# "-or" nouns: actor, imperator, ...



## Arabus

Salvete,

I remember that the declension -or was used for passive verbs, like vocor = I am called, or something close, right?

Is there in Latin a use of -or equivalent to the English one, like in actor and conductor. I think there should be. My question is, how do we call such nouns as actor in grammar terms? they are not participles, so what are they?

Thanks,


----------



## Outsider

It seems to me that you may have confused a few things.


Declensions are for nouns, for verbs you have conjugations. The passive voice is a conjugation.

For many Latin verbs, the passive voice is constructed with the ending _-ur_ (not _-or_).


----------



## Cagey

> For many Latin verbs, the passive voice is constructed with the ending -ur (not -or).



Oops!  

*-or *is the first person present for the passive form ( = I am [called]) for all verbs that take the regular form.  
*-ur* is the ending for the third person singular and plural (_vocatur_ = he/she/ it is called; _vocantur_ = they are called.)

Generally, the _-or_ form is the first dictionary entry of verbs that are listed in the passive form, in my experience.


----------



## Outsider

Sorry, my mistake. 

Are words like _act*or*_ a form of some verb, though, or is the suffix _-or_ purely nominal in this case?


----------



## Arabus

Can I ask the question in another way:

What do we do to the verb _imperare_ in order to make it the noun _imperator_? what is this conjugation? what is the name of such a noun?


----------



## Cagey

Outsider said:


> Are words like _act*or*_ a form of some verb, though, or is the suffix _-or_ purely nominal in this case?



Yes, that is the nominal form of _actor_ (nom.), _actoris_ (genitive).  It is the nominal form of masculine and feminine nouns.  



Arabus said:


> Can I ask the question in another way:
> 
> What do we do to the verb _imperare_ in order to make it the noun _imperator_? what is this conjugation? what is the name of such a noun?



The perfect passive participle of_ impero, imperare_ is _imperatus, -a -um_  (=having been ruled/ ruled).

The noun is formed by adding _-or_ to the stem '_imperat-_' of the perfect passive participle:
_imperat- + -or = imperator, imperatoris_ 
This is a third declension noun.​
Similarly, _actus_ is the perfect passive participle of _ago, agere._
_act- + -or = actor_​
I call it an "agent noun", but I believe that Outsider is more knowledgable about the terminology for this sort of thing than I am.

(There are also nouns with an -or ending formed in other ways, with different kinds of meanings.)


----------



## Outsider

Cagey said:


> I call it an "agent noun", but I believe that Outsider is more knowledgable about the terminology for this sort of thing than I am.


Thank you, but I don't think I am. Arabus should listen to you.


----------



## Arabus

Agent noun, nomen agentis ... that's it ... gratias meii vobis duo, no matter how many mistakes this sentence has...

Thanks,


----------



## Cagey

On second thoughts, it occurs to me that would be more accurate to say that the suffix _-tor, -toris_ (meaning "agent or doer) was added to the verb stem.  In certain cases, this resulted in consonant changes like those in the past perfect participle.

from _imperare: impera + tor = imperator_
from _agere: ag + tor_ = (*agtor) which then became _actor_.​(I realize that this was side issue in Arabus' original question.)

Passive verb forms have a separate etymological history, as I understand it.


----------



## clara mente

Cagey said:


> Passive verb forms have a separate etymological history, as I understand it.


That's a very interesting observation. Could you expound?


----------



## Cagey

As I understand it, Latin passive developed from the _middle voice_***, and its endings can be related to the Proto-IndoEuropean forms that are the basis of the Greek middle voice. 

Be warned: this is not my field.  My explanation may contain some errors, and I don't have the book at hand to offer as a reference.   On the other hand, someone who is well qualified to judge has told me that he supports this view.

***For any one who hasn't met up with the _middle voice_:
The _middle voice_ used for actions of which the actor is also the beneficiary.  The verb "wash" in Greek is an example: when you wash something it takes the active form.  If something is washed, it takes the passive form. But if you wash you own hands, for instance, this would take the endings of the middle voice.  A verb in the middle voice can take an object, while a passive cannot.  Latin deponents may be seen as being in the middle voice.​


----------



## Fred_C

Outsider said:


> Sorry, my mistake.
> 
> Are words like _act*or*_ a form of some verb, though, or is the suffix _-or_ purely nominal in this case?


The suffix is purely nominal.
It has nothing to do with a conjugation.


----------



## Fred_C

Cagey said:


> On second thoughts, it occurs to me that would be more accurate to say that the suffix _-tor, -toris_ (meaning "agent or doer) was added to the verb stem. In certain cases, this resulted in consonant changes like those in the past perfect participle.
> 
> from _imperare: impera + tor = imperator_​
> from _agere: ag + tor_ = (*agtor) which then became _actor_.​




Hi,
Not exactly. The way to form such nouns is to take the supine form of the verb and replace "um" with "or, oris".
Imperare -> imperatum in the supine -> imperator
agere -> actum -> actor
Legiferre -> legislatum -> legislator
etc...​


----------



## Cagey

Fred_C said:


> Hi,
> Not exactly. The way to form such nouns is to take the supine form of the verb and replace "um" with "or, oris".
> Imperare -> imperatum in the supine -> imperator
> agere -> actum -> actor
> Legiferre -> legislatum -> legislator
> etc...
> [/INDENT]



Yes, that works to produce the recognizable noun forms, as does my description in _post #6._ 

However, in _post #9_ I meant to describe the historical development of such forms.  As I understand it, speaking historically,  the suffix _-tor, -toris_ was added to verb stems to form a masculine noun for the doer of an action.


----------



## roymail

Fred_C said:


> Hi,
> Not exactly. The way to form such nouns is to take the supine form of the verb and replace "um" with "or, oris".
> Imperare -> imperatum in the supine -> imperator
> agere -> actum -> actor
> Legiferre -> legislatum -> legislator
> etc...
> [/indent]


 
I agree. When then supine of the verb is ended with -sum, the noun is ended with -sor


----------



## roymail

Cagey said:


> As I understand it, Latin passive developed from the _middle voice_***, and its endings can be related to the Proto-IndoEuropean forms that are the basis of the Greek middle voice.
> 
> Be warned: this is not my field. My explanation may contain some errors, and I don't have the book at hand to offer as a reference. On the other hand, someone who is well qualified to judge has told me that he supports this view.
> ***For any one who hasn't met up with the _middle voice_:
> The _middle voice_ used for actions of which the actor is also the beneficiary. The verb "wash" in Greek is an example: when you wash something it takes the active form. If something is washed, it takes the passive form. But if you wash you own hands, for instance, this would take the endings of the middle voice. A verb in the middle voice can take an object, while a passive cannot. Latin deponents may be seen as being in the middle voice. ​


 
En effet, les déponents latins sont en réalité des _moyens_ (middle voice). Mais vu que leur conjugaison est identique au passif, et que leur sens n'est pas opposable à un passif, il n'est pas utile d'introduire en latin la notion de voix moyenne.
Leur conjugaison est identique ? Pas tout à fait : ils ont un participe présent (avec une terminaison active).


----------



## Hamlet2508

roymail said:


> En effet, les déponents latins sont en réalité des _moyens_ (middle voice). Mais vu que leur conjugaison est identique au passif, et que leur sens n'est pas opposable à un passif, il n'est pas utile d'introduire en latin la notion de voix moyenne.
> Leur conjugaison est identique ? Pas tout à fait : ils ont un participe présent (avec une terminaison active).



my French is non-existent , so maybe this is totally off target
Latin deponent verbs have passive verb forms , but active or reflexive meanings,thus present a classic mismatch between morphological form and grammatical function.
With only passive verb forms available,if one needs to express the passive voice,one mostly has to resort to using another verb
_there are, of course, exceptions to the rule_
one has to distinguish between full deponent verbs that only consist of passive verb forms both in the present and the perfect tense verb stems
and those that are deponent only for part of their paradigm, e.g. the present/past tense 
_*audeo *I dare _has the form of an active verb, but its perfect *ausus sum* _I have dared_ has the form of a passive verb form.


----------



## roymail

Hamlet2508 said:


> my French is non-existent , so maybe this is totally off target
> .


 Yes, a little bit, Hamlet.
Of course your explanations are right, but there is no contradiction between our posts. I just spoke about the origin of these verbs.
Sorry for my English. It is rather deponent (passive)
My respects


----------

