my Latin verb book doesn't have the infinitive of its verbs

[science man]

I have this Latin verb book I also have that same type of book for Italian and Spanish and in the Italian and Spanish verb book it shows the infinitive of each verb it conjugates in bold on the top corner of the page, in that same corner in the Latin verb book it shows the first-person conjugation of the verb instead of its infinitive. Anyone know why that is?

[James R]

Not a very good book?

[wynn]

I have this Latin verb book I also have that same type of book for Italian and Spanish and in the Italian and Spanish verb book it shows the infinitive of each verb it conjugates in bold on the top corner of the page, in that same corner in the Latin verb book it shows the first-person conjugation of the verb instead of its infinitive. Anyone know why that is?

Are the infinitives never listed?

[Fraggle Rocker]

I have this Latin verb book I also have that same type of book for Italian and Spanish and in the Italian and Spanish verb book it shows the infinitive of each verb it conjugates in bold on the top corner of the page, in that same corner in the Latin verb book it shows the first-person conjugation of the verb instead of its infinitive. Anyone know why that is?

Latin does not have a single infinitive like its modern descendants, and like the Slavic languages and a few other Indo-European groups. (English doesn't even have an infinitive form: "to have" is two words and "have" is also the present tense. German infinitives are generally identical to the first and third person plural present tense.)

Latin infinitives come in present, perfect and future, and also in active and passive. That makes six different forms.

The convention in Latin dictionaries is to list four forms of every verb:

• First person singular present indicative: amo
• Present active infinitive: amare
• First person singular perfect indicative: amavi
• Supine: amatum

This is sufficient to figure out the conjugations in every tense and mode, even for most irregular verbs.

Because the first person singular present indicative comes first in this list, this is the form listed in most Latin textbooks.

Please forgive me if I got any of those verb forms wrong. I'm not a Latin scholar.

[science man]

Latin does not have a single infinitive like its modern descendants, and like the Slavic languages and a few other Indo-European groups.

Are you sure because according to [url=http://www.verbix.com/webverbix/go.php?T1=amo&imageField.x=0&imageField.y=0&D1=9&H 1=109]this[/quote]
the infinitive of amo is amā́re.

[Fraggle Rocker]

Are you sure because according to this the infinitive of amo is amā́re.

That is the present active infinitive. As I noted, there are five other infinitives. The reason we usually grab this one is that the other five did not survive into the present-day Romance languages. Amare is the infinitive in Italian, but it is only one of six infinitives in Latin.

[science man]

That is the present active infinitive. As I noted, there are five other infinitives. The reason we usually grab this one is that the other five did not survive into the present-day Romance languages. Amare is the infinitive in Italian, but it is only one of six infinitives in Latin.

ooohh man! that sucks!!!! (that the other five didn't survive)

[Fraggle Rocker]

ooohh man! that sucks!!!! (that the other five didn't survive)

You have a charming but perhaps misplaced affection for obsolete forms of language. The reason that Portuguese, French, Italian, etc., don't have six different infinitive forms is that their speakers are two Paradigm Shifts past the Iron Age and they just don't need those constructions in modern civilization.

After all, the people in Imperial Rome would have had no use for acronyms since 99.99% of them couldn't read; whereas in Modern English the acronym is one of our most often-used engines of word creation.

Times change, and so does language.

[wynn]

You have a charming but perhaps misplaced affection for obsolete forms of language. The reason that Portuguese, French, Italian, etc., don't have six different infinitive forms is that their speakers are two Paradigm Shifts past the Iron Age and they just don't need those constructions in modern civilization.

No, because they are too dumb.

After all, the people in Imperial Rome would have had no use for acronyms since 99.99% of them couldn't read; whereas in Modern English the acronym is one of our most often-used engines of word creation.

[Fraggle Rocker]

No, because they are too dumb.

Chinese has no inflections of any kind. Are you calling them dumb too?

[wynn]

Chinese has no inflections of any kind. Are you calling them dumb too?

Hehe. How can you know what the pronoun in my sentence refered to?
"The six different infinitive forms" or "speakers of Portuguese, French, Italian, etc." ...

[science man]

You have a charming but perhaps misplaced affection for obsolete forms of language. The reason that Portuguese, French, Italian, etc., don't have six different infinitive forms is that their speakers are two Paradigm Shifts past the Iron Age and they just don't need those constructions in modern civilization.

After all, the people in Imperial Rome would have had no use for acronyms since 99.99% of them couldn't read; whereas in Modern English the acronym is one of our most often-used engines of word creation.

Times change, and so does language.

sigh ok.