I came, I saw, I conquered (Julius Cæsar’s message to the Roman Senate, declaring his victory over the king of Pontus) It does sound like obliti, but by itself that would indicate the perfect participle in the masculine plural or genitive singular.EUdict dictionary: Latin - English Results for: Veni, vidi, vici Latin Is the translation of "I came, I drank, I forgot" to "Veni, bidi, oblidi" remotely correct, or not at all? Its passive forms are also passive in meaning. Meanwhile, vinco, vincere is not deponent. So, because obliviscor is deponent, it's active in meaning but passive in form. If the translation for "I forgot" is "oblitus sum" (which seems to be the passive indicative perfect tense), why isn't the "I conquered" translation "victus sum"? It can't even get vocabulary correct, and grammar, as you've seen, breaks down when going outside what it "learned." I strongly recommend against using those tools to discover a language's grammar. Google Translate is not a good tool for Latin. Why does the translation "seem to work" from one language to the other (i.e., Latin → English), but not the reverse? Their principal parts will reflect that, too, so gaudeo, gaudere, gavisus. There are also semi-deponent verbs, which lack active forms in the perfect tenses, but otherwise have active forms in the present tense. These verbs are usually indicated as such in the dictionary with with "dep." somewhere or otherwise just giving the principal parts without active forms, such as obliviscor, oblitus. There are a whole slew of these verbs, including loquor, sequor, and gradior. These verbs look passive, but they are in fact active in meaning. Obliviscor falls into the category of verbs known as deponent verbs. It's not that the active is missing with obliviscor, rather, it lacks active forms. You just discovered one here, except it's backwards. I hope my questions are not too stupid.īonus questions: why are the active indicative and subjunctive so rich for "víncere", but almost nonexistent for "oblīvīscēns/oblīvīscéntis"? Can't "to forget" be active in Latin?Īll natural languages, Latin included, have some irregularities. Bonus questions: why are the active indicative and subjunctive so rich for " víncere", but almost nonexistent for " oblīvīscēns/oblīvīscéntis"? Can't "to forget" be active in Latin?.Is the translation of "I came, I drank, I forgot" to "Veni, bidi, oblidi" remotely correct, or not at all?.If the translation for "I forgot" is "oblitus sum" ( which seems to be the passive indicative perfect tense), why isn't the "I conquered" translation "victus sum"?.Why does the translation "seem to work" from one language to the other (i.e., Latin → English), but not the reverse?.I came, I drank, I forgot → Veni, bibi, oblitus sum (eprevodilac).
I came, I drank, I forgot → Veni, bibi, oblitus sum (Google Translate).Veni, bidi, oblidi → I came, I drank, I forgot (eprevodilac).Veni, bidi, oblidi → I came, I drank, I forgot (Google Translate).I came, I saw, I conquered → Veni vidi vici (eprevodilac)įor the sentence I want to translate, results are as follows:.I came, I saw, I conquered → Veni vidi vici (Google Translate).The other way around gives the following (notice that both translations omit the commas): Veni, vidi, vici → I came, I saw, I won (eprevodilac).
0 kommentar(er)
