of it making up the verb's basic valency.


----------



## Xavier61

Sobakus said:


> Being intransitive does not preclude a verb from having passive forms, since these forms are also used in impersonal constructions:


"Impersonal" is not the same as "passive", Romans said "itur" but not *"eor", *"itimur", and such, only third person in the impersonal sense.


Sobakus said:


> Note that instead of _quid caritu*m* est?_ you would normally say _quō/quā rē._ That said, transitive usage with the accusative is also attested, together with a passive gerundive _carendus, _and even gerund + genitive _tuī carendum erat _"I had to be without you". In addition _caritum_ also represents the supine: _caritum īre_ "to be in for a lack of". I have to note that none of my usage examples are classically attested.


The future passive infinitive "caritum ir*i*" is archaic, in classical Latin the preferred  form is the perifrastic passive, as attested by Cicero and Ovidius:
cum enim mihi carendum sit conviviis, "since I must be deprived of social gatherings" (nihil novum sub sole, I can add)
“virque mihi dempto fine carendus abest,” *Ov. H. 1, 50*. "I must be deprived of a husband..."


----------



## Sobakus

Xavier61 said:


> "Impersonal" is not the same as "passive", Romans said "itur" but not *"eor", *"itimur", and such, only third person in the impersonal sense.


I did not imply that impersonal is the same as passive, and I would appreciate it if you did not respond to me in reference to things I did not say or imply. The passive makes the object into the subject; the impersonal passive deletes the subject altogether. If you pay close attention to the discussion, you'll notice that the discussion centers around the past participle, and the contention so far had been that, since the verb is intransitive, it cannot have passive forms. The fact is that it can, the ones used in impersonal constructions, which I listed. The only implication here is that those forms that aren't used in impersonal constructions don't exist. As to past participles, these forms should in principle exist for all the verbs (except when they don't).


> The future passive infinitive "caritum ir*i*" is archaic, in classical Latin the preferred  form is the perifrastic passive, as attested by Cicero and Ovidius:
> cum enim mihi carendum sit conviviis, "since I must be deprived of social gatherings" (nihil novum sub sole, I can add)
> “virque mihi dempto fine carendus abest,” *Ov. H. 1, 50*. "I must be deprived of a husband..."


Firstly, I did not mean the future passive infinitive. My goal was to list a construction using the supine, and the verb _īre_ fit the bill. The construction is active (see § 659): *_vidēmur multīs rēbus caritum īre = vidēmur caritūrum_ (later _caritūrī esse_) "we seem to be in for a lack of many things". Note that again, I do not claim that this expression with _carēre_ is attested or at all idiomatic. However, since _*carēre*_ is intransitive, a semantically passive constructrion with _*īrī*_ is impossible here (but again, there are transitive attestations). I don't think I've ever seen an impersonal _īrī_-construction - this is the closest I've found, IMO still personal "Varro will approve of it".

Secondly, these are different periphrastic constructions. The _īrī_-forms is what the actual grammarians give as future passive infinitives, but they appear with any frequency only in Cicero and Terence. My personal opinion is that they belonged to the older, less literary stratum of the language. The _īrī_-forms have no deontic meaning, but express simple futurity; the gerund(ive)s have the deontic meaning inherent to them: *portandum esse *"that it must, it has to be carried", or as an adjective "that is to be carried".

What the future "passive" (not in the grammatical sense) meaning was normally expressed with are: 1) the present inf. _spērō saccum *portārī*_; 2) the construction _*fore ut/futūrum ut* saccus *portētur*_. It's only in later Latin (from Tertullian onwards) that _portandum esse_ develops into a bona-fide alternative for the future infinitive. There were several further alternative constructions including _spērō *portārī* _*posse* and later the future-in-the-past _saccus _*portārī habēbat *(also from Tertullian onwards, I don't think it appears for the actual future), as well as _spērō *quod/quia portētur*._

References: mainly Pinkster H. (2015). the Oxford Latin Syntax Vol. 1.


----------

