Re: Tentative Judajca =A= Conjugations

At 10:00 am +0200 27/3/01, Christophe Grandsire wrote:
[snip]
>> What was the future imperative used for?
>
>For orders too, but what I remember is that it was more hortatory then really
>imperative, though it existed only in 2nd persons singular and plural. I
>have to
>check my Latin grammar...
You do - it existed also in 3rd person singular and plural:
esto - let him be...!
sunto - let them be.....!

The full forms, for a regular verb, were (to use _mone:re_ [to advise] as
an example):

          ACTIVE                    PASSIVE
     singular   plural              sing.    plural
2nd. mone:to:   mone:to:te        mone:tor   mone:mino:
3rd. mone:to:   monento:          mone:tor   monentor


But the present subjunctive did just as well, and that's what survived in
the Romancelangs - the so-called "future imperatives" remained fossilized
in Classical Latin.

Ray.



=========================================
A mind which thinks at its own expense
will always interfere with language.
                   [J.G. Hamann 1760]
=========================================