Usor:Tchougreeff/QUOMODO sive HOW TO

QUO MODO sive HOW TO? A short Manual for expressing oneself (scientifically) in Latin.

- How do you spell sound [i]?

- Very easily: by thousand different ways.

Nullum esse librum tam malum, ut non aliqua parte prodesset.

Memini quendam ex amicis, cum lector quaedam perperam pronuntiasset, revocasse et repeti coegisse; huic avunculum meum dixisse: “Intellexeras nempe?” Cum ille adnuisset, “Cur ergo revocabas? decem amplius versus hac tua interpellatione perdidimus.” C. Plinius (Epistulae, Liber III.V.XII - Baebio Macro)

An vero, M. Tulli, facta tua ac dicta obscura sunt? C. SALLVSTI CRISPI INVECTIVA IN CICERONEM II 1.

Preface

Whatever might be reasons (for tentative ones see Cur sive Why?) it came to presenting the subsequent to be a draft of a Style Guide intended for someone who eventually decides to write a scientific text (may be, first, a short notice - an abstract) in Latin. While doing so, one needs to realize two things

It was also spoken, as a matter of course, by senators, slaves, four-year-old children, and village idiots for hundreds of years as the language of

one city, and then across the sprawling Roman Empire—encompassing what is today France, parts of Britain (for a while), Spain and Portugal,

North Africa, Egypt, much of the Middle East, Turkey, and the Balkans. [Gordin] What strikes the student as an immensely complicated structure

was ordinary, everyday language, no more difficult to grasp than the native Anglophone’s easy choice of a, the, or nothing to preface nouns.

(This is not a trivial matter, as you will easily find if you try to enumerate rules for definite and indefinite articles. Those who do not speak

languages with articles, such as Russian, will thank you. Latin is also article-free.) Appreciating Latin’s past ordinariness is essential for grasping

its position as a language of science in ancient Rome.

"Lingua latina fuit internationalis in omni scientia, ab imperio Romano, usque ad finem saeculi XVIII. Hodie multi reputant illam nimis difficilem esse, iam in scientia, magis in commercio. Sed non tota lingua latina est necessaria; parva pars sufficit ad exprimendam quamlibet ideam.15" - [Peano]

More elaborated discussion of the rationals behind can be found in [Cur sive Why?] Here comes a piece from Cur sive Why? The problem is to learn how to use this richness. As an old Soviet comedian once said: "You, Fedya, have strength in your words; you cannot place them correctly." Thus we assume that usual/standard Latin grammar course is known to the reader. Despite many elapsed years the present author remembers very good what was the most difficult when starting writing foreign language despite many years of passive studying.

- How to say (write) it correclty? - What do you want to say (write)?

Thus this is intended to provide a style guide for scientific writing in Latin, that is for scientists to express themselves in Latin. As long time ago famous Carnegie formulated this “step on someones foot and you will learn how eloquent one may be” - that is to give a help to someone who has something to say (do you have a PowerPoint presentation or something to say?).

In the previous phrase ... someone who calls oneself a scientist and has a hobby is not a scientist, rather a fonctionair scientifique

[2] Strunk Jr W, White EB. The elements of style. 4th ed. New York: Longman; 2000.

In what follows we are going, first (in the Generalities Section), to give a very concise and utterly simplified description of Latin syntax adapted to the way of understanding of the natural Science students tentatively narrowed as compared to the Syntax manuals designed for philologists or classics students. Those are much more abundant which is indispensable, but make an impression (derived by the present author from reading these manuals) that true Romans used their language precisely following the maxim of an ultrareactionary Russian MP of the beginning of the last century: 'This is my language; I speak as I wish' posed as a reply to one of his progressive colleagues accusing him in a poor command of Russian. After going through [Sch] or [Net] one may become sure that almost whatever part of speech in whatever form had been at least once used by someone of old gentlemen: Cicero, Caesar, Livius, Sallustius, etc to express whatever meaning. It is not what we need here, rather a manual, kind of Strunk and White style guide, which could give more or less definite recipe. Despite its uncomparable richness (classical) Latin, at the same time, itself suffered from ambiguities which would be better to avoid in the scientific writing even on account of using some tools available in the preclassical epoch (we do not see any harm if a scientific text looks out a little bit archaic). On the other hand, some omissions were felt yet by classical authors and which were at least partially overcome in the medieval Latin (ML). We think that, if used cautiously, these acquisitions may be profitable (for scientific writing).

We try to provide some theoretical reasons for express the mentioned elementary items giving for each piece an expressive example (when possible, by an excerpt from modern scientific texts which is not easy at all) to make the listed 91 rule more comprehensible. In the Recipes Section we give recommendations based on the Theory Section) and possibly examples of the usage in the scientific context.

[1]

Latin Grammar is assumed to be known to the reader. Traditionally, it is considered to be extremely sophisticated. To play the pride of those who coped with it down we show that it squeezes in two tables below - one for nouns (substantive and adjective including participles and pronomina) another for verbs. When looked upon whatever unbiased reader will have to admit, that compared with its portrait it is ridiculously simple! As compared to traditional representation we grouped the cases according to being verbal cases (Nom, Acc, Dat, Abl - Subject, direct and indirect Object, Adjoint) and the only nominal case Gen. - serving as a complement. Natually, we rearranged the sequence of representation of the declinations form the numbers I-V having no internal meaning to more sensible sequence based on the final sound of the stem, which naturally come up to surface in many cases. Analogously we rearranged the verbal forms follwong their relative position on the temporal arrow which immediately disclosed the intimate relation between the Future (exactum) Indicative and Present (perfectum) Conjunctive manifected even in the forms of these latter and

Nomen

Casus	I	V	II		IV	III
		f	m	n	m/n	mf/n	n/f
	a	e	o		u	cons	i
Sing
N	-a	-es	-us, -er, -ir	-um	-us, -u	-e, -al, -ar
Ac	-am	-em	-um		-um	-em/-Ø	-im
D	-ae	-ei	-o		-ui	-i
Ab	-a	-e	-o		-u	-e	-i
G	-ae	-ei	-i		-us	-is
Plur
N	-ae	-es	-i	-a	-us	-es	-ia
Ac	-as	-es	-os	-a	-us	-es	-ia
D	-is	-ebus	-is		-ibus	-ibus	-ibus
Ab	-is	-ebus	-is		-ibus	-ibus	-ibus
G	-arum	-erum	-orum		-uum	-um	-ium

Verbum

Tempus/modus/genus	Ind		conj
	act	pass	act	pass
Imperfectum	Sg. Pl. 1 -(e1)ba-m -(e)ba-mus 2 -(e)ba-s -(e)ba-tis 3 -(e)ba-t -(e)ba-nt	Sg. Pl. 1 -(e)ba-(o)r -(e)ba-mur 2 -(e)ba-ris -(e)ba-mini 3 -(e)ba-tur -(e)ba-ntur	Sg. Pl. 1 (e)-re-m (e)-re-mus 2 (e)-re-s (e)-re-tis 3 (e)-re-t (e)-re-nt	Sg. Pl. 1 (e)-re-r (e)-re-mur 2 (e)-re-ris (e)-re-mini 3 (e)-re-tur (e)-re-ntur
Praesens	Sg. Pl. 1 -o -(i)2mus 2 -(i)s -(i)tis 3 -(i)t -(u)4nt	Sg. Pl. 1 -or -(i)mur 2 -(e)ris -(i)mini 3 -(i)tur -(u)4ntur	Sg. Pl. 1 -(e/a)3-m -(e/a)-mus 2 -(e/a)-s -(e/a)-tis 3 -(e/a)-t -(e/a)-nt	Sg. Pl. 1 -(e/a)-r -(e/a)-mur 2 -(e/a)-ris -(e/a)-mini 3 -(e/a)-tur -(e/a)-ntur
Futurum I	Sg. Pl. 1 -b-o -b-i-mus 2 -b-i-s -b-i-tis 3 -b-i-t -b-u-nt	Sg. Pl. 1 -b-or -b-i-mur 2 -b-e-ris -b-i-mini 3 -b-i-tur -b-u-ntur	Sg. Pl. 1 -a-m -e-mus 2 -e-s -e-tis 3 -e-t -e-nt	Sg. Pl. 1 -a-r -e-mur 2 -e-ris -e-mini 3 -e-tur -e-ntur
1 Everywhere except 1-st conjugation (stem in -a-), although is of different origin in other conjugations: the part of the stem in 2-nd conjugation (stem in -e-) and an enclytic wovel in 3-rd (stem in consonant or in -u-) and 4-th (stem in -ī-). 2 Enclitic i/e for 3rd consonant conjugation. 3 e for 1-st conjugation a for all other conjugations. Remarkably, 4 Enclitic u for 3rd and 4th conjugation.

Времена системы перфекта

Все элементы присоединяются к основе перфекта ([perf]) или основе супина ([sup])!

Tempus/modus/genus	ind		conj
	act	pass	act	pass
Plusquamperfectum	Sg. Pl. 1 [perf]-era-m [perf]-era-mus 2 [perf]-era-s [perf]-era-tis 3 [perf]-era-t [perf]-era-nt	Sg. Pl. 1 PPP eram PPP eramus 2 PPP eras PPP eratis 3 PPP erat PPP erant	Sg. Pl. 1 [perf]-isse-m [perf]-isse-mus 2 [perf]-isse-s [perf]-isse-tis 3 [perf]-isse-t [perf]-isse-nt	Sg. Pl. 1 PPP essem PPP essemus 2 PPP esses PPP essetis 3 PPP esset PPP essent
Perfectum	Sg. Pl. 1 [perf]-i [perf]-imus 2 [perf]-isti [perf]-istis 3 [perf]-it [perf]-erunt	Sg. Pl. 1 PPP sum PPP sumus 2 PPP es PPP estis 3 PPP est PPP sunt	Sg. Pl. 1 [perf]-eri-m [perf]-eri-mus 2 [perf]-eri-s [perf]-eri-tis 3 [perf]-eri-t [perf]-eri-nt	Sg. Pl. 1 PPP sim PPP simus 2 PPP sis PPP sitis 3 PPP sit PPP sint
Futurum exactum	Sg. Pl. 1 [perf]-er-o [perf]-eri-mus 2 [perf]-eri-s [perf]-eri-tis 3 [perf]-eri-t [perf]-eri-nt	Sg. Pl. 1 PPP ero PPP erimus 2 PPP eris PPP eritis 3 PPP erit PPP erunt

Indicativus

I	II	III	IV
ā	ē	u/-	ī

Praesentum

Act		Pass
-o/-m	-mus	-(o)r	-mur
-s	-tis	-ris	-mini
-t	-nt	-tur	-ntur

Imperfectum

I	II	III	IV
-ba-		-ēba-

Futurum I

I	II	III	IV
-b(o1/i2)-		-a1/e2-

Perfectum

I	II	III	IV
-v-	-u-	--	-v-	+	-i	-imus
					-isti	-istis
					-it	-ērunt

Plusquamperfectum

-ĕra-Praes.Act.

Futurum II (ex./perf.)

-er(-1/i2)-Praes.Act.

Conjunctivus

Praesentum

-e3/a4-Praes.Act./Pass.

Imperfectum

-(ĕ)re-Praes.Act./Pass.

Perf. = Ind. Fut. Ex.

-eri-Praes.Act.

Plusquamperfectum

-isse-Praes.Act.

Infinitivă

Praes.Act.	-(ĕ)re
Praes.Pass.	-(r)i
Perf. Act.	-isse
Perf. Pass.	PPP esse
Fut. Act.	PFA esse
Fut. Pass.	SUPIN iri

Nomen Substantivum

	I	II	III						IV		V
	-a-	-o-	cons	mix (-i-)	voc (-i-)		-u-			-e-
	m,f	m/n	m,f/n	m,f	f/n		m/n			m,f
N	-a	-us/-er/-um	-,-s/-	-s	-is/-		-us/u			-es
G	-ae	-ī	-is						-us		-ei
D	-ae	-o	-ī						-ui/-u		-ei
A	-am	-um	-em/-	-em	-im/-		-um/-u			-em
A	-ā	-ō	-e			-ī		-ū		-ē
N	-ae	-ī/-a	-ēs/-a	-ēs	-ēs/-ia		-us/-ua			-ēs
G	-ārum	-ōrum	-um	-ium				-ūum		-ērum
D	-īs	-īs	-ĭbus						-ĭbus		-ebus
A	-ās	-ōs/-a	-ēs/-a	-ēs	-ēs/-ia		-us/-ua			-em
A	-īs	-īs	-ĭbus						-ĭbus		-ebus

Nomen Adjectivum; Participia

Gradūs comparationis			Participium
m,f/n	III cons.	Imp. Act.		INF/-(e)ns/-(e)nt- III cons
Nom.	-ior/-ius	Perf. Pass.		SUP/-us/-a/-um II/I/II
Gradus superlatívus			Fut. Act.		SUP-ur/-us/-a/-um II/I/II
-issim/-us/-a/-um II/I/II

Adverbia

Adj. I,II

-ē

Adj. III

-(it)er,-(nt)er

-ius/-issimē

1� 1. sg

2� Alii

3� I conj.

4� II — IV conj.

Generalities

Action!

Normative grammarians, most probably, following Aristoteles, start their exposition from nouns (names, nomina, quae sunt odiosa). However, In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum; thus, not noun, but verb – action - is the root where the rest sprouts from and the axis everything turns around: cardo versatur. In Latin (as in other, well inflected languages) even a solitary standing verbal form may express a complete thought: sto: I stand, sedeo: I sit, curro: I run (contrary to). These lonely standing forms condense information about the action's time, speaker's attitude to the action, actor, and actor's relation to the action. In well inflected languages (like Latin) the most fundamental semantic categories are molded in grammatical forms providing their incomparable flavor. The features expressible even by a single verbal form are known as Tense/Tempus (for expressing time), Mood/Modus (for expressing the attitude), Person/Persona (making reference to an actor), and Voice/Generum (for expressing relation between an action and entities - persons and things - involved in it). Thus we start with them.

Time of Action: Tenses/Tempora

Quid est enim tempus? Quis hoc facile breviterque explicaverit? Quis hoc ad verbum de illo proferendum vel cogitatione comprehenderit? Quid autem familiarius et notius in loquendo commemoramus quam tempus? Et intellegimus utique cum id loquimur, intellegimus etiam cum alio loquente id audimus. Quid est ergo tempus? Si nemo ex me quærat, scio; si quærenti explicare velim, nescio. Fidenter tamen dico scire me quod, si nihil præteriret, non esset præteritum tempus, et si nihil adveniret, non esset futurum tempus, et si nihil esset, non esset præsens tempus. Duo ergo illa tempora, præteritum et futurum, quomodo sunt, quando et præteritum iam non est et futurum nondum est? Præsens autem si semper esset præsens nec in præteritum transiret, non iam esset tempus, sed æternitas. Si ergo præsens, ut tempus sit, ideo fit, quia in præteritum transit, quomodo et hoc esse dicimus, cui causa, ut sit, illa est, quia non erit, ut scilicet non vere dicamus tempus esse, nisi quia tendit non esse

For what is time? Who can easily and briefly explain it? Who even in thought can comprehend it, even to the pronouncing of a word concerning it? But what in speaking do we refer to more familiarly and knowingly than time? And certainly we understand when we speak of it; we understand also when we hear it spoken of by another. What, then, is time? If no one ask of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not. Yet I say with confidence, that I know that if nothing passed away, there would not be past time; and if nothing were coming, there would not be future time; and if nothing were, there would not be present time. Those two times, therefore, past and future, how are they, when even the past now is not; and the future is not as yet? But should the present be always present, and should it not pass into time past, time truly it could not be, but eternity. If, then, time present — if it be time — only comes into existence because it passes into time past, how do we say that even this is, whose cause of being is that it shall not be — namely, so that we cannot truly say that time is, unless because it tends not to be? —Augustine of Hippo, Confessiones lib xi, cap xiv, sec 17 (ca. 400 CE)

Latin is very precise in expressing Time of Action. We try to systematize things in a manner suitable for a natural science writer (reader). First we lean to Augustin's authority and denote past as “-”, present as “0”, and future as “+”. The notation ignores the precision of our perception, since “present” means not only “now”, but present second, minute, hour, day, week etc., and similarly past means last second, minute, ..., century and analogously for future. It is, so to say, “time as is”. In (Latin) language grammatical category “tense” is used to characterize not only times of actions per se, but also temporal relation between actions and their temporal aspect. In this respect the actions (not times) are positioned by grammarians not in a one-dimensional (past-present-future) rather in a two-dimensional array with the horizontal axis passing from past to future and the vertical one characterizing action as finished (perfect) or unfinished (imperfect) - technical term for this grammatical category is aspect.

“-”		“0”		“+”
Imperfect		Present		Future Simp.
Pluperfect		Perfect		Future exact (Perf.)

Latin system of tenses accents not the aspect (finished/unfinished), but to a greater extent sequence of actions. This in a way allows to project the two-dimensional scheme of tenses to a one dimensional scheme as follows:

--	Pluperfect	past finished by some moment in the past or before some other action began in the past	interrogaveram	sciveram
-	Imperfect	past, but without definite end - may be continuing, may be habitual	interrogabam	sciebam
-0	Perfect	something which has finished by the present moment; may be a single act in the past (aorist)	interrogavi	scivi
0	Present	Present is present (in English Present frequently refers to Future: never in Latin)	interrogo	scio
+	Future exact	something which is going to happen in the future and to finish before some future moment or another future action	interrogavero	sciero
0+	Future Simp.	something which is going to happen in the future without definite beginning or finish	interrogabo	sciam

Traditionally the tenses containing "-" in their notation are dubbed by grammarians as "historical" and those without "-" as "primary". Ambiguities/problems with the positioning the tenses on the one-dimensional time axis arise when it comes to relative positioning of the perfect and imperfect. Both describe something which happen in the past, but English (present) perfect has its effect now, and this is an important component of its semantics. This is not necessarily the case for the Latin perfect which manifests itself in a different treatment of so called verbs of action and verbs of state. Usor:Iustinus gives “some rules of thumb (Indicative):

For verbs that describe actions the English simple past tense ("he did") and the present perfect ("he has done") corresponds to the Latin perfect (fecit). The English past progressive ("he was doing") and the past habitual ("he used to do") the Latin imperfect (faciebat) is the counterpart.

Certain verb follow a different set of rules.

For "stative" verbs that describe states (such as esse "to be," nequire "to be unable," virere "to be green" and so on) , just about any English past tense will equate to the imperfect. Thus "he was" = erat (not fuit). You should only use the Latin perfect [of a stative verb] if you wish to emphasize that the state is no longer in effect. This will generally equate the the English present perfect ("he has been"), but on some occasions might equate to another tense (especially the past habitual "he used to be"). This is why the famous Latin phrase: fuit Ilium "There used to be Troy (but now there isn't)" can be so much more concise in Latin. This makes a subtle accent of the way the Latin perfect of a stative verb has an effect in the present (now): it is not present any more.

An even quicker and dirtier version of the above rules: put esse in the imperfect, put all other verbs in the perfect. Note however that Latin uses the pluperfect a good deal more than English does. If you can possibly paraphrase a verb to a form like "had done" then do use the pluperfect in the Latin (e.g. "I did my homework by the time mom got home" = "I had done my homework ..." so you will want pensa mea scholastica matre ineunte feceram. Abl. Abs. underlined) The same applies to the future-perfect: if you can use it, do”.

Further dichotomy relates to perfective and durative verbs: those describing actions/states which can be finished and which can be not. interrogabam-interrogavi sciebam-scivi/novi

Here we come to a very general feature of languages as such, that is, to their tendence to express by different grammatical forms distinctions between standard and nonstandard (marked) situations. In "grammars" it is somehow reflected as "simple past" or whatsoever and other brands of past. Thus, in English featuring numerous "pasts"

I	did	я	делал	feci
	have done		сделал
	was doing		делал	făciēbam
	used to do		поделывал

apparently, the first one (I did) has no further connotations: it is the standard situation by itself implying anything else. The remaining constructs are used when some specific additional meaning is to be transmitted: I was doing it when Pete came in; I have done it and here it is; I used to do it and what a pity that cannot do it any more... (or, it was very nice/awesome...) - native speakers shall correct me and give more examples. From this table it is clear that the number of past tenses either in English or in Russian is larger than in Latin. The true problem is that the segmentation of meanings and perceptions of situation as a standard and nonstandard/marked is different in different languages. Thus, two past tenses of Latin: (im)perfect and (im)perfect map to Russian and English tenses pretty peculiarly (and vice versa). The most important difference is that the Latin perfect is used to describe the standard situation: something which happened in the past. It is not a matter of concern whether it has any effect now or not: feci and feci (сделал и сделал...) ooops, I did it again... The marked nonstandard situation (in the past) is expressed by Latin imperfect, which has the durability, repeatedeness, habituality of the past action as a special quality to be underlined.

Attitude to Action: Moods/Modi. Worlds of Romans.

Mood is a grammar category molding together the fact/action and a speaker's/writer's attitude to it. Moods/Modi are three: Indicativus, Conjunctivus (Subjunctive), and Imperativus. The Conjunctive both in Russian and English is formally quite degenerate in either of them expressed by combination of auxillaries and time/tense whereas in German and French it is more like in Latin - separate conjugation patterns exist for verbs in Conjunctive. Usage of Indicativus and Conjunctivus either in simple or compound sentences is subject to numerous rules described in normative grammars. For a Natural Science student it had been always painful to learn by heart all these rules which look out to be fairly arbitrary. The “rules of thumb” oversimplify the situation and reduce the expression capacities of Latin - the opposite to what we can and want to reach. A systematic of this all has been proposed in. It is based on the thorough analysis of the semantics of numerous specific rules. According to it, Romans distinguished three worlds: Real, Virtual, and Internal whose relations can be assembled in a table:

World
Virtual			Real	Internal
				Personal		Common
				speaker's	somebody's
conjunctive			indicative	infinitive constructs or conjunctive

of which each can have different degrees having in turn specific forms of expression. The fundamental dichotomy is, however, that between the real and unreal manifesting, respectively, by Indicativus and Conjunctivus.

Real World

The simplest is, of course, the Real World. A real ACTION (or STATE) is expressed by a verb in Indicativus. A caveat here refers to the fact that Latin uses future tenses much more intensely than, say, English (in Russian future is also of good use) and it is advisable not to avoid it. Of course, our contemporary perception of things is such that future is not sure and does not belong to the Real World. Not for Romans (as exemplified by the following - pseudoantic - dialogue):

- Hypochondria semper occido sole fit. - quamobrem occido sole? - Propter stupidas dubitationes. Intuetur aliquis solem occidentem et exaestuascat dubitationibus: ŏriētur ille cras aut non?

Thus future tenses may be safely used when the future is certain, use future as in: Matrix A erit summa directa minorum matricum (quae vocentur A₁, A₂, etc.) that is Matrix A will be... Using conjunctive: Matrix A sit ... introduces either nonwished doubfulness (erit aut non?) or an bytaste of purpose (we undertake some additional precautions to assure that A is the direct sum - see below) which is also not the case in the context.

Virtual World

Primary semantic of the virtual world is the irreality (of different degrees and kinds) of an action or a state. Not only unreal things/actions belong to the virtual realm, but also things/actions which are wished or assumed to be potential etc. Different degrees/kinds of virtuality are expressed similarly which represents a problem to someone who tries to understand old gentlemen.

In English the virtual world is expressed by auxiliaries, may, might, could, would, should etc [HCP 117-119] (exactly like Modality - see below). They are not always used with the same force. When used with their full force of possibility, or power, they are expressed by corresponding Latin (modal - see below) verbs. Thus, licet, it is permitted, gives the idea of may, might; possum, I am able, the idea of could; [what about can?] volō, I am willing, the idea of would. Further examples are opportet, debeo etc. When these English auxiliaries are less forceful, that is, are not used with their full literal meaning (how one can/may know?), they are represented in Latin by the subjunctive mood of the verb representing what one may or can do or may or can happen. These forms are called Potential Conjunctive. It represents an action as possible or conditional, not as real. Often it goes about an action as dependent upon some implied condition. The negative is nōn.

This Conjunctive is generally represented in English by may, should, would:

quispiam quaerat, some one may ask.

velim, I should wish, or I should like (more polite than volō, I wish).

diceres, you would say, or would have said.

When may or might emphasize the idea of permission, use licet. It is used as follows: 1. Followed by subjunctive. 2. Followed by infinitive.

EXAMPLES : licet eum (ei) venire/licet veniat: he may (i.e. is permitted to) come.

For potential ACTION (one which depends on implicit condition) use Conjunctivus. However, [HCP 117-119]

To issue COMMANDS use Imperativus. caveat: Imperativus has only forms of 2-nd Person; that is I can issue a command only to you (whether you are alone, than 2-nd Person Sing., or if you are many 2-nd Person Plur.). Issuing COMMANDS to 2-nd Person is not characteristic for scientific writing, rather in 1-st or 3-rd; for that purpose the Conjunctive suits better:

gaudeāmus nos igitur; ergo nos bibāmus; formulam scrībāmus – let us rejoice, drink, write a formula. Modern example: Quomodo status monomeris et polymeris sit describendus theoretice, ante omnia statuamus. That is, Conjuctive suits well in scientific writing inviting to a joint action: consideration/following, joint reasoning etc. Unfortunately, this kind of discourse turns to be more and more rare in scientific writing: readers tend to prefer well chewed result to be swallowed without any effort. Hopefully with help of Conjunctivus we get it back.

Internal World (REFERENCE - INDIRECT - STATEMENTS)

The third world of Romans is the Internal World. Although, it is primarily expressed by formal tools different from (the Conjunctive) mood, we describe it here for completeness.The Internal World stands in a different relation to the Real World as compared to the Virtual World. One can say that Virtual World, although, not Real is still Objective, whereas, Internal World, although, possibly, Real is Subjective.

The Internal World further subdivides to the Internal World of the speaker (writer), that of somebody (personalized) else, and the common Internal World: things known to "everybody" - scientific public opinion: not facts or proven truths, rather accepted beliefs - the widespread situation ourdays.

The Internal World is expressed in modern languages largely by subordinate clauses introduced by interrogative words/conjunctions of which the dullest and ubiquitous is “that” quod. The subordinates so introduced are known under technical name "indirect question":

I know that smth is so an so...

It is obvious that smth is that and that ...

etc.

the predicates of the main clauses actually stating the “internal” character of what follows are expressed by verbs of "saying" or "thinking" (and either in their lexical meaning - it is known/believed - or in the used form - I believe/it is generally accepted - expressing different flavors/degrees of subjectiveness and of reference to an internal world either of the writer or some other person or common) or whatever referring to the subjective character of the content of the subordinate clause actually transmitting the message. We postpone a discussion of the latter method of describing Internal World to a larger Section devoted to subordinates (compound sentenses). Here we only mention that in the CL the subordinate clauses of indirect question indispensably required Conjunctive of its predicate by this maintaining the proposed dichotomy of Real/Indicative vs Virtual/Conjunctive.

But it is not all. here we consider more ancient way of representing someone's Internal World which well suits (and is recommended) for the Scientific Writing. The fact of our knowledge in the scientific discourse (much more) frequently than usually is expressed in abstract manner that is impersonally either

• by a verb in 3-rd Plur., Act. : dicunt - in this case the Acc. + Inf. is used. [Sob. §423]

• by a verb in 3-rd Sing., Pass. : dicitur - in this case the Nom. + Inf. is used. [Sob. §425]

In English this option is widely used: the infinitive construct serving the same purpose:

Smth is known to be so an so... : Smith is known to be a scoundrel. scĕlĭo

Smth is obvious to be that and that...

I think smth to be that and that... : I think Smith to be the biggest scoundrel created by the Lord

In the CL the second way was the predominant if not the unique one for expressing the Internal World. In the ML the contemporary/vernacular “dixit quod” and “dixit quoniam” had been substituted for it. In general, periods transmitting information about Internal World are termed in grammars as Indirect Statements (Indirect Speech). They are very frequent in scientific writing. They depend on Verbs of "saying" and "thinking": dicō, say, tell; nūntiō, announce; referō, report; certiōrem faciō, inform; polliceor, promise; negō, say that . . . not; nārrō, relate; respondeō, reply; scribō, write; memini, remember; sciō, know; cōgnōscō, learn, find out; sentiō, perceive; audiō, hear; videō, see; comperiō, find out; putō, think; iūdicō, judge; sperō, hope; cōnfidō, trust, which all mean that we are on one hand somehow informed about whatever event or fact, but on the other hand (and it is even more important) that the fact itself is not directly observable by the speaker/writer and/or the addressee of the speech, rather belongs to somebodies Internal World: may be that of the speaker (I know ... scio me nihil scire), or of somebody else (vir clarus ... scripsit) or belongs to the “collective” Internal World (It is known ... habetur). The fact itself is described directly by a sentence, having ACTOR (Subject/Nominative), PATIENT (Direct Object/Accusative), and ACTION (Predicate/Verb in Personal form) of its own. The ideas that we know something and what we know together are set together by a way quite characteristic for Latin, but also known in English, which makes the story simpler.

The constructs to represent/express someone's Internal World are Accusativus cum Infinitivo and Nominativus cum Infinitivo. Accusativus cum Infinitivo is somehow more direct, thus we start with it.

Accusativus cum Infinitivo:

Iis built as follows: express that you or somebody know(s) something by one of the above verbs of "saying" or "thinking". Put ACTOR of the sentence expressing the known fact (that is someone about whom whatever is known) into Accusative, its Verb (what is known about that guy/entity) into Infinitive, leave its OBJECT as is, and here you are:

Subj.	Obj.	Circ.	Praed.		Scio			Circ.	Praed.
Nom.	Acc.	Abl.	3-rd Plur.			(Acc.)	(Acc.)	(Abl.)	(Inf. Pres. Act.)
Feles	fringillas		non amant			feles	fringillas		non amare
Simiae		in Brasiliā	habitant			simiās		in Brasiliā	habitare

So far so good. However, the things are not that direct. Notice that recasting the left sentence into the right can lead to a loss of information: in the first example on the right we have two accusatives, and it is not clear who dislikes whom (may be either dislike each other), whereas on the left it is usually clear who is who (not in our example where the situation is aggravated by the fact that Plural Nominative and Accusative of felis coincide). Six infinitives that Latin has: for each Voice (two: Active and Passive) and for each “time” (three: past, present, and future) altogether 2×3=6 are not a burden, but the richness. This is cured by going to the Passive Voice:

Fringillae	ā felibus	non amantur		Scio	fringillas	ā felibus	non amatas esse
Brasilia	ā simiis	hăbĭtātur			Brasiliam	ā simiis	habitatam esse
(Nom.)	(Abl.)	(3-rd Plur.)			(Acc.)	(Abl.)	(Inf. Perf. Pass.)

And that is what had been used above.

The tenses of infinitives are used to position the known fact in temporal relation with the act of knowing [Net. §412]. Here one of important features of Latin comes into play: the tense of the Infinitive [HCP 160, 161] expressing the Verb of fact in the Acc. cum Inf. construction denotes the time relative to that of the verb of knowledge: the perfect, praesens and futurum infinitives describe, respectively, the known fact to, respectively, take place before, simultaneously and after the speaker/writer become aware of it, whenever it happened.

		Act.					Pass.
		"-"	"0"	"+"			"-"	"0"	"+"
scivi	feles non	amavisse	amare	amaturas esse	fringillas	ā felibus non	amatas esse	amari	amatum iri
scio
sciebam

This general rule applies also to semantic of tenses of all nonfinite verbal forms: participles, gerundium and gerundives. The famous narrative by good soldier Švejk must go like "Sciebam jam diū feles fringillas non amare". One should not be confused by the combination of the imperfect of the principal verb and the present of the infinitive: it goes about a universal truth, thus there is no narrow meaning that cats disliked canaries in the past (which is also true, but not exclusively).

In silvis Brasiliae ferae simiae habitant. Silvae Brasiliae ā feris simiis hăbĭtantur.

Nominativus cum Invinitivo:

The fact of "objective" knowledge (characteristic for scientific writing) can be frequently expressed by a verb in passive voice (sometimes also in 3-rd Pass.): dicor, negor, memoror, putor, judicor, existimor, ..., videor, traditur/traduntur, ... In this case the above described construct Acc.+Inf. is replaced by Nom.+Inf., where the Actor of the direct statement expressing the fact remains in the Nominative and the rest is as it is in Acc.+Inf. For this we have even a modern scientific writing example:

Ibi specialiter est notandum, quod errores ab absentia parvorum elementorum et ab extrapolatione inducti a numero monomerium pendere non videntur.

Where it is specifically to note that errors induced by absence of small elements and by extrapolation are not seemed to depend on number of monomers.

with two important remarks:

• if the Infinitive is compound: a participle with the auxiliary esse the participle serving to express the action is to agree with the Subject of the subordinate clause that is to be in nominative of the corresponding gender and number.

the personal form of the verb of “knowledge” in passive is used to transmit the information about the Object of knowledge. That is dĭcor bene cantare - "they" say that I sing well (literally: I am said to sing well); dĭcĕris bene cantare - "they" say that you sing well (literally: you are said to sing well); etc. Although not very much likely to come up to surface in scientific writing, it is mentioned here for completeness.

Dramatis personae

Expressing oneself with use of lonely standing verbal forms is too brusque for the scientific writing. Even Romans themselves were not that laconic. Further characteristics of an Action molded in the finite forms of verbs serve to, in a very general terms, explicate the Actor (Agens) of an action and other possible participants of the play (dramatis personae): things or beings - entities - expressed predominantly by Nouns (Nomina) and functions they take in the play (sentence). In the inflected languages (like Latin) this is expressed by different cases of Nouns.

Actor/Agens: Subject

The most general characteristics of Actor molded in finite forms of verb refer to the grammatical categories of Person and Number. In Latin a verb is "monopersonal"; its (finite) forms characterize the Actor (and nothing else: say, Georgian, knows two- and three-personal verbs, whose form in a sentence points not only to the Actor, but also to a being or thing on which the action is performed - direct Object - and even on those to whose favor it is directed - indirect Object). An (absolute) characteristic of the Actor/Subject molded in the Latin finite verbal forms is the number of Actors: singular for a single Actor and plural for multiple Actors. (For a Subject expressed by so called collective nouns - turba, multitudo, copia, grex, (h)orda etc - use singular form of the verb - in CL different usages are documented, but to develop a uniform scientific writing style we suggest to stick to the singular).

Further characteristic of the Actor covered by a finite verbal form is not absolute, rather relative. Tt refers to the Actor relative to the writer and reader (speaker and listener). If the Actor and speaker (writer) coincide, the 1-st Person is to be used, if the Actor coincides with the reader (listener), the 2-nd person is to be used (not a frequent situation in the scientific writing). Finally, if the Actor is neither writer nor reader, the 3-rd person must be used. Since the person is molded in the finite verbal form, pronomina of 1-st and 2-nd persons are most frequently omitted and are to be explicitly used only if you want to set an emphasis on them (as well, not frequent in scientific writing).

Pronomina personalia expressing actor are omitted and restored from the form of the Verbum unless one needs to put emphasis on them [HCP 24].

	Sing.	Plur.
1-st	ego cogitō, ergo ego sum	Deum nos laudamus
2-nd	tu nugās agis
3-rd

If the Actor does not coincide with either writer or reader, that is a 3-rd person of the verb is to be used (unless the action is described by an impersonal verb - a frequent situation in scientific writing - for this see below) the Subject/Actor must be explicitly expressed. Namely, Actor/Subject is expressed by a (pro)noun/(pro)nomen in Nominative case (Casus Nominativus) - the simplest case known to all native Indoeuropean speakers.

Patient/Patiens and Addressee: direct and indirect Objects.

The lone verbal forms, used previously as examples of (simple) complete thoughts, belong (not accidentally) to, so called, verbs of state (stative): “to be” - “sum”; ... . Such verbs (but not only they) most frequently belong to those which in grammars are termed as intransitive ones. By contrast, lonely standing făcĭo that is I do does not express any complete thought. Apparently, “to do” - “făcĭo”; ... is a verb of action (active - not to be mixed with active voice discussed below!) which imply both something which is acting (Actor/Agens here absorbed in the 1-st person that is "I") and something else on which the Action is performed (Patient/Patiens) to arrive to a complete thought. In grammars Patient becomes a special nam of direct Object, and the verbs with this kind of governance become the name of transitives implying that the Action somehow passes on (transits) from the Subject/Actor to/on the Object/Patient. In vocabularies Verbs are explicitly marked as transitive or intransitive (here "or" is logical, and, moreover, being transitive and/or intransitive does not with 100% certainty mean being active and/or stative - but on this below). The transitive/active verbs (in variance with the intransitive/stative ones) produce the governance scheme which is considered to be the fundamental one by the grammarians. They form the triad Subject + Predicate + Object (Actor + Action + Patient). This comprehensive governance pattern is not mandatory even for transitive verbs themselves: pretty frequently transitive verbs may be used intransitively, that is without any expressed or even implied direct Object/Patient. In this case they are marked in vocabularies as transitive and intransitive simultaneously, that is to say that being one does not exclude being the other. The vocabulary designation is, thus, confusing since it goes not about the verb itself being transitive and intransitive, but about a transitive verb admitting also an omission of the direct object - i.e. used intransitively. Thus, although, widespread, the transitive verb/usage is not the most general: namely, intransitive usages are possible either for transitive or intransitive viz active or stative verbs.

The transitive/intransitive or active/stative dichotomy breaks in either direction, however. Stative verbs (like sum, vivo etc), inherently intransitive, normally cannot have any direct Object, since the Action they describe fundamentally does not assume any Patient. Nevertheless, a figurative expression with a direct Object governed by a stative verb fairly possible. Although in principle vivere is intransitive with no Patient/direct Object (although I can easily imagine some hardly patienting me vivere) expressions like (tutam) vitam vivere are not unusual. This phenomenon acquires from grammarians the designation on an internal direct Object with a remark [Bor. §324] that such an object expresses a thing (Object) semantically related to the Action. The Accusative used to express such relation is called Cognate Accusative. The "transitive" usage of otherwise intransitive verbs comes up to surface in a very frequent, fully normative construct: the denotation of (a duration of) time by Accusativus: triginta annos vixit: he lived 30 years; this idiom can be explained if one understands triginta annos as a (direct) Object of the verb vixit. Simlarly, the extent of space expressed by Acc. without preposition can be logically explained if one perceives so expressed distance as a direct (internal) Object of the otherwise intranisitive (and even more - deponent - see below) verb prōgrĕdĭor:

Tria millia passuum progressus.	Having advanced three miles.
Castra ab urbe aberant millia passuum ducenta.	The camp was distant from the city 200 miles.

The second example can be percepted if 200 miles are understood as a whole chunk and a (direct) Object of definitely intransitive stative aberant (absum). This type of the Accusative usage is of course recommended.

Any way the true intransitive verbs despite the fact that they can be used (poetically or figuratively) with direct Object in Acc. do not have forms of passive voice. These should not be invented (except 3-rd pers. sing., but about this later).

Addressee: indirect Object. [Net. §§79, 81]

For the stative/intransitive verbs only the Actor (Subject) is necessary. This, however, does not prevent them from being in relation with other participants of the scene, namely, having an Addressee: someone of something for whom or for which (purpose) the Action is performed or to(wards) what or to(wards) which the Action is directed. By grammarians this relation between an Action and something or somebody is termed as indirect Object.

non omnibus dormio sic ego non omnibus servio [sch, II, 13]

which fairly illustrates the main idea: an Action (dormio) without patient may have an addressee: someone in whose interests (dativus commodi/incommodi) or something for which sake an intransitive Action is undertaken (non tibi sed avunculae lacrimo!). The same applies to the verbs of action/transitive ones: an Action performed on a patient may equally have an addressee. Thus the situation when a predicate governs an indirect Object is the most general one.

The indirect Object - Addressee of an Action in a very wide sense - expressed by a Noun (may be with other dependent words) which must be set in Dativus. One may observe that the Dativus is used exclusively without preposition (see below). The most common and recommended extended senses of an "addressee" of an action are the direction, purpose, profit/inprofit and finally (somehow unexpected) - possession. A generalized addressee function frequent in scientific writing is a purpose of an action. If the purpose is another action the Dative of purpose or end [HCP 37, SBDR:Reductioni-ad-diagonalem] of an verbial noun, say, in -tio may be used. By contrast, otherwise strongly recommended usage of Gerundium - another verbal noun - is ambiguous here: its Dative is homonymic with the respective Ablativus, and thus is better to be avoided. Any way, it was rare in this function already in the CL. In development of the language the Dative in the directional function is replaced by the prepositional construction ad + acc., which is pity, since acc. is apparently heavily overloaded.

, whereas Ablativus, regularly homonymic with Dativus in Plural: (-is, for Dat. and Abl. I, II; -ibus for Dat. and Abl. III, IV; -ebus for Dat. and Abl. V and in Sing. II-nd and sometimes IV-th - neutral - declension), may have (and frequently indeed has) a preposition.

Other cases with respective prespositions may be (and in fact are more frequently) used to express the same or close meanings (particularly direction and purpose) on which we elaborate in a due place (Recipes?).

Even a simple situation described by an active verb (făcĭo) allows for different perceptions: - the real actor - I (or somebody) do something or something is done on/to myself (făcĭor). The same applies to other agents (not necessarily “me”). Depending on this relation (and in scientific writing also on tradition/habit) the wishful relation between an action and actor, may be set either on agent or on patient. In the latter case Romans and scientists would use the passive construct, making the real patient the formal subject of the sentence in order to attract attention to it, but using the passive voice of the verb to indicate that the formal agens is in fact patiens:

mātĕr marginem lăvat and margo lăvĭtur a matre both express the same relation between lăvāre et margo, although differently accentuated. Similarly,

mātĕr filiam lăvat; filia matrem lăvat; mātĕr lăvĭtur; mātĕr ā filiā lăvĭtur; filia ā matre lăvĭtur; filia lăvĭtur

- all are possible and correct although have either different meaning or different accentuation.

There are, however, complicated cases of governance when certain Object semantic of some verbs requires usage of that or another case (Accusativus and Dativus) for two nouns dependent on the verb. This gives rise to so called double cases: Accusativus and Dativus duplex. Do tibi canem dono (dativus)

The simplest example summarizing the most general governance scheme involving Actor, Action, Patient and Addressee in respective forms is:

actor	action	patient	addressee
I	sent	a letter	to him
subj	pred	dir obj	indir obj
ego	misi	epistulam/litterās	tibi
a me	missa est	epistula	tibi
Nom.	1. sing. perf.	Acc.	Dative

The situation is very widespread, but the case of the direct Object (and basically for the very subsequent reason) is not the most general; it applies to the transitive verbs only: those admitting the patient expressed through direct Object.[2]

More exotic, but colorful usages of Dativus which, nevertheless, can be traced back to its most general meaning of addressee, are posessivus and auctoris on which we talk in a due place.

Patient: direct Object

In our original example using the stative verb: sto „I stand“ - I simply stand - there is nothing I could stand in a sence that my standing on my feet excerts any effect upon anything else (except Danish ground). Like the actor (Subject) and the addressee (indirect Object) which are expressed in Latin by two different cases (respectively, Nominativus and Dativus): the Patient (direct Object) of an Action expressed by the transitive verb must be expressed by a Noun in Accusativus. Normally, it does not produce too much complication.

Actor-Action-Patient relation: Voices/Genĕra

The last in the row of the characteristics of Verbs fused in their finite forms, but for sure not the least important one, is the so coded relation between the Action, Actor and Patient. From some other point of view one can say that direct Object describes relation of an Action to an Entity whereas indirect Object describes relation of an Entity to an Action. One can think that an Action may relate to an entity or vice versa do not relate to any (this is a property of the action itself: to be active/stative viz. active/stative). On the other hand the stative verbs do not assume any entity to which they are related - they are predominantly intransitive, the verbs of action assume by contrast a related entity - they are predominantly transitive. This is expressed by Voices/Genĕra of which the grammarians list two: active and passive. To provide some logic to this item we notice that for an active/transitive verb the special situation requiring (from the point of ancients) specific formal expression is possible, namely, a case when the Subject and the (direct) Object (Agent and Patient) coincide. Historical grammarians see here the signature of an animal extinct yet in the pre-Latin times: the medial - reflexive - voice. They say [Bor. §152] that the passive forms of (transitive/active) verbs originally had namely this - (quasi)reflexive meaning stressing the coincidence of Subject and (direct) Object, and that the passive meaning: the extension of the (reflexive) situation of coincident Subject and (direct) Object to the cases when they (i) do not coincide and (ii) the picture is so drawn that the real patient is represented as the formal agent, developed only later.

The hypothesis presenting the passive forms as primarily those of the medial voice seems to be quite logical, if we look at the transformation formula between the phrases employing the full scale active and passive forms of a transitive verbs:

Active				Passive
Actor	Action	Patient		real Actor	Action	real Patient
Subject	Predicate	(dir) Object		"circumstance"	Predicate	formal Subject
Nom. Noun	Act. Verb	Acc. Noun		(ā) + Abl. Noun*	Pass. Verb	Nom. Noun
mātĕr	lăvat	marginem		ā matre	lăvĭtur	margo
pluvia	lăvat	finestram		pluviā	lăvĭtur	finestra
* with preposition if real Actor is a person, otherwise

we see that in it (direct) Object and Subject do not change simply their positions relative to the Verb transformed from Active to Passive voice (as it happens in English) which could happen had their status been fundamentally equal. The actual scheme is not closed in a mathematical sence: the Patient/Object of the Active phrase transforms to the Subject of Passive phrase, but the Actor/Subject of Active in Passive comes to surface in Ablativus (and moreover with the preposition ā if it goes about a personalised Actor) which indicates that the passive form with the real agent not coinciding with the real patient still is somehow anomalous.

After saying that, it is logical to conjecture that the passive forms of verbs we see and use in scientific writing are predominatly right that extinct medial voice used to stress/express the idea that the actions of the forces and elements of Nature described by the writer are happening (taking place) by themselves: planetae mŏventur or similarly to express the idea of objective, writer independent, knowledge or perception. For this, special formal representation is provided by impersonal 3-rd Sing. Pass.: videtur, traditur, dicetur, scriptum est which may exist also for intransitive verbs (for which any way only the impersonal usage is possible): constatur; then it acquires the special meaning although consto itself is intransitive. Similarly, habetur acquires the meaning «it is taken» (for this see below).

Special groups of verbs

In Latin there are group of verbs important for the scientific writing which in different ways deviate from the most general paradigms of treating Actors/Actions/Patients described above. These are

Deponents

which are Verbs not having the forms of active voice (that is in 1-st, Sing. have -or, etc), although retain the active meaning. Of them most important for scientific writing are arbĭtror, admiror, loquor, nascor, sequor, utor, congredior, experior, orior. These verbs, however, have forms of present and future participles with the active meaning. However, their past participles, which for "normal" - not deponent verbs - has passive meaning, by contrast, have the active meaning as well, covering in this case the missing perfect active participle. At the same time [Net., §344], their Gerundivum has passive meaning (part. fut. pass.) for transitive deponent verbs: hortandus - one who needs to be encouraged. For intransitive verbs their Gerundivum is only used in the neuter in the 2-nd periphrasic conjunction [Sob., §242; Net., §343]. Usual practice of Romans and their fidel followers in the situations when the required form of a Verb (transitive or intransitive) was missing, was to use its synonym posessing the missing form with the requied semantic. Unfortunately, this is not always a good solution for a scientific writing since the problematic Verb may be a specific (technical) term and its synonym - not.

Impersonals

are good for scientific writing. They are so important due to their ability to represnt things "objectively" vis. impersonally. These are Verbs representing an Action with no obvious/expressed Subject. These feature several patterns of usage that are the Verbs inherently impersonal, specific impersonal usage of ususal verbs, and deliberate impersonal usage of usual verbs. In the Recipes Section we give list examples and flavor of what is going on [Alb.].

This group flushes with the widespread impersonal usage of the passive forms of intransitive verbs. At a first glance it looks out strange since the intransitive verbs cannot have a direct Object to be transformed into the formal Subject of the passive construct.

Extended sentences

It is not surprising that a text composed of simple sentences looks out like one written by a seven year child, not by a scientist. Scientific texts are normally more sophisticated: either of their components can be more involved (extended). This produces, so called, extended sentences where either Subject or Objects expressed by nouns or Actions expressed by verbs turn are further specified or characterized or modified. As says our general epigraph (actually borrowed from a story about a Russian traveler to England, who wanted to know how to correctly transmit in English his most simple Russian name 'Ivanov') Latin offers a plenty of ways to express these details. In English grammars the members of a sentence extending Subject, Objects (direct or indirect) and Predicate bear technical names of Complement (specifying or characterizing either Subject or Objects) and Adjunct (modifying the Predicate). In either case three general methods of extending principal members of a sentence are used, those are, employing (i) a specific part of speech (adjectives/participles or adverbs and repective further evolved constructs); (ii) a Noun in a suitable case and (iii) subordinate clauses. All these methods are known in English with the fundamental difference, that the nouns used in English in the method (ii) are introduced by respective prepositions although do not change their forms. The subordinate clauses are rather involved, thus we postpone their discussion for the due place.

General scheme of parts of Speech and Cases.

The general scheme is that different members of a sentence are expressed by different parts of speech: (finite forms of) Verbs express Predicates; Adjectives are used for Complements, Adverbs for Adjuncts. The scheme clearly breaks when it comes to expressing Subject and Objects, which is done with use of different cases Nouns. For the same purpose infinite forms of Verbs (infinitive, perticiples, gerund, gerundive and supines - about this all in a due place) are used. Similarly to Subject and Objects, other members of sentence can be as well expressed by Nouns (inclusive verbal nouns) in suitable cases. For a writer of native Roman languages and English the cases of nouns (substantives, adjectives, pronouns, gerund and participles/gerundives) are quite obscure (not the case for Slavonic and German native writers/speakers). Normative grammars are full of long lists of the specific purposes different cases had been used for in the CL. Despite these complications the general structure is quite simple and allows to formulate cases as specific forms the nouns (substantives) have to take in order to be able to accept that or another function in the sentence. This can be compiled in a Table [Tar. I. Suppl]

semantic	grammatic notation	part of speech	Case if expressed by a Noun	prep.?	example
Actor/agens	Subject	Substantive	Nominativus	-
		Verb	Infinitive
Patient/patiens	Direct Object	Substantive	Accusativus	-
		Verb	Infinitive
Addressee	Inirect Object	Substantive	Dativus	-
			Accusativus	+	amor ad patrem
Circumstances	Adjunct	Adverb
		Adjective
		Substantive	Ablativus	+/-
			Accusativus	+/-
			Genitivus	+
Characteristic or specification	Complement	Adjective	Genitivus

where we assembled the semantic function, formal name of the member of a sentence, part of the speech (predominantly) used to express/represent meaning/member and finally the case. These functions are fundamentally expressible by Nouns in respective cases either with or without prepositions. These latter, however, either specify the precise meaning of the noun in each case or modify it so that sometimes it looks out that the case is used not according to the above simple scheme (which is not that frequently happens as it might seem).

Specification and modification of Predicates: Circumstances viz Adjuncts

The characteristics of an Action molded in a finite form of a Verb are too general: time of action (past, present, future), aspect (finished/unfinished - or relative position of actions in time - on this item in a due place time); Actor/Patient either writer, or reader, or somebody/something else (as expressed by personal endings) and reality/virtuality expressed by Mood. These general characteristics can/must be further modified or specified in a developed discours. In English grammar respective modifiers/specifiers of Actions are terme as Adjuncts. These can be presented (in Latin) by following methods.

Adverbium

The simplest representation of (Englsh) Adjunct in Latin is provided by Adverbia: closest analogs of English adverbs. Adverbia are invariable existing either independently diū/saepe or derived from adjectives cito/lente. Since the Adverbia are invariable they do not need to agree with verbs they modify/characterize, thus the story basically ends here. If you want to modify a predicate with use of an adverb, just do it, but festina lente (see below). Similarly, Adverbs modify Adjectives and other Adverbs.

Ablativus of Substantives

Generally speaking, whatever Adjunct (Adverbial) meaning (semantic) can be expressed by Nouns (Nomina Substantiva) which in this case are to be put in Ablativus. This allows to characterize the Ablativus as a generic case for whatever adverbial meaning expressed by a Noun. The “whatever” in the previous phrase stands for enormous lists of Ablative's functions in normative grammars. Historically, it is explained by melting together the functions of two more ancient cases (Locativus and Instrumentalis) with those of the ancient Ablativus yielding the classical Ablativus. Most widespread usages of Ablativus are for expressing circumstances of PLACE, SPACE, TIME, - originate from ancient Locativus; MODE, METHOD, INSTRUMENT, - originate from ancient Instrumentalis, and ORIGIN, SEPARATION, ASSOCIATION, - originate from ancient Ablativus itself. Since the extinct ancient cases had the semantics of their own in the united case they are all used without prepositions (in the CL) to represent apparently different meanings. This produces a significant ambiguity, in addition to further ambiguities. Various meanings are detailed either by using prepositions or by employing Accusativus as well with prepositions which distinguishes this (adverbial) use of Accusativus from its principal function of direct Object (see above) when it is to be used without preposition (there are important exceptions/variations). Thus, the suggestion is to use the prepositions (see below) with cases in a kind of a balance. First, we give examples of the adjunct-like usage of the cases without prepositions in the CL manner, and then give suggestion of modernized usage of these cases with prepositions reducing ambiguity (following when appropriate the ML patterns).

Ablativus as such (without preposition).

PLACE, SPACE, TIME

There are (clearly) Nouns intrincically having meaning (periods of) time: hiems, dies, etc. Their Ablatives without prepositions express the "time when" hieme, die. So imprecise denotation of time is unlikely in contemporary scientific writing unless it goes about descriptive biology (or similar disciplines): luce ululae, hieme ursi dormĭunt. In CL the consulates of specific persons have been considered as intrinsic time references. Thus, the respective Ablatives are as well used for expressing circumstances of time: Cicerone consule..., however, this is also unlikely to be present in modern scientific writing. Analogously, but somewhat limited, the Nouns with intrinsic place meaning are the words, like humus, domus, rus and the names of small (how one can know which one is small enough?) islands and of the cities. Their Ablatives without prepositions are used to express circumstances of place: humi, domi, ruri, but they also hardly can be expected in the modern scientific writing. Thus, we incline to recommendation that for the purpose of expressing place and time Ablativus is to be used always with prepositions specifying the precise relation. One can foresee an intersting development

Plato tempore scribendi mortuus est.

with the Ablativus tempore transforming in a preposition (like causā, gratiā and fundamentally all other prepositions, being originally Adverbs - the most fundamental tool to transmit adjoint meaning).

MODE, METHOD, INSTRUMENT

By contrast the bunch of meanings (semantic field) of Instrumentalis and adjacent ones, a Noun without any preposition may serve as a desgnation of an instrument. Almost whatever Substantive (Noun) not having a personal reference set in Ablativus can transmit the meaning of an instrument or a mean or method applied. Molded phrase reads: PMMP: Pontifex maximus manū propriā. This usage is exemplary and is recommended whenever & wherever "instrument", or "mode", or "method" meaning is to be transmitted. On the other hand, using preposition "cum" in the instrumental and other adjacent meanings is pleonastic (although quite frequent in the ML) and we suggest to avoid it.

ORIGIN, SEPARATION, ASSOCIATION

Finally, we arrive to the bunch of functions of the ancient Ablativus which survived in the CL and later without significant alteration. Following our main stratageme that is to avoid ambiguities we suggest to use Ablativus in theses group of functions with prepositions. The subset of these related to the respective semantic (cum, sine, de, ab, ex) is fairly different from the temporal/spatial prepositions (in, sub, super,... - see below) so that not much ambiguity arises to our satisfaction.

Ablativus Gerundii

Ascribing the side action to the Subject (or Object) looks out awkward if no obvious Subject/Actor of Object/Patient is present - in case if e.g. impersonal verbs are used to describe the principal action. This situation is common in scientific writing and the awkwardness is to be avoided. Incidentally in the Latin Zoo there is a suitable animal called Gerundium: a verbal nown with a meaning of somewhat weaker verbal meaning than those in -tio (in -tion in vernacular languages). In the ML e.g. the following construct using the ablative of gerundium:

et sic coquat lento foco agitando ipsa olla frequenter	and let it cook on a slow fire, shaking the pot frequently

is used, and we suggest to use it as well. The meaning is actually that of whatever Ablativus (of a Noun) without preposition with the special meaning of being Ablativus of something which is itself an Action: thus more or less clearly that using the Noun denoting an Action in Ablative may (and does) express the situation evolving in the same time as that Action, or (reaching something) by means of/instrumentalizing that Action or in association with it [examples to be added].

Plato scribendo mortuus est or even Plato mortuus est scribendo

This refers to the usages of Ablativus without prepositions.

Sine cūcūrriendo galli sōl non ori(e)tur

Adjectives

It is a characteristic feature of CL to use Adjectives in agreement with Nouns expresing Subject or Objects (that is Gender, Number, Case), to modify the predicate (Verb) that is with the force of an adverb [AG 2.3.4.290]. This looks out to be full synonym of using corresponding Adverbs: Gaius Marcō cito currit = Gaius citus Marcō currit. There is, however, a subtlety: both are correct, but using an Adjective has a flavor (felt already in the classical time) of ascribing Gajō a permanent quality of being always citus, which we not necessarily want. For a single act of fast running an Adverb suits better. Even the following is possible: Lentus Gajus Marcō cito currit which means that usually slow Gajus on this specific occasion was fast. Thus, we humbly propose to refrain in scientific writing from using Adjectives to modify the Predicate in a sense of accidentia not substantia and suggest to use Adverbs for this purpose.

Participia

Participles are verbal Adjectives. As Adjectives they have a complete set of adjective characteristics: Genus, Numerus, Casus to be put in agreement with the specified/characterized Subject/Objects (exactly like Adjectives in general), but also, being verbal, Tense and Voice (Tempus & Genus). They chacterize/specify (substantive) Nouns by referring to an Action performed by (Active) or on (Passive) them. Here, despite the undisputed richness of Latin we strike upon a deficiency which has remarkable consequences. Participles in Latin are only those assembled in a Table:

	Act	Pass
"-"	-	-t(s)us,-t(s)a,-t(s)um
"0"	-ns	-
"+"	-urus,-ura,-urum	-ndus,-nda,-ndum (CL)

and that's it. Obvious omissions are the Participia praesentis and futuri passivi and Participium perfecti activi. The former is partially replaced/substituted by another animal of the Latin zoo: by the Gerundivum which is as well a verbal Adjective which usually described as having sense of an Action to be done, that is kind of passive in the future (with a specific bytaste since not everything which is to be done will be done). However, the things are more complicated due to the origin of the Gerundive which used to originally be a (present or future) Participle of Medial Voice. Since the Medial Voice disappeared in the CL the meaning of Gerindivum turned to be dependent on the context (grammatical environment) in which it appears. When it comes to using Gerundive in a function of a side/parallel Action it appears within so called Gerundive construct - as an attribute of the Name performing the main Action - where its "to be done" flavor (and in fact that of whatever virtuality of the future events) had faded out, so that the survivng semantic of the Gerundivum (in this context/environment!) is the (otherwise missing) future passive.

The usage of Participles as Adjuncts to express circumstances of an Action is parallel to that of Adjectives - (Adjective) Nouns. Although, formation of Adverbs from Adjectives is regular and active in the CL, no direct analogs of this derivation exists for Participles (being a not that obvious omission not actually looking out as such for an English speaker - Anglophone, however, sensible by Russophones; one can, however, mention a specific form of the Ablativus of the Adjectives of the "one ending" Adjectives - right the Part. Praes. Act. when used in the Adverbial/Circumstancial/Adjoint meaning differing from the normal Ablative thus giving a hint to a possible deriavative - kind of Transgressive or Adverbial participle coming to the surface when necessary, about this option - later) which could be tentatively used to express a fine distinction between a more permanent quality (substantia) of Subject/Objects and a more transient quality (accidentia) of the Action. Thus, if the modification of the principal predicate/verb by some other (parallel or preceding or future) Action is required, it is expressed in the CL by representing the accompanying Action by the correcponding Participle as a quality of the Subject or Object. In normative grammars it is called predicative usage of a participium:

Plato scribens mortuus est.

Here Part. Praes. Act. Masc. Nom. scribens, although, formally, looking out as a property of the Subject (Agent) Plato in fact relates to the circumstances of the predicate mortuus est. This usage, however, is not formally distinguished from an attributive one:

praemium promissum pernumeratūrūm est/cēlātur (in) locō cautō

Grammarians say that the predicative usage of a participle somehow addresses its verbal nature/origin; it is not clear how can they know? Apparently, it goes about distinguishing the situations when we want to use a participle (for the sake of brevity and expressiveness) to transmit either characterization/specification or circumstancial meaning, that is to replace a subordinate clause which in the former case would be introduced by conjunctions qui, quae, quod and in the latter case by conjunctions like quando, quum, dum, etc.

Another important feature to be kept in mind is the temporal semantic of Participles. Its time is counted relative to that of the Predicate. So that Praes. Part. express the simultaneity of the side action with that of the Predicate.

Manu rectā aurem sinistram pruriens/scalpens/scabens Gaius Marcō cito currit/currebat.

Here part. praes. act. masc. nom. scabens looks as if it characterized the Subject Gaius. That is to say that Gaius was scratching his ear while running to Marcus yesterday if we use currebat and that he is scratching it right now, while he is running if we say currit. This creates a bytaste that the Present Participles (which are in CL only active) better suit for expressing the transient (momentary) quality of the Action whereas the Perfect participle (passive) has a flavor of a permanent quality (due to meaning of perfect of smth happened in the past).

Manu rectā aurem sinistram scalptam Gaius Marcō cito cucurrit.

Here part. perf. pass. fem. acc. scalptam (scabo has no supin and thus no part. perf. pass. while scalpo has) looks as if it characterized Object aurem. Being perf. part. means that Gaius first scratched his ear and then quickly arrived to Marcus.

[Net. §§416-418] gives characteristic examples

	cecidit	"-"
miles pugnans	cadit	"0"
	cadet	"+"

	cecidit	"-"
miles victus	cadit	"0"
	cadet	"+"

Ablativus absolutus

Usage of Ablativus as the general Adjunct/circumstancial case extends to derivative nominal forms of Verbs, that is, Participia at large (Paricipia, Gerundives, Gerunds) expressing the circumstance of the principal action in terms of some side action taking place in relation to the principal one.

A widespread (in CL) and colorful option to transmit the circumstancial meaning using Participia (and sometimes also Adjectives and Gerundives) is the construction named Ablativus absolutus. This is a Participle standing in Ablative with some dependent words (in Ablative as well). The entire construct does not depend on any other sentence members right as it should be for an invariable Adverb. The meaning of the Participle in such a construction is definitely predicative. Fundamentally, this construct is an abbreviation (or, contrary, - a germ) of a subordinate clause with an adverbial (circumstancial) meaning of which the predicate is expressed by the verb of which the participle enters in abl. abs.

Hirudĭne advŏlante	ver expectamus.
Cum hirudĭne advŏlante
Quando hirudĭnes advŏlant,

We see that there is still a plethora of ways to express the predicative (circumstancial/adverbial meaning) so that our modest suggestion is to keep participia (and gerundives) other than within the ablativus absolutus for the attributive usage - that is for the purpose of characterization and specification of nouns, and the ablativus absolutus and ablativus gerundii for modifying the action.

Sine gallō cūcūrriente sōl non oritur

Modality

Modality is one more characteristic of an Action or State which in a way is weakly represented (in Latin) by any inflected form of a Verb itself. In variance with the Mood, which is a form sometimes having lost its original meaning (of distinguishing the Real World from the Virtual one - that what we want to regain in this Style Guide project), Modality refers more to substance and describes some (not real) Action/State in terms of being possible/necessary/mandatory/acceptable/permitted etc. Even these subtle deatils are believed to be, historically, parts of the inflection paradigm of the praindoeuropean language with some reamins/manfestations survived in Sanskrit. However, like cases which would "infinitely" proliferate if one decides to have a specific one for, say, each spatial relation between the things or for whatsoever, the number of modal meanings is too large so that they are expressed (more analytically) with use of modal verbs like can/possum, must/debeo etc. Nevertheless, a very colourful half-synthetic/half-analytic form for expressing (deontic - "must") modality exists in Latin (Carthago delenda est) and is recommended for usage.

Otherwise, one needs to mention that the modality can be expressed by adverbia like: fortasse, possibile, necessario (justifying positioning this semantic among Adjoints) or predicative expressions like necesse est, licitum est, opus est, usus est, fas est.

Modal verbs are

decet, debeo, possum, licet, opportet,

quod licet Jovi non licet bovi

One more aspect to be mentioned is that the same modal words either in Latin or in English (or Russian) express somewhat different meaning, say, "necessary" may be such because of the speakers own requirements or due to general state of things. The same applies to other modalities. In English such distinction is not always clearly seen due to deficiency of the respective (modal) verbs, which is overcome in Latin by the richness of its inflection. [To elaborate]

World
Virtual			Real	Internal
				Personal		Common
				speaker's	somebody's
posse	+ Nom.	+Inf.*	indicative
debere
licet	+ Dat.
opportet
* Only present infinitives are used. Tenses and moods are those of possum/debeo

The problem in expressing possibility is that Latin is capable to describe formally (synthetically) numerous grades of possibility which are differently represented in vernacular languages [HCP 117-118]. When it comes to English [HCP 117] may, might, could, would, should, are not always used with the same force. When used with their full force of possibility, or power, they are expressed by corresponding Latin verbs. Thus, licet, it is permitted, gives the idea of may, might; possum, I am able, the idea of could; volō, I am willing, the idea of would. When these English auxiliaries are less forceful, that is, are not used with their full literal meaning, they are represented in Latin by the subjunctive mood.

is done relatively easily by using

possum

queo

nĕquĕo: to be unable, cannot [Gauss]

generally expressed by MODI (

NECESSITY, OBLIGATION, DEBT.

necesse est

debeo

opus est

[NH Rule 19]

The above mentioned colourful way of expressing the deontic semantic in Latin is the Gerundive used predicatively - the so called II periphrasic conjunction - which literally expresses something which must be done to the formal Subject (logical direct Object): Carthago delenda est which manifests the semantic of Gerundivum as a part of a predicate - a "new" in comparition to its original (future/present medial participle) meaning. In the scientific writing one can expect and it is frequently in use and is recommended in expressions like

	notandum	est
	sciendum

with the Subject/Actor expressed by a formal indirect Object set in the Dative (like in mihi liber legendum est).

Characterization and specification of Actor, Patient and Addressee (Subject and Objects).

In English either Subject or Objects of a simple sentence can be extended by complements. In Latin one has plenty of ways of expressing complements. Complements either specify or characterize what is complemented. Specifying restricts the volume of the specified concept. Characterizing, alternatively, specifying designates a stable, frequently, a permanent quality, singling out a more specific entity from a larger set otherwise vaguely expressed by the specified Substantive. Characterizing, on the other hand, describes a fairly specific entity, making its description more informative. It is permanent enough either.

Adjectives

The simplest way of expressing Complement in Latin is [CEB 2, HCP 1] adding an Adjective or possessive/demonstrative Pronoun to a Substantive (Noun) expressing the Subject and/or Objects. Adjectives are Nouns (Nomina Adjectiva) which serve to express qualities. Being Nouns they posess Genus, Numerus, and Casus and have to agree in these with the characterized/specified Nomen Substantivum. This is a very powerful way of establishing connectivity in a Latin text since e.g. if one Adjective characterizes a Subject and another an Object then the first must be in Nominativus and another in Accusativus for the direct Object (in a sentence in Active) and in Dativus for an indirect one. Respectively, for a simple sentence in Passive the Complement of the logical Subject must be in Ablativus and that of the (real) direct Object in Nominativus. Thus one can uniquely identify what is the specific and/or characteristic of either Subject or Object. The adjectives used to specify Subject or Object can be further modified by adjuncts expressed by invariable Adverbia etc.

Participle and gerundive constructs

More involved way of specifying/characterizing Subject or Objects close relative to using Adjectives/Pronouns is by indicating a side Action performed by that or another simultaneously with the main Action. This is done with use of Participles [NH 5, HCP 84]. As mentioned above, Participles are verbal Adjectives and as such they posess Genus, Numerus, and Casus and has to agree in these with the characterized/specified Nomen Substantivum and by this establish connectivity of a Latin text.

First of all, we describe "intuitive" usage of participles for specifying Subject/Objects. Good examples are:

ā Seneca philosophō insula natans describitur, quae aquā sustinetur et ventō impellitur.

Philosophus Seneca descrībit insulam natantem, quam aqua sustĭnet et ventum impellit.

Here the exemplary Participles are natans/natantem which stand in agreement with Object/Subject: insula/insulam (observe the Nominativus insula being in fact the (logical) Object of the Passive construction in the first case, where the true Subject is Seneca philosophus expressed in the Passive through the Ablativus auctoris with the preposition ā). Apparently, the attributes natans/natantem are permanent qualitiels of the Object/Subject insula; it goes not about an island which used to stick firmly in its preferred location and then bruskly decided to move following the will of winds.

This describes the so called attributive usage of Participles. In the CL the Participles had been used differently: predominantly in the adverbial (predicative) register, that is, to modify the verb (predicate - see above and [Bor. § 432]) and the attributive usage of Participles is more rare as compared to the predicative one.

In the pair Adjective/Adverb the first refers more to a permanent/stable quality (essentia/quidditas/substantia) of the Subject/Objects whereas the second one refers more to a transient "quality of an action" - that is which disappears upon the action's end. It would be very nice to manitain this this distinction in the realm of Participles. And there are prerequisites for this: indeed, the Present Participle (one in -ns) in Ablativus (the adverbial/circumstancial case) if applied as an isolated ... adjoint or within the Ablativus Absolutus construct acquire the ending -e rather than -i required by the standard paradigm of the 3-d Adjective declination of the vowel/mixed type. Thus, we suggest to use Participles in agreement with Substantives to referring to a more stable qualities of Subject/Objects rather than transient characteristics of Action. For this latter Ablativus absolutus (where the participle is detached from Subject/Objects and thus can be thought as attached to Action/Predicate, although semantic of Ablativus absolutus is more complex) or Ablativus Gerundii or Gerundivi (?) are suggested (see below). Other usages of Gerundium/Gerundivum are discussed elsewhere.

Gerundium and Gerundive constructs

It looks out confusing when explained, but is fundamentally simple [HCP 92, 93]. Gerundium is a (verbal) Noun which can (must) be used as a noun almost as a verbal derivate with the suffix -tio; that is to say is a weak "-tio" or -ing taken as a noun - gerund (with an article). Gerundive, by contrast is more or less equivalent to the -ing form without any article - the present active participle of English. With certain prepositions (causā, gratiā, ad) in the relevant cases (Gen., Acc.) Gerundium expresses purpose. Gerundium (Noun) can be derived from all verbs (transitive, intransitive, deponent). Gerundivum is a verbal Adjective having an additional passive connotation [NH 20]. Thus it sensibly forms only of transitive verbs and in case if you wish to describe the action having an Object using this forms use Gerundive construction for transitive verbs with an Object in Accusative and Gerundium otherwise. The Gerundive for intransitive verbs can be formed, but it is used only impersonally that is as a part of composite predicate with the copulative 3-rd person est (in all times and moods). Historically, however, the Gerundive used attributively had the meaning of the present or future participle of medial Voice. It does not have the "has to be done or must be done" meaning, simply works as a missing present passive participle. In variance with that the predicative usage of Gerundive (with a form of copulative esse) retains the "must be done" meaning (Carthago delenda est!). Moreover, this "must" expressed by the stative est can have the indirect Object in Dative: Liber mihi legendus est.

When a beginning writer of Latin tries to express something like [Alb.]: I read books because of love to history (s)he probably does it with use of the Gerundium like Libros lego historiam amandi causa. It is correct, but Romans would most probably do it differently: Libros lego historiae amandae causa, where instead of Gerundium (Noun) a Gerundivum (Adjective/Participle) amandae in Gen. is used. This is called gerundive construct and is (had been) amply used by Romans whenever possible (replacing Gerundium by Gerundive for transitive verbs with dependent words - first of all with direct Object). The cases when in may not be done are the situations when the Gerundium is in Gen. (like in the example given) or in Abl. without preposition. However, even in these cases transition to the gerundive construct dominates in the scriptures of old gentlemen. Another situation when the transformation does not occur are the cases when the direct Object of Gerundium in Gen. or in Abl. without preposition is expressed by a pronomen in neuter. Otherwise the replacement of gerundium by gerundive was mandatory in the CL. The reasons why they did this may be only hypothesized. [Alb.] says that it must be because Romans had a preference of a verbal construct over a substantive one. This, however, does not sound as 100% convincing. Indeed, why should one think that using a verbal Substantive is that much worse than using a verbal Adjective (both are Nouns and Adjective is attributive)?

The gerund and gerundive construction are described as synonymic, but in any language whatever synonyms are not truly equivalent - there is always some distinction, may be difficult to explain by a native speaker (who simply feels some differense) to a nonnative speaker. For a native speaker of another inflective language (which the author of these lines is) two versions are not looking out as completely equivalent. The version with Gerundium (to my taste) is closer to the original: the reason of reading is love: lego amandi causā. Transition to gerundive construct shifts the accent: the reason of reading is history (to be ?) loved: lego historiae amandae causa. These are not exactly the same. The real shift is that from treating an active amo - amandi to passive with a futural modal connotation. One can easily supply example where the gerundive construct if taken literally is more or less absurd: I bring flowers because of love to a girl: flores porto puellam amandi causa - this is logical. Transforming to gerundive: flores porto puellae amandae causa is literally absurd since the flowers a brought to a girl of which it is not yet known whether I am going to love or not. Even if one wants definitely use a participle and passive construct the formulations Libros lego historiae amatae causa/porto puellae amatae causa sound more logically: the causes of my actions precede them...

[Net. §423]

Our contemporary language thinking differs from that of Romans: for us gerundium expressing that or another aspect of action directed to a dependent object is a natural way of imaging things. Not so for true Romans; they considered the action expressed by the gerundium not as a thing (verbal noun) acting by itself rather as a quality of the object of action (passive connotation!) expressed by the verbal adjective (gerundivum). The object of the action turns into ... so that the preposition (causā or ad) refers (governs) primarily the object expressed by the noun, but effectively to the entire construct of the object noun and its quality expressed by adjective (gerundivum) in apposition: that is in agreement in case and number with the

– For the readers of this text an “algebraic” transformation formula between gerundium and gerundive construction is a follows:$p+C(Ger)+A(N)\Longleftrightarrow p+C(N)+C(Gum(Num(N),Gen(N)))$

We dare to conjecture that Gerundive constructs was of that much use because Gerundive having all gender forms (in contrast to part. praes. act.) better helps to maintain the connectivity of the text/speech.

Due to passive meaning all Gerundive forms can be used only of transitive verbs. Intransitive verbs form the Gerundive as well, but it can be used only impersonally (with the 3-rd sing of esse in whatewer tense or mood): agendum est; veniendum est - one needs (it is?) to act/to go. Deponent verbs form Gerundive as well. Unlike perfect (passive) participle of deponent verbs having active meaning the gerundive of the deponent verb has the otherwise missing (present) passive meaning: hic discipulus hortandus est - this pupil is to be encouraged.

Important is the present temporal semantic of the gerundive: hic discipulus hortandus est - this pupil is to be encouraged (he will be encouraged in the future, but the necessity to do this is present now); hic discipulus hortandus erat (the necessity was in the past, and it is not clear whether it arrived to actual encouragement), erit (the necessity arises in a future ).

[NH 27]

epistula	mihi	scripta	est		a letter	has	been	written	to me
		scribenda					to be		by me
epistulam		scripturus	es			you are going to		write	to me

As usual the order of words is not the order of columns.

Genetivus

Interesting and characteristic for Latin is the option of characterizing/specifying Subject/Objects expressed by Nouns in respective cases (Nom./Acc. in Active Abl./Nom. in Passive Voice) by using another Noun (with dependent adjectives/participles/possesive-indicative pronouns) as well accompanied by an Adjective, now standing in Genitive. An example wandering from one Latin book to another reads:

vir magnae staturae

where vir is a noun in Nominative (Subject) characterized by the quality statura with an additional epithet magna both set in Genetivus which shows their connection to the Noun (first of all of statura, which is additionally characterized by the adjective magna).

All the (not a few) usages of Genetivus listed by grammarians can be traced back to the common origin: the genetics that is belonging to some common source/origin/group (see the literal meaning of genus). This original meaning has been transferred to numerous usages of Genitivus which all somehow express a quality of the characterized Noun in terms of its belonging to some wider class which then stands in Genitive (see above "mathematical" notation in the Apposition Section). Problems/ambiguities arise when one undertakes an attempt to characterize by a Genetivus a Noun which itself is a name of an Action. In this case, the Action may have either Actor or Patient. Thus, it is not clear who of the two is meant by the Noun in Genitive: Agent or Patient or in grammarians’ style is this Genitivus subjectivus or Genitivus objectivus. A universal example of this ambiguity is amor patris. What is this? For Romans it could be either the love felt by the father himself to his children or the love of his children to him. They used it either way relaying on the context (obviously, for gymnasiasts of older times metus hostium had to mean the fear enemies had of Roman legions, although Romans themselves seem to had been more realistic). The situation is highly ambiguous (fringillārum timor felĭum - not bad!) which we would like to avoid. Thus, in the situation when both Actor and Aatient of an Action (feeling) can be active, we suggest to avoid the objective usage of Genitivus and to consider amor patris as a feeling felt by father. Instead of objective Genitive a prepositional construct with Acc. is suggested to be accepted as preferential since it was in use yet in Roman times: amor ad(versus ?) patrem [Sch. II, 355] (fringillārum timor ad/in feles not felĭum timor in fringillas). mūrīnus timor felium fēlīnus timor murĭum The situation changes when a Genitivus of a noun which fundamentally cannot be an Actor is used for a characteristic: e.g. a Gerundium: sapiens cupidus est discendi, stultus docendi. In such a situation cupiditas discendi/docendi cannot be understood subjectively - only objectively: discendi/docendi are hardly real agents - thus in this situation no ambiguity arises and such objective usage of genitive is acceptable and may be recommended. In principle, even sapientis cupiditas discendi and stulti cupiditas docendi are not ambiguous, but we do not go that far. One can face further problems. E.g. what is cupiditas gloriae ? Well, most probaly it is an (an abstract) eager to glory: Marci cupiditas gloriae and Genetivus gloriae must be understood objectively (and Marci - subjectively). At the same time cupiditas Gloriae means something even more different not talking about Marci cupiditas Gloriae, but it is diffcult to expect anything like this in a scientific writing. One more remark is to be made here. It relates to the usage of Genetivus of (personal) Pronouns as specifiers of Nouns which are names of Actions. They have exclusively objective meaning: amor mei is love to me. The love I feel is amor mea etc - that is posessive pronoun is used to express the subjective meaning (if I am a father: amor mea = amor patris; amor mei = amor ad patrem). Although, not much expected in scientific writing we give this here for completeness and in order to lift the confusion, so that a beginning writer (and we are all today beginning) does not extend the objective usage of personal pronouns' genitives to the substantive nouns, where by contrast the subjective usage is recommended. Similar usage is more widespread in general: instead of a Genetivus a respective Nomen Adjectivus is used: hortus regis > hortus regius (not regalis [sch]). functio undarum/undina

It must be noticed that Genetivi have a tendence to accumulate in long chains, where each "next" Genetivus characterizes the "previous" one. Quotation marks are not accidental here due to known love of Romans to transpose the words. The phrases with chains of genetives look out, indeed, ugly, and would better to be avoided, but sometimes they are unescapable in the scientific writing [SBDR Tabula 1 cap]. In this case the advise is to keep the order of genetives strictly so that the next indeed characterizes the previous without quotation marks. Such construction although not very nicely looking is unambiguous. Romans would, probably, do it differently, but we are not Romans. Furthermore, in many cases Genitivi in multiple cases can be replaced by Adjectives [Net. §26] hortus regis = hortus regalis/regius.

Other cases also can be used as Complements [Net. §27]. It goes about characterizing Nouns expressing Actions. In these cases the Adjoints may be expressed by the cases required by the respective verbs.

Apposition

Aquila = (avĭum > regina)

Leo = (bestiārum > rex)

Ablativus

Although Classics do it (to distinguish a transient quality - Abl. - kind of Adverbial/Adjoint meaning - from permanent ones - Gen. - more close to Adjective/Complement and immutable, like one cannot change one's biological parents), the Ablative is very much overloaded with multiple functions. I think it is better to avoid using Ablativus qualitatis in scientific writing. Genetivus is more than enough [Net. §§101-104].

Specifiers of Specifiers: Prepositions

Prepositions serve to modify a specify the meaning of cases of Names and in a general scheme serve as markers of some unease with their standard meaning. In Latin they are numerous and basically very precise. They are (normatively) never used with Nominativus and Dativus. In the CL only two of them (see below) can appear together with Genitivus. All other numerous Prepositions precede either only Accusativus or Ablativus or both of them having then different meaning which we describe below. Originally, Prepositions used to be Adverbs (either are invariable pats of speech) [Net. §173ff]. As such they were originally intended to modify Verbs/Predicates/Actions. This is in variance with normative grammarians who classify the Prepositions according to their relation to the oblique cases of Nouns they govern. In this relation it comes to mind that the cases governed by prepositions in grammar books must be considered as those governed by the respective verbs. This construction, however, does not stand the experimantal test (at a first glance): indeed, Ablativus is not governed by any verb, whereas Dativus cannot be coupled with any Preposition. The only remaining option is the governing an Accusative which only transitive verbs can do. In this situation the prepositions combined with an Ablativus must be considered as Adverbs only precising the principal Adjoint meaning of the respective Nouns in Ablative (see above).

On the other hand there are numerous cases when (transitive ?) verbs when supplied with prefixes ad-, ante-, con-, in-, inter-, ob-, post-, prae-, sub-, super- turn to be intransitive (although are not necessarily stative ?) and thus accept only an indirect Object to be set in Dativus (see, however, below) whereas verbs of motion (stative/intransitive) when compound with prefixes circum-, per-, praeter-, trans- convert to transitive [Net. §56ff, §91ff; sch dative; Bor §§329,346] and may have a direct Object in Accusative. Apparently writing a preposition together with or separately of a verb is a matter of habit or agreement (provided the love of learned Romans to put prepositions in unexpected places) than that of substance. That is to say that the prepositions written together with verbs as prefixes which produce compound verbs gorvening Dativus are "in fact" those preceding Dativus and probably can be understood as prepositions specifying direction of motion (or of an action in general) or figuratively the purpose. Alternatively, prefixes (prepositions attached to verbs) which transform fundamentally intransitive verbs of motion to transitives . Also the "pleonastic" usage of prepositions and prefixes like exercitum trans flumen traducere must be mentioned and not to be avoided, rather carefully used, since

exercitum trans flumen traducere
exercitum trans flumen ducere

are by far not the same. Here one more aspect come out to surface: the property of a verb to be perfective that is one whose meaning assumes an end and nonperfective which do not has such connotation.

Genitivus

causā, gratiā - are originally the Ablatives of the corresponding Nouns which may have a Complement expressed by a Noun in Genitivus. One can foresee that Ablatives locō, tempore already having to a good extent transformed into Adverbia further develop into true pre- (post-) positions governing Genetivus following the same pattern as causā, gratiā.

Accusativus

It is the case most abundant of the prepositions used with it. Analyzing them as listed in the Table in the Recipes Part they are used to precise/specify Time and Place place or figuratively. Together with the capacity of Accusativus to represent either period of time or extent of space without prepositions that is like internal direct Object

Ablativus

The prepositions used exclusively with Ablativus are not particularly numerous (see the Table in the Recipes Section). The most protrude marker function is of course that of ā, ăb, abs introducing Ablativus Auctoris in Passive - that is stressing that a person is not supposed to be portrayed as an abstract instrument.

Accusativus + Ablativus

There are "bivalent" prepositions to be considered as descendants of respective bivalent adverbs. Following the development begun the Middle Ages and fully evolved in vernacular languages (actually German and Russian) which thoroughly distinguish the meaning of such prepositions as those of motion to a position when combined with Accusative and of staying in a position when combined with Ablative.

in	in, into
sub	under
subter	beneath
super	above

In the Classical Language this rule holds only for the prepositions listed in the Table. Our suggestion is to systematically apply this type of usage prep. + Acc. = motion; prep. + Abl. = location (in German replaced by the Dativ and in Russian by the "Prepositional" case).

Together with the capacity of Accusativus to represent either period of time or extent of space without prepositions that is like internal direct Object

Word formation. Terminology

It is said [NH 23] that abstract nouns should generally be translated by concrete expressions. It is good for CL artisitc writing, but does not suit for scientific writing. In Middle Ages and New Time Latin developed a rich repertory of means to form abstract concepts with use of the suffixes and prefixes as well as by migration of different Names to Substantive ones.

Substantives from supines 3.) Words in -us derived from supines, are all masculine, and belong to the fourth declension ; as actus, fructus, gustatus, gestus, habitus, visus, venatus, planctus, plausus, questus, usus, &c.

4.) Substantives occur, which were originally adjectives these have the gender of the substantives, which are omitted and understood: as equile, bubile, ovile, haedile, are neuters, since stabulum is understood. To these belong neuters in al and ar, which are commonly instead of ale, are, as puteal for puteale, (from putealis, e,) scil. operculum; animal for animale, scil. negotium, a living thing :

so specular, for speculare, scil. negotium  ; calcar for calcare, scil. negotium or instrumentum: so also cochlear for cochleare, scil. instrumentum. (from A COPIOUS LATIN GRAMMAR BY I. J. G. SCHELLER, VOL. 1)

sapiens, determinans, discriminans etc

COMPOUND SENTENCES & SUBORDINATE CLAUSES

This topic is considered as a sophisticated and it in a way is, since the number of various subordinates is pretty large. On the other hand, the subordinates take the role of the usual members of sentence, that is of Subject, direct and indirect Object, Complement, Adjunct. These subordinates are introduced by respective (numerous) conjunctions, which either can transmit quite a precise meaning which makes things easy. By contrast, things complicate by the existence of several utility ("polyvalent") subordinating conjuctions widely used in the CL and later which gave birth to long lists of different types of subordinate clauses named without clear relation to their precise function (a member of the sentence they actually represent/replace). Such usage of the utility conjunctions (first of all ut and cum/quum) leads to ambiguities which we would like to avoid. However, they are widely spread and in many cases traditionally stipulated, so, in a sense, cannot be escaped. Further complications are due to interference of the alternate usage of indicative and conjunctive in the subordinate clauses, the conjunctions introduce, subject to rules (which at a first glance) look out as complete mess. Nevertheless, some systematic can be tentatively induced, which probably makes the entire picture more sensible for a (natural) Science student/writer and may help to direct us in a search for a style appropriate for the scientific writing.

Let us start with relatively simple things.

All sentence members: Indirect question.

These are subordinate clauses introduced by the interrogative words (pronouns substantive and adjective, adverbs). As formulated by Cicero in his pro Milone the questions to be answered in a lawsuite are

Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando, cui bono

In a first approximation it may be enough, but for the sake of completeness, it must be extended [Sob. §836]. A Table in the Recipes Part amply lists them. respectively, take the functions of that member of sentence which answers the corresponding question are known in normative grammars as indirect question. In the sentence "He asked what I was doing" the clause 'what I was doing' is really the object of the verb 'asked'. In the sentence "What he is doing is uncertain" the clause 'what he is doing' is really the subject of 'is'. When a direct question becomes thus the subject or object of a verb we call it an Indirect Question [NH 23, Rule 16; HCP 134; CEB 25]. This all is to say that an Indirect Question may be not a question at all rather a subordinate clause formally introduced by an interrogative word: pronoun or adverb like those listed in Section sec:QUESTION.

In the CL the predicate of the indirect question always stands in Conjunctive and their temporal relations are expressed according to Consecutio Temporum (all six forms are possible - see below). In the preclassical epoch (O! ancient freedoms!) it was, however, allowed to use Indicativus in the indirect questions [Tar 43]. Similarly, in the postclassical epoch the indicative reappears in all places where in the CL only Conjunctive was admitted. It is a good question, how to treat such phenomena. Our hypothesis is that in all cases, when some language phenomenon took place before the CL and after it, it means that it had not ever disappeared from the language as such. The learned gentlemen could speak (and write) as they wanted: en grassent ou en nez - our intension is to use available richness for our goals.

Following [Alb.II, p. 377] the Conjunctive in subordinate clauses of the indirect question type (in CL) retains only its marking function, not transmitting any specific meaning of the Virtual World, which it fundamentally has [Tar.]. Thus, the explanation given in [Alb.II, p. 377] to the fact that in the phrase Dic, quot hora sit? derived from simple Quot hora est? the Conjunctive serves to express the bytaste that I am asking not "what time is it now?", rather something like "what do you think, what time could it be?" which is by no means implied. Look, in the Roman's times it could look out so that if I ask you "what time is it", you had to gaze in the skies trying to figure out where the Sun or Orio happen to appear and then your answer would be "vigilia tertia sit/debe(a)t esse" - truly your opinion is a responce. Since the second half of XX century - not any more. If I, by chance, left at home my handy (or lost my watches - which since that epoch everyone used to have) and ask you in the forest (far from turret clock) "what time is it?" you simply tear out yours and express not your opinion rather the plain fact! There is no place for Conjunctive except marking whatsoever, but there is nothing to be marked... Thus the humble suggestion is to follow the common sense [Alb. II p. 376] and the factual state of things while deciding the question which mood is to be used in the subordinate clause of the indirect question type. If the answer to the question, which is transmitted by the subordinate clause, is a fact - use Indicativus: it is not a great defect if a scientific text looks out a little bit archaic; if it is an opinion or in whatever other sence belongs to the Virtual World, use Conjunctive, but in this case it is advisable to add an extra indication on the "virtual" character of the statement transmitted by the subordinate clause (in the scientific writing e.g. a reference).

Fundamentally, having only the subordinates of the indirect question type solves most of the problems, since they allow to answer whatever question and thus be whatever member of the sentence. Stylistically, we suggest to try first more formal ways of extending the elementary members of a sentence by using infinite verbal constructs: participle, gerundive, gerundium and infinitive constructs, and only if they turn to be too long/heavy/overloaded by details to switch to the indirect questions or other types of subordinate clauses.

Complement: Relative clauses.

These, as follows from the title, are the clauses which take part of the complement in the sentence that is serve to specify and characterize Subject or Object (or any other Noun) of the main clause. They are introduced by the relative pronouns qui, quae, quod - which [NH 26, HCP 143, 174, 175 (a)] - and because of this are called sententia relātīva - the name making accent on the formality rather on the function. The predicate in the relative clause in CL normally stands in Indicative. It, however, may also stand in Conjunctive, if additional meaning of cause, consequence, purpose, condition, or concession is present. Latin textbooks writers consider it to be a good taste to recollect here legatos, qui pacem petĕrent. From the point of view of Roman Worlds all these meanings refer to the Virtual World (excepot cause - see below). Thus, in fact the Moods in the relative clauses are used according to their meaning: what is real is in Indicative, what is virtual - in Conjunctive. Going a little bit further we notice that the relative pronouns qui, quae, quod equally serve as interrogative ones so that the subordinate clasus introduced by them can be considered as a special class of indirect question - one answering the respective question in the Table given in Recipes Section. Since, as we know now, either Mood can appear in the indirect question according to their sense, a harsh contradiction between relative clauses requiring Indicative and the indirect questions requiring the Conjunctive actually disappears. The only complication is that when it comes to relative clause with Conjunctive the tenses are used according to the same rules as in the subordinates with the same meaning, but with polyvalent conjunctions.

The conjunctions/pronouns (quī - Masc., quae - Fem., quod - Neut.) agree with the Subjects/Objects of the main clause in Genus, Numerus and Casus they specify. On the other hand these pronouns serve as Subject/Object of the subordinate clause. This is an obvious method to circumvene the deficiencies of Table [tab:Latin-participles] since the predicate of the relative subordinate clause may have whatever required tense/voice which closes gaps of e.g. missing present passive or past active (participles).

Physicus Galileo depinxit navem volantem, quam āla rŏtans	impellit		ind. praes.	a rotating wing indeed moved1/moves the ship at the moment when the drawing is made
	impellet		ind. fut. I	a rotating wing will be moving the ship when adequate construction materials will be for sure found (proposal)
	impellat		conj. praes.	a rotating wing could be moving the ship (idea)
	impellĕre	dēbet	ind. praes.	looks like that this wing had to really move the ship (as depicted)
		dēbēbit	fut. ind.	shall be able
		dēbĕat	conj. praes.	should be able
		potest	ind. praes.	was able (as depicted)
		potĕrit	fut. ind.	will be able
		possit	conj. praes.	would be able
1 in fact "moved" since the verb in the main (principal) clause is in Perfect and that in the subordinate one in the present: thus contemporary with the action of the main clause (which lays in the past). In order to make the statement "abosolute" one needs to say "dēpingit" in the main clause; then the entire statement turns in a description of a manusrcipt we are looking at right now.

In the above examples [ā-Seneca-philosophō] the subordinate clauses introduced by relatives Nom. quae and Acc. quam characterize, respectively, (formal) Subject and Object insula and insulam. More expression options is provided by the MODUS of the verb in the relative subordinate clause. Using Indicativus in the relative clauses means that the properties of the island are considered by the speaker/writer as real ones. Apparently, if the verb of the principal clause is one of knowledge or something similar then the subordinate ... [Tar. §§76-80].

Adjunct & Circumstances

The adverbial meanings are very numerous even more than Ablative usages since they apparently extend to the meanings not covered by Ablativus, but also touch the realm of Dativus (see below). As it is explained above, in many cases, the adverbial/circumstantial meaning can be expressed by indirect question (see the ample list of adverbial interrogative words which witnesses for that). In addition to them there is a lot of conjunctions either specific or polyvalent introducing the subordinates with the adverbial meaning. Among them spatial ones seem to be the simplest whereas temporal and all other are pretty much involved.

Circumstances of space & place

According to [Tar. §55] in Latin only one conjunction expresses the spatial relation, that is ubi - where: ibi victoria ubi concordia (in the original §55 there is most probably a misprint: ut). It is not 100% true, since unde - from where, also has spatial meaning. In either case it goes about corresponding indirect question of which it had been already said enough.

Circumstances of time

Temporal clauses can in variance with rather meagre selection of spatial conjunctions be introduced by numerous conjunctions reflecting the variety and multiplicity of temporal relations between events. The respective subordinate clauses take the Indicative either exclusively, or when (very logically) it goes about real events in the past, but may take Conjunctive if it goes about some anticipated events. Also, future events are treated thoroughly. In the CL the list of the temporary conjunctions with definite lexical meaning is quite extensive [Pod. 116; Alb. 199, 204, 207]:

			time relative to main clause	time relative to the moment of speech
				-	0	+
postquam (posteāquam)	after	ind.	-	Postquam manducavit, ossa aspiciens, secum exclamavit. Postquam a magistro Marcellus interrogatus est, se erravisse intellexit. Postquam eum interrogavit, magister dixit Marcellum regulam non observavisse.		Hoc sciēs postquam tōtam fābellam legēris. Multō plūrēs ūrīnābuntur postquam in piscīnam addūxerimus aquam.
(cum,ut,ubi) primum	as soon as		-
simul (ut,atque,ac)			-
ex quō	from time as		-
ut	as, when		-
ubi/cum/quum quando	when		0	present, perfect, future, or future-perfect	imperfect or pluperfect
quotiēnscumque	whenever		0
quamdiu	so long as		0
dum	while (not)	ind. (conj.)	0+		Cave ne strepat neve inquilinos excitet dum in loco ancipiti sumus.
quoad	while (not), until		0+
donec	while not, until		0+
antequam/priusquam	before	ind. (conj.)	+	Pharmacopolae, antequam munere suo fungi possent, jusjurandum olim clare debebant.	imperfect and pluperfect	Antequam cubitum abeas, pilulas duas ex illa pyxide cum potione calida sorbe.

Some of these conjunctions require Indicaltive, but others may also admit Conjunctive. Two "polyvalent" conjunctions ut, cum/quum were widely in use in the CL also in the temporal senses similar to those expressed by other conjunctions having more precise lexical meaning. Wide usage of cum/quum in the CL gave birth to historicum (with Conjunctive) and temporale, iterativum, inversum, coincidens (with Indicative) listed in normative grammars. Knowledge of these subtleties is indispensable for adequate understanding of classical authors who in many cases did not pay much attention to be unambiguous. Our purpose is opposite: to reduce ambiguity. Apparently "cum" is a heavily overloaded word: it is at the same time a preposition and a conjunction. In the latter case it has an orthographical variant quum. Even quum as a conjunction is heavily overloaded, thus, an option would be to replace quum in the temporal functions by synonymic conjunctions: the medieval quando as a replacement for cum/quum + ind. with the meaning of when is, thus, suggested.

As one can see from the above table, some conjunctions (dum, donec, quoad) cover both contemporary as well as, consecutive events, depending on the tenses used. Also, the relative temporal positioning of actions in the main and subordinate clauses introduced by different conjunctions does not reduce to simple precendence, contemporarity or sequence; it may as well include various versions of temporal overlap or (pointwise) coincidence as expressed by combined usage of different conjunctions (and tenses). More specifically quamdiu stands exclusively for while, donec for while not, dum and quoad may stand for both while and while not. Their specific is given in the table below derived from [Bor §§479-481; Sob. §§972-977]:

	quamdiu, dum, quoad				Bibüius se oppido munitissima tamdiu tenuit, quamdiu in ргоvincia Parthi fuerunt (Cic. Fam. 12, 19, 2) Бибул находился в городе, сильно укрепленном, все время, пока в провинции были парфяне.*
main	xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx			all tences exc. Fut. II and PQP
subordinate	xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx			same tence (most frequently - recommended)
	dum
main		x		perfect	Dum haec geruntur, Caesarī nūntiātum est. (B. G. 1.46) While this was going on, a message was brought to Cæsar.
main		xxxxxxxx		imperfect	Dum haec a Caesare geruntur, Trevĕri Labiēnum adoriri parabant (Caes. B. G. 6, 7, 1) B то время как Цезарь этим занимался, треверы готовились напасть на Лабиена.
subordinate	xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx			continuous (imperf., praes.)
	donec, dum, quoad				Dōnec grātus eram tibī, Persārum viguī rēge beātior. (Hor. Od. 3.9.1) As long as I enjoyed thy favor, I flourished happier than the king of the Persians. Quoad potuit fortissimē restitit (B. G. 4.12) He resisted bravely as long as he could.
main	xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx			non continuous tenses
subordinate			xxxxxxxx	Perf. Ind., Fut. II

^*dum spiro spero; Ut aegroto, dum anĭmă est, spes esse dicitur, sic ego, quoad Pompejus in italia fuit, sperare non destiti (Cic. Att. 9, 10, 3).

As long as there is life, there is said to be hope, так и я, пока Помпей был в Италии, не переставал надеяться.

Dōnec rediitsilentium fuit. (Liv. 23.31.9)

There was silence until he returned.

Ūsque eō timuī dōnec ad rêiciendōs iūdicēs vēnimus. (Verr. 2.1.17)

I was anxious until the moment when we came to challenge the jurors.

Rōmae fuērunt quoad L. Metellus in prōvinciam profectus est. (id. 2.62)

They remained at Rome until Lucius Metellus set out for the province.

Another item possibly leading to a confusion is the usage of conjunctions antequam/priusquam meaning before. It subdivides in two pairs of usages depending on the tense (time) of the main clause (relative to the time of speech) and on the presence/absence of negation in the subordinate clause introduced by these conjunctions: In the former case the meaning of the conjunction is inverted: not before = after or simultaneously

		-	+
	antequam/priusquam		Fut. ex
	non antequam/priusquam

Another important issue is that of the tenses to be used in the main and in the subordinate clauses introduced by conjunctions of different lexical meaning implying by this different relative temporal positioning of the events in the main and subordinate. We, first of all, stress that conjunctions and tenses must we used consistently which usage is by no means pleonastic rather provides a necessary redundancy. Second, as a consequence of the general scheme of Roman Worlds, the rules to be followed in Indicative and Conjunctive are different:

Complementary pairs of Tenses to be used in Indicative temporal clauses

Main clause	realtive time of the subordinate clause
	"-"	"0"	"+"3
imperfectum1	PQP	imperfectum
perfectum
praesens2	perfectum	praesens
futurum simp.	fut. exact	futurum simp.

¹ What if the main clause is in Perfectum (historicum)?

² What if the main clause is in Perfectum (prasesenti)?

³ Not clear what is to be used here. Seems to be the place for periphrasic conjunctions with different tenses of sum. E.g. forms like abiturus erat/fuit

This simple scheme breaks when it comes to cum/quum when the usage of ind./conj. is controlled not by realitiy/virtuality rather by the tences used [HCP 153].

Cause, Purpose, Result: Causale, Finalis, Consecutivum

This group of subordinates is portrayed, say, by [Alb] as those of adjoint/adverbial meaning, which seems not to be 100% correct, e.g. for that reason that, say, purpose in principle may be expressed by Dativus which is Dativus finalis and thus represents from certain point of view an indirect Object rather than Adjoint. Condsidering the situation from the point of view of Roman Worlds we have to admit that the substantial difference between cause, purpose and result is that (real, not portrayed) causes belong to the Real World, purposes to the Virtual, whereas results may be considered dually. This explains at least partially the subsequent observations and recommendations.

Cause: Causale

sententia causala are introduced by specialized conjunctions

quoniam*	ind./conj.	quoniam supplicātiō decreta est, celebrātōte illōs dies	since a thanksgiving has been decreed, celebrate those days.1
quia	ind./conj.	credō, quia absurdum est
quod	ind./conj.	Aedui Caesari grātiās egerunt, quod se periculō liberāvisset	the Aedui thanked Caesar because he had delivered them from danger.2
cum/quum	conj.
		1The reason is that of the writer. 2The subjunctive, liberāvisset, shows that the reason is that of the Aedui, not the writer's reason. *Quoniam axis est pars lineae primae, manifesto punctum 0 cum puncto 2m iunctum erit. - Gauss

with Indicative in the subordinate clause, when the given cause is that according to the writer or speaker: and with Conjunctive, when it is regarded as that of another (irrespective to the estimate whether the cause is considered to be true or not), simply, it is not the author's opinion. Even more, it may be author's opinion, but referring to some other moment of time [Sob. §873]. Thus, in the scientific text it is recommended to accompany the Conjunctive in the clause causale by a formal reference (citation).

Ubiquitous cum/quum accompanied by the Conjunctive: quae cum ita sint, perge, since these things are so, proceed; appears also here as quum causale amply used by Romans and by those who later wanted to imitate them. Our suggestion is contrary: not to use cum/quum+conj. to describe the reason/cause since this conjunction is heavily overloaded and there are enough alternative ways to express the cause unequivocally with use of other conjuctions serving precisely this need (the same applies to quod).

Purpose and Result.

Things in science are done on purpose and scientists are praised when arrive to result. As "everyone knows" the ways to express purpose in Latin are extraordinary ample. Legatī wandering around for a couple of millenia can be easily recollected. In variance with purpose which is expressed by at least eight methods the modes for expressing result are relatively restricted [HCP,142-145, NH 3, 26]. By contrast the result has merely a couple, specifically:

• Pron. Rel. + Conj. Imp. + Acc. (who would do something) [HCP, 145.1]

• ut consecutivum: ut + Conj. Imp. + Acc.

and, which makes the things a way worse, not formally distinguisheable from purpose.

We quote [HCP 144]:

The student should notice carefully the difference between a purpose and a result clause. A result clause expresses the result or outcome of the action of a verb. Observe the difference as shown in these two examples

(Purpose.)	They shouted so that he might hear.	Tantum clāmōrem sustulērunt, ut is audire possit.	[Alb. II, 377 -379]
(Result.)	They shouted so that he heard.

Это большая проблема, так как английский не родной язык. Объясню, что хочу сказать, а, кто может, пусть поправит и объяснит. Следующие 4 фразы имеют близкое, но разное значение

результат	Они шептали так, что он услышал	точно услышал	а уж хотели они того или нет, неизвестно
	Они шептали так, что он мог услышать	может услышал, а может, нет, но шептали громко
цель	Они шептали так, чтобы он не услышал		они нарочно так шептали,
	Они шептали так, чтобы он не мог услышать		а он не смог...

Some word or phrase like so, such, in such a way, etc., is often used in the sentence before the result clause to lead up to it, and to show that such a clause is to follow.

Tantum clāmōrem sustulērunt, quem is audire possit

Apparently both the Purpose and Result in English contain “so” which, thus, does not help to distinguish one from another (in Russian it would be “так”, which is recommended for the same purpose by Russian normative grammars and also does not help). The same applies to other correlative pronouns and adverbs in the principal clause used to stress that the subordinate clause expresses the result of the fact described by the principal clause: ita, sic, ejusmodi, adeo, tantopere, talis, tantus, hic, is (in the meaning of “such”), but the same words may appear in the main clause governing a subordinate purpose (ut finale) clause. The difference is obviously represented by the difference between “might hear” and “heard” (in Russian again it will be the difference between “так, чтобы (мог) услышал(ть)” and “так, что услышал”). The example of the ambiguity in the modern scientific Latin text reads: Ligamina inter monomera hoc efficiunt, ut mutentur $A_{1},A_{2}$, etc., et in $A$ aliquot nova elementa extra matrices $A_{i}$ appareant. Apparently, it is a result clause (the bonds act so that $A_{1},A_{2},...$ change and new elements appear), but the purpose (otherwise inanimate bonds act with a purpose that new elements might appear) clause would look out the same in the CL.

The considerable ambiguity between purpose and result subordinate clauses (finalis et consecutivum) is partially lifted in the negative expression. The negative purpose clause is introduced by conjunction ne, the negative result clause is introduced by ut nōn. This method of formally distinguishing purpose and result does not seem to be sufficient (what should be done if there is no negation sense in the subordinate?). A direct solution: to keep the ways to express purpose other than subordinate clauses homonymic with the classical ways of expressing the result for the purpose only and the otherwise ambiguous subordinates exclusively for the result would be too simplistic at least for the reason that the purposes may be much more involved and sophisticated than ones expressible by a couple of words (genitive, dative, participle or supin constructions) and requiring an extensive exposition with use of a full scale subordinate clause.

We suggest to consider a tentative way out based on the idea of the Roman Worlds. The substantial difference between purpose and result (when it goes about facts and not opinions) is that purposes belong to the Virtual whereas results may belong to both (see below). Most logically the latter can be represented by Indicative in the subordinate clause. This looks out as a capital crime against good Latin, but we already have seen, that the same usage was admitted in the preclassical epoch in the indirect questions [Tar 43], and gave arguments why it is not that terrible: tempora mutantur et nos mutamur in illis.

An additional distinction coming out to surface is one between material results belonging to the Real World and logical results which are to a certain extent hypothetical. For those latter the Conjunctive in the result clause is fairly justified by its meaning. This all collects in a kind of table

Clause		World	Conjunction	Mood	Example	Explanation
cause	author's	Real	quod, quia	ind	Marcus accidit quia Gajus ille afflixĕrat
	other's		quum	conj	Quum Gajus Marcem afflixisset (vis. [Sall.]), hic accidit.
result	material		ita ut1	ind	Gajus Marcum (ita) afflixĕrat quod hic accidit
	logical	Virtual	ut	conj	Gaji ictus tantus erat quod Marcus accĭdĕret
purpose			(ita) ut/ne2	conj	Gajus Marcum (ita) afflixĕrat ut ille accĭdĕret/occumbiturus esset
1 ita ut = Greek ὥστε often followed by the indicative, perhaps following the Greek construction to represent result [Tar 41]. 2 By contrast Legatos qui pacem peterunt in fact (compare with quem is audire possit) in fact do not contain any real purpose meaning: who knows whether they really wanted peace? May be they had been sent merely to pretend to ask for pease; Ceasar was that kind of man...

Further specification of the relations between the actions in the main and subordinate clauses of cause, result, and purpose is/can be achieved/stressed by the relative time of these actions expressed by used tences. Apparently, actions in the cause and purpose clauses must precede the action of the main clause, whereas the action of the result clause is preceded by the time of the action of the main clause. [Sob. §824] notices, however, that in the result (consecutive) clauses the Action is thought to be contemporary with the causing Action (in the CL). This restricts significantly the repertory of tenses coming to surface in the result clauses with conjunctive. The observation refers to the classical prose which made it vivid, but for the scientific writing we suggest to strictily represent the sequence of events using the tools provided (consecutio temporum for the clauses with Conjunctive).

Concessivum, Adversarium, Comparativum, Proviso

Another group of subordinates with rather clear adverbial meaning are the concessive, adversive and comparative clauses.

Concession

By this technical term grammarians describe the situation when two Actions or States or Facts both take place, but one of them somehow tries to unsuccessfully hinder or prevent another (and fails). Thus, one can think that the former fact concedes to the latter. Obviously, such correlation of events frequently occurs in Nature and thus in scientific writing. Since it goes about two Actions modifying each other the adverbial semantic is quite transparent.

Thus, the situation is formalized so that the Subordinate clause expresses the conceding Action/Fact, principal clause expresses the fact that wins over the fact expressed by the Subordinate clause. The subordination of the concessive clause is introduced in English by although. Latin is richer in this respect and generally expresses this relation by numerous (as well specialised) conjunctions in coordination with mood (modus) of the verb in the subordinate clause: [HCP, 171]

		EXAMPLES: [HCP, 171]
although	Quamquam + ind.1	quamquam festinās, nōn est mora longa	although you are in haste, the delay is not long
	Quamvis + conj.	quamvis sis molestus, numquam te esse cōnfitebor malum	although you may be troublesome, I shall never confess that you are an evil
	Cum/Quum + conj.	cum primi ōrdines concidissent, tamen ācerrime reliqui resistebant	although the first ranks had fallen, still the others resisted vigorously
let	licet	Fremant omnes licet, dicam, quod sentio
even if	Etsi, etiamsi, tametsi + ind.2
	1 Ceterum haud difficile ex iisdem principiis deduci potest, non solum unam sed ad minimum m intersectiones lineae primae cum secunda dari, quamquam etiam fieri potest, ut linea prima a pluribus ramis lineae secundae in eodem puncto secetur, in quo casu functio X plures factores aequales habebit. - Gauss DEMONSTRATIO NOVA...
	2 the same construction as with si. Indicative is more common in classical language.

As a conjunction cum/quum is overloaded, so in the Concessive clauses we dare to recommend quamquam and quamvis as representatives for although to be used with Indicative and Conjunctive, respectively, and etsi, etiamsi, tametsi for even if. Additionally, licet can be used as concessive conjunction with conjunctive. Following [Tar. §§ 63 - 65] we dare to recommend usage of Quamquam + ind. for expressing a conncession to a real fact, and of Quamvis + conj. for expressing concession to some hypothetical (virtual) subjective estimate of the situation requiring the Conjunctive by the sence of the subordinate cluase expressing conseding action/fact respectively as real or virtual.

Finally, we notice that semantically near to quum concessivum stands quum adversātīvum. It always uses conjunctive.[3]

Comparativum

Comparative clause when it goes about adverbial meaning expresses that two Actions are similar so that their results or other aspects are comparable. The corresponding clauses are introduced by the conjunctions

ut(i)	Ut sementem feceris, ita metes	ut tensio sic vis
sicut(i)
quem ad modum
quō modō

The usage of moods follows that in the independent clauses, that is by sence: real actions are described by verbs in Indicative, those having whatever meaning of virtuality - Conjunctive.

Subject & Object: quod & ut objectivum & explicativum; quin

This group of subordintaes takes parts of the Subject and Objects of the main clause, that is of the sentence members regularly represented by Nouns, but not universally, rather under certain circumstances.

It goes about explicative subordinates taking part of Subject after impersonal verbs (see Impersonals) like accidit, evĕnit = it happens, in a sense that they explain whathappens. The explicative clause introduced by ut (in CL) requires Conjunctive while describing the event: Accidit ut + conj. If there is an additional characteristic/estimate/evaluation of the Action expressed by an impersonal, the explicative subordinate clause is introduced byquodand requires Indicative: Bene accidit quod + ind. These rules with a minor adjustment can be fit into the model of Roman Worlds. If one accepts that bene accidit can only apply to an event which really took place (otherwise any evaluation of this event is senseles) the usage of Indicative is logical. In this setting it looks like bene transforms the situation from the Virtual World to the Real one [Tar. §§ 62, 72]. In a more general sense we can distinguish situations described in the subordinate as a specific and then quod + ind. is used as opposed by a general/nonspecific situation when ut + conj. must be used.

Similarly, objective clauses appear after special groups of verbs known as verba studii et voluntatis, verba timendi, verba impediendi, verba sentiendi (?) and some special constructs like non dubito, quin [Bor. § 459]. Among these groups verba timendi (note: they incidentally follow rather tricky rules to express whether the speaker fears that something happens or not) must be rare in the scientific writing. As for the rest, they may be pretty widespread and the subordinate clauses which express the Object of respective studii etc and introduced by ut (ne - for negation) and require Conjunctive (sentiendi ?). The logic behind this usage of the Conjunctive may be traced back to the idea that things/events to which one may strive or wish or try to prevent are still not real and thus belong to the Virtual World. At the same time verba sentiendi may (and even semantically, do) describe a real situation which according to their meaning require quod + ind. unless someone else not the speaker/author sentit what is expressed by the subordinate, when ut + conj. must be used.

	Conj			ind
ut	finale	praes. & imperf.		temporale
	objectivum
	consecutivum
	explicativum
quum	historicum	imperf. & pluperf.		temporale
	causale	praes., imperf., perf. & pluperf.		casuale
				iterativum
	concessivum			inversum
	adversativum			coincidens
			quod	casuale
				explicativum

Consecutio Temporum/Sequence of Tenses

In our exposition of the Subordinate clauses we concentrated on the logic of using the Moods: Indicative vs Conjunctive for their Predicate. Several times we referred to the specific of expressing temporal relations between the events described in the main and subordinate clause. In case of the Subordinates with Conjunctive it follows the rule of the Sequence of Tenses terrifying the generations of students. Traditionally, for the purpose of formulating this rule the Tenses are classified as “Simple” or "Principle" and “Historical”. Then, says that if a Simple Tense (of Indicative) is used in the main clause then a Simple Tense of Conjunctive must be used in the dependent clause; by contrast, if a “Historical” tense (of Indicative) is used in the main clause then a historical Tense of Conjunctive must be used in the dependent clause. Notice that Perfect migrates from the category of “historical” tenses to that of “simple” ones when goes from Indicative to Conjunctive (or from main to subordinate clause). Traditional representation of Consecutio temporum is given in the following Table:

Consecutio temporum

Tense of Main Clause	Relative time of Conjnunctive Subordinate Clause
	"-"	"0"	"+"
Principal (Praes., Fut. I, II)	perf.	praes.	-urus sim
Historical (Imperf., Perf., PQP )	PQP	imperf.	-urus essem

The forms in -urus sim/essem are usually exlcuded from the system of the regular Latin conjunction, however, they are the only future forms available in Conjunctive thus serving as such. It is not clear whether the lexical meaning of the Part. Fut. Act. employed in this form is anyhow retained in these constructs or they merely serve as a formal tool for correct temporal positioning of the events in Conjunctive. Remarkably, the, so called, II (passive future) periphrasic conjunction is not ever used for the temporal positioning rather appears in the conditionals [Tar. §68] (and see below).

The Consecutio Temporum may be more logically represented with use of the projection of Tenses on the pure time axis as introduced above:

Tense of Main Clause			Relative time of Conjnunctive Subordinate Clause
			"-"	"0"	"+"
Historical	--	Pluperfect	PQP	imperf.	-urus essem
	-	Imperfect
	-0	Perfect
Principal	0	Present	perf.	praes.	-urus sim
	+	Future exact
	0+	Future Simp.

which can be exempified by:

				"-"	"0"	"+"
Historical	--	interrogaveram	quod	scripsisses	scriberis	scripturus esses
	-	interrogabam
	-0	interrogavi
Principal	0	interrogo		scripseris	scribas	scripturus sis
	+	interrogavero
	0+	interrogabo

as fairly suits for a conversation between a supervisor and a student. Another example:

				"-"	"0"	"+"
Historical	--	sciveram	ubi	habitavisses	habitares	habitaturus esses
	-	sciebam
	-0	scivi
Principal	0	scio		habitaveris	habites	habitaturus sis
	+	sciero
	0+	sciam

Temporal positioning in Indicative clauses

In the compound sentenses with Indicative the uses the tenses according to the sense. It is not always easy, however, to decide how to express the required sense. NH proudly declared 100 years ago “The English will generally make it quite clear which of the two Primary tenses, or which of the two Historic tenses, is required in each case.” Today Usor:Iustinus is not that sure any more: “The biggest difficulty for English speakers is when to use the perfect, and when to use the imperfect.” Although, the quotation in the strict sense refers to the usage of the Tenses in Conjunctive (see the sence of the complementary pairs in Conjunctive) the same applies to the Indicative tenses. Although, as said, these latter follow "the sense" the question is which sense is actually transmitted by what tense. The simplest is the case of the times in the main and subordinate clauses [Alb. II, 132]...

Conditionals

Conditionals represent a separate group of compound sentences expressing (somewhat tighter) correlation between the events in their (main and subordinate) parts which is at the same time somehow shifted in the Virtual World (see below). The specific of conditionals is manifested even in specific terms used by grammarians to denote the main and subordinate clauses which are in this situation dubbed as "apodosis" - main; and "protasis" - subordinate. The latter is introduced by the conjunction "si" and formulates the condition ("protasis") whereas the former describes the consequences of the latter ("apodosis"). The most frequent marker of the situation, the conjunction "si", switches the entire situation in the hypothetical register with the special rules of using Moods and Tenses. The presentation in elementary (hand/text)books portrays the things as follows:

World	Grammarians' "case"	Mood	Tense
Real	real/casus realis	ind	all	Si blattae	vĕniēbat	...1 eās	interfĭciēbam	(if/when) they did this, I did that; those were the times...
					veniunt		interficiō	if they do it, no way out
					venĕrint2		interfĭcĭam	if they (first) do it, (then) they will see
					vĕnĭent			if they are going to do (pursue) this, I will be doing that...
Virtual	potential/casus potentialis	conj	praes		veniant		interfĭcĭam
			perf		venĕrint2		interfecĕrim
	irreal/casus irrealis		imp		venirent		interfĭcĕrem
			pqp		venissent		interfecissem
				1in bibliothecam/cucinam meam 2notice the coincidence of the forms of Perf. Conj. with and Perf. (exact) Fut. Ind. except in 1. Sing.

The most remarkable with the (scholar Latin) conditionals is that the semantic of tenses used in the Virtual register (World) that is in Conjunctive is exactly that employed in the lonely standing Conjunctive sentences:

Conjunctive coplmementary pairs

		close to present or durable	past or finished
I pair	potential	praes.	perf.
II pair	irreal	imperf.	pqp

So far so good. The problems with the scholar rules as usual start when the real life begins. The phrase known to all potential (natural) science writes/students reads:

if you drink much from a bottle marked ‘poison,’ it is almost certain to disagree with you, sooner or later

Si multum bibas ex ampulla verbo "venenum" notata, serius aut citius stomacho grave est.

Apparently in Latin it is Praes. Conj. in the 'protasis' and Praes. Ind. in the 'apodosis'. We do not assume that the translator of the Carrol's famous work knew Latin worse than the author of this styleguide proposition, but the contradiction is obvious (see as well [Tar. §§68,73]). Moreover, Euler (! - himself) regularly uses expressions like

si ... pōnātur,	erit enim ...

even less I incline to think the Euler's Latin was inconsistent.

How To? Recipes

In what follows we are going to give a very brief сollection of recipes to express the elementary items required scientific discourse in Latin giving, when possible, for each piece an example borrowed from (modern) scientific texts which is not easy at all.

ACTION or STATE (PREDICATE), AGENT (SUBJECT), PATIENT (Direct OBJECT), ADDRESSEE (Indirect OBJECT).

Despite an option to be very laconic in general, one cannot be that one that much in scientific writing, since things need to be explained. Thus, a complete exposition of Actor, Action and Objects must be present. In general, it does not represent any serious difficulty for an indoeuropean speaker. Remarkable specific of scientific writing is represented by impersonal expressions serving to present to state of things objectively. Particularly characteristic are the impersonal usages of the intransitive verbs and of the predicative gerundives (see below). Fair examples which can be recommened for usage (or as medials expressed this, for imitation) are notandum/sciendum/dicendum etc est or licet, potest, possit, debet, opportet est etc.

Activum

For ACTOR use Nomen or Pronomen in Nominative: to designate the Subject; For ACTION (predicate) use forms of Verbum Activum agreeing with Subject in Person and Number; Pronomina to be used to replace Nouns where appropriate (rely upon your taste: it is you who is writing; on the other hand let it lay for a week or so, then look at it again: do you want to change it? - if so, do not hesitate, but not more that two times :) ).

For OBJECT (PATIENT or ADDRESSEE) of the ACTION use Nomen or Pronomen in Accusative (without preposition for Patient) or Dative (for Addresse).

Passivum

Put Nomen or Pronomen expressing the direct OBJECT (PATIENT) of the ACTION in Nominative (it becomes formal Subject). Put ACTOR’s Nomen or Pronomen in Ablative with Preposition ā or ab to express a personal Agent (it becomes formal CIRCUMSTANCE) or without any preposion to indicate an Instrument (cum is used in ML in this situation, but strongly not recommented, because of the huge overload of cum and of distortion of good Latin - we have to take care of it at least in some situations). For ACTION use forms of Verbum Passivum, agreeing with Formal Subject (former Object) in Person and Number. This form can and must be used to generally express Time and Mood of the ACTION.

Obviously, quasi-equivalent transition between Active and Passive is only possible for Transitive Verbs: those allowing for (capable to govern) the direct Object in Accusative.

amat victoria curam	amatur cura (ā) victoriā
mater marginem lavabat	margo a matre lăvabātur
neque copia neque inopia avaritiam mĭ­nŭ­it	avaritia neque copiā neque inopiā minuitur

For intransitive verbs the the passive forms may be built, but can be used only impersonally. - examples

A caveat for a habitual English writer: in most tenses, Latin has a one word form for the passive, notably the present: vocatur "he is called." However, in the perfect, the passive is formed "periphrasically": with a particple and a form of esse. It is very tempting, especially for English speakers, to confuse these forms. Remember, even though vocatus est looks like it means "he is called" (which would be vocatur) it actually means "he has been called." Likewise vocatus erat does not mean "he was called" (which would be vocabatur or vocatus est) but "he had been called."

Impersonals

many verbs, particularly in a scientific conext, are used impersonally: formally in 3-rd Sing/Plur, but without any expressed Subject which in general is required by a 3-rd person since in variance with 1-st and 2-nd no implied Subject pertain to the 3-rd person.

				Casus subjecti	Casus objecti
	decet		infinitive	dative
	licet
	libet
	constat		Acc. + inf.
	oportet
	liquet
	patet
	expedit			dative
	placet
	opus est				Abl.	Opus est mihi ōtiō
	necesse est
	visum est
	contingit	explicativum	ut + conj./ quod + ind.	dative
	accĭdit
	evĕnit
	est
	mos est
	lex est
	fieri (non) possit
	fit
	apparet
	constat
	praestat
	placet
	interest
	fallit
	accĕdit
	condūcit
	fugit me
	preatĕrit me
	refert

Dativus possessivus.

This is used predominantly as an extension of Addressee funciton for the stative verb esse and similar ones, which in this situation acquires a special meaning: mihi est lĭbĕr. Here lĭbĕr is obviously the Subject and Nominative, est is predicate and (stative) verbum and mihi - Dativus of ego stands to express that the book belongs to me: literally "a book is for me". Of course, the same idea may be expressed with use of habeo librum (but, notice, habeo is transitive and librum is its direct Object in Accusativus), but the relations between mihi and the substantive or nominal part of the predicate with a form of copulative esse is much more colourful.

Dativus auctoris.

literae tibi sunt scriptae

literae tibi sunt scribendae

status sum et (ergo) sto.... - here status is part. perf. pass. not of sto (which does not exist), but of sisto.

Observe carefully the way a verb is supplied by examples of its government over direct (accusative) or indirect (dative) objects in the vocabularies

Time is further specified by CIRCUMSTANCES of ACTION.

CIRCUMSTANCES of ACTION/STATE (Predicate) or specify them

As explained in the theoretical part, Latin is very much Action/Predicate/Verbum centered. Thus we start with the ways to extend/specify/modify them known in English as adjoints. The part of speach designed (developed itself) for this pupose is the Adverb. This is an invariable part of speach, thus, if you know a suitable adverb fully satisfying your needs, just use it. Right becasue of its invariability one should not place any adverb modifier too far from the modified word, otherwise the desired connectivity of the text gets lost. As, as well, explained in the theoretical part, the second commonest way to express an adjoint meaning is by an Ablative (of a Substantive). We already know that the Ablativus we know is a contraction of three antic cases which are Ablativus per se, Instrumentalis and Locativus. This is the reason why in the CL the "contemporaty" Ablativus had/could be used as such (without any preposition) to express pretty different semantic fields: mode/method/instrument - Instrumentalis; place/time - Locativus; separation/origin/association - Ablativus. For the scientific writing that abundance of semantic of a single form may lead to ambiguities. On the other hand the lexical meaning of the nouns set in Ablative predominantly fairly allows to distinguish the semantic field: it is hardly believable that hieme means an instrument and malleo time. We consider these semantic fields one by one.

TIME, PLACE, SPACE.

It may surprize a science inclined reader to realize that Romans fairly suspected about equivalence of space and time. As Cicero put it “nunc hujus scientiae splendor dēlētus est (Cic., Off. 2,5)”. Nevertheless, expressing circumstances of space and time has a lot of parallelism which is based on the idea that either a section of time or a chunk of space is the same from the point of view of the language [HCP 16; HN 6].

TIME.

Time when	Abl.	Tricesimo anno mortuus est.
		He died in 30th year.
Time within which	Abl.	Multis annis Romam non venit.
		For many years he did not go to Rome.
Time during which	Acc.	Triginta annos vixit1	looks like an Object if the verb is understood as transitive
		He lived 30 years
		1and no more: died

Sed N.B. - Undeviginti annos natus. Nineteen years old. (Acc.) Tribus ante (post) diebus. Three days before (after). (Abl. + prep.) Abhinc tres dies. Three days ago. (Nom. or Acc.?)

Vix veri simile fortasse videatur (Cic. Fam. 7, 2, 3). (praesens. conj.) Пожалуй, едва ли это покажется правдоподобным

sine diū cogitando

Thus, we come to a suggestion: to avoid using polyvalent conjunctions ut/cum/ubi in the temporal sence. For quum = when use quando (indirect question) either with ind. (was possible in preclassical and postclassical times) or conj. depending on the distinction between real and virtual.

PLACE and SPACE

As for the spatial relations Latin distinguishes four spatial relations answering respectively the questions ubi, quo, unde, qua (where, where to, where from, by which way). The answers are expressed either by Ablativus or Accusativus with suitable prepositions. Specifically

ubi	where	Abl	in1
unde	from where		e, ex, de
quo	in/to what	Acc	in1
qua	by what		per
1 and all other "spatial" prepositions

MODE, METHOD, INSTRUMENT.

• Abl. Intsr.

• Acc. Intsr. = per + Acc.

DEPENDENCE.

"incomplete" separation

a magnitudine elementorum neglectorum pendere.

a numero monomerium pendere

Other adjunct/circumstancial meanings

POSSIBILITY, CAPACITY, PERMISSION.

The problem in expressing possibility is that Latin is capable to describe formally (synthetically) numerous grades of possibility which are differently represented in vernacular languages [HCP 117-118]. When it comes to English [HCP 117] may, might, could, would, should, are not always used with the same force. When used with their full force of possibility, or power, they are expressed by corresponding Latin verbs. Thus, licet, it is permitted, gives the idea of may, might; possum, I am able, the idea of could; volō, I am willing, the idea of would. When these English auxiliaries are less forceful, that is, are not used with their full literal meaning, they are represented in Latin by the subjunctive mood.

is done relatively easily by using

possum

queo

nĕquĕo: to be unable, cannot [Gauss]

generally expressed by MODI (

NECESSITY, OBLIGATION, DEBT.

necesse est

debeo

opus est

[NH Rule 19]

Moreover, the Conjunctive of esse can be used: delenda sit.

The above mentioned colourful way of expressing the deontic semantic in Latin is the Gerundive used predicatively - the so called II periphrasic conjunction - which literally expresses something which must be done to the formal Subject (logical direct Object): Carthago delenda est. In the scientific writing one can expect and it is frequently in use and is recommended expressions like

	notandum
	sciendum	est

with the Subject (Actor) expressed by a formal indirect Object (In Dative): mihi librum legendum est.

Indirect question

Question	part of speech	Question transl.		part of speech,
				Prep., & case
				of answer
quis? quid?	pron.-nom.	who? what?		Nom. Subst.
qui? quae? quod?	pron.-adj.	which?		Pron. Dem. (Adj.)
uter?		which of two?
qualis?		which (what quality)?		Adj., Nom./Gen.
quantus?		what large?
quotus?		which (in order)?		Num., ord. (Adj.)
quotusquisque?		how little (not many)?
quot?		how many?
ubi?	adv.	where?		in + Abl.
				apud + Acc.
unde?		where from?		ex + Abl.
quo?		to where?		ad, in + Acc.
quā?		which way?		Abl.
quando?		when?	what moment	apud, circa
			what period	Abl. in + Acc.
quosque?		until what time?
quamdiu?		for how long time?
quotiens?		how frequently? how many times?
quam?		how? how much?
quantopere?		how? to what extent?
quomodo? quemanmodum? quī? ut?		how? which method?		Abl.
cur? quare? quamobrem?		why? for what purpose?
cur non? quidni? quin?		why not?

CONCESSION.

First, what is concession. By this technical term grammarians describe the situation when two actions or states or facts both take place, but one of them somehow tries to unsuccessfully hinder or prevent another (and fails). Thus one can think that the former fact concedes to the latter. Obviously, such correlation of facts frequently occurs in nature and thus in scientific writing.

The concession can be expressed by several ways.

• Two simple sentences. First expresses the fact which concedes, the second the fact to which the concession is made. The second is opened by introductory words: tamen, at, attămen, certe, nihĭlo minus [Sob. §909].

• Participle construct expressing the conceding fact with participle agreeing with the subject of the action conceded: repulsus in oppidum, tamen impetrāvit, although he had been driven back into the town, yet he gained [HCP, 87.7]. Apparently this construction is a specific case of circumstances clause such that the circumstance tries to prevent or hinder the action, but fails to do this. To transmit the concessive meaning specific lexical tools are necessary (in the above example: tamen) otherwise the participle construct itself does not inply any concession: repulsus in oppidum, impetrāvit is well possible, although strange, but who knows them... One also needs to observe a somewhat limited repertory of Latin participles. Also important that a specific word tamen with contains concession in its lexical meaning is used; otherwise it is not possible to understand the role of the side action expressed by the participle: repulsus.

• Compound sentence. Subordinate clause expresses the conceding action/fact, principal clause expresses the fact that wins over the fact expressed by the subordinate clause. The subordination of the concessive clause is introduced in English by although, are generally expressed in Latin the respective conjunctions in coordination with mood (modus) of the verb in the subordinate clause: [HCP, 171]

although	Quamquam + indicative
	Quamvis + subjunctive
	Cum/Quum + subjunctive
even if	Etsi, etiamsi, tametsi + indicative1 1the same construction as with si. Indicative is more common in classical language.

It is suggested to avoid the usage of the overloaded cum/quum as although.

EXAMPLES: [HCP, 171]

quamquam festinās, nōn est mora longa, although you are in haste, the delay is not long.

quamvis sis molestus, numquam te esse cōnfitebor malum, although you may be troublesome, I shall never confess that you are an evil.

cum primi ōrdines concidissent, tamen ācerrime reliqui resistebant, although the first ranks had fallen, still the others resisted vigorously.

Apparently "cum" is an overloaded word: it is at the same time a preposition and a conjunction. In the latter case it has an orthographical variant quum. I think quum must be used exclusively as a conjunction, whereas cum to be reserved for the preposition only. Even as a conjunction quum is overloaded, so in concessive clauses we dare to recommend quamquam and quamvis as substitutes for although to be used with indicative and conjunctive, respectively, and etsi, etiamsi, tametsi for even if.

CAUSE.

• Participle construct [HCP 87.3]. hōrum auctōritāte finitimi adducti retinent, since their neighbors were influenced by their authority, they retained. However, it is simply an interpretation: there is no trace of since in the participle construct; it is equally (and closer to the original): neighbors, influenced by their authority, retained, of course, kind of casulaity (had not they been influenced, who knows what would happen), but it is not explicit, rather implicit...

• In a compound sentence the main clause contains an indication that its statement depends on some cause can be expressed by introductory words: propterea, ideo, idcirco, ob eam causam [Sob. §872]. A clause that denotes cause itself may be expressed as follows:

– introduced by conjunctions quod, quia, quoniam, with the

∗ indicative in the subordinate clause, when the reason is that of the writer or speaker: credō, quia absurdum est.

∗ subjunctive, when the reason is regarded as that of another (irrespective to the estimate whether the cause is considered to be true or not), simply, that it is not the author's opinion, even more it may be author's opinion, but referring to some other moment of time [Sob. §873]. Thus subjunctive is recommended in case when a formal reference (citation) is given. Aedui Caesari grātiās egerunt, quod se periculō liberāvisset, the Aedui thanked Caesar because he had delivered them from danger. (The subjunctive, liberāvisset, shows that the reason is that of the Aedui, not the writer's reason). quoniam supplicātiō decreta est, celebrātōte illōs dies, since a thanksgiving has been decreed, celebrate those days. (The reason is that of the writer.)

– By cum and the subjunctive: quae cum ita sint, perge, since these things are so, proceed.

∗ cum as a conjunction is replaced by quum which is advisable to diminish ambiguity (distinguish from preposition).

– By a relative pronomen and the subjunctive. ō fortūnāte adulescens, qui tuae virtūtis Homerum praecōnem inveneris, O fortunate youth, since you have found a Homer as the herald of your valor.

PURPOSE.

Expressing purpose is an important part of scientific writing. The methods used in Latin are numerous [HCP, 141-143]. Examples (legatos) migrating from one Latin manual to another for 2000 years:

Legāti missi sunt	1	pacis petendae causā	Gerundive construct
	1'	pacem petendi causā	Gerundium Gen. + Acc.
	2	ad pacem petendam	Gerundive construct	calculos quos fecimus ad fascias determinandas
	2'	ad pacem petendum	Gerundium Acc. + Acc.
		petitioni pacis (?)	Dative of purpose or end [HCP, 37] [Nova Methdus.lyx||SBDR:Reductioni-ad-diagonalem]
	3	pacem petituri	Part. Fut. + Acc.
	4	pacem petītum	Supin I + Acc.
	5	qui pacem peterent	pron. rel. + Acc. + Conj. Imp. (who would do something) [HCP, 143.1]
	6	ut pacem peterent	ut + Acc. + Conj. Imp. [HCP, 143.2] [Nova Methdus.lyx||SBDR:ut-possimus], [Nova Methdus.lyx||SBDR:Ut-eam-solvamus] or ne + Conj. if the purpose is “negative”

All the mentioned methods are correct, and are portarayed to be synonimic. Nevertheless, although they all express purpose, they are not 100% equivalent. E.g., method 3 presents the situation as a future quality of ambassadors, method 4 stresses that asking for peace is the purpose of travel (motion), method 5 represents the purpose as a characteristc of the the ambassadors referred to by the relative pronoun - Subject of the subordinate clause, method 6

RESULT: CONSECUTIVA.

Gajus Marcum ita afflixĕrat quod ille cecidit
Gajus Marcum ita afflixĕrat quod ipse cecidit

CONDITIONALS.

Conditional expressions are considered to be rather complicated, although they are not. It is in a way even simpler in scientific writing. In general classification the conditional cluases refer to the

si
real	virtual
	conjunctive
	potential	irreal
indicative	praesens or perfectum	imperfectum conj.— в основном для непредельных глаголов; plusquamperfectum conj.— для предельных глаголов

[Tar. §73]

Complement meanings

COMPARE [NH 7, ], MEASURE [NH 7, ] things

Estne radium gravior stannō? Ego, me excuso/ignoscĭte, eum non libravi. However, more frequent is quam: Estne radium gravior quam stannum? Carnis estne melior pane/quam panis/panem?

сравнивать, сопоставлять, сличать (aliquid inter se, aliquid cum aliqua re, реже aliquid rei alicui) necesse est sibi nimium tribuat, qui se nemini comparāt O — кто ни с кем себя не сравнивает, тот, естественно, мнит о себе слишком много aliquem ad aliquem comparo

Deus me salvētur aliquem alicui comparare

твердые тела различаются степенью твердости corpora solida soliditatis gradu differunt;

+ различаться между собой количественно, но не качественно inter se magnitudine, non genere differre;

Relative/Determinative subordinate clauses

These clauses are introduced by relative pronoun(s) - which - который - (quī - Masc., quae - Fem., quod - Neut.). These pronouns formally stand in apposition with the Subjects/Objects they specify that is agree with them in Genus and Numerus. On the other hand these pronouns serve as Subject/Object of the subordinate clause. This is an obvious method to circumvene the deficiencies of Table [tab:Latin-participles] since the predicate of the relative subordinate clause may have whatever tense which closes gaps of e.g. present passive or past active (participles). In the above examples [ā-Seneca-philosophō] the subordinate clauses introduced by relatives Nom. quae and Acc. quam characterize, respectively, (formal) Subject and Object insula and insulam. Already here we say that using Indicativus in the above subordinate clauses means that the properties of the island are considered by the speaker as real ones.

QUESTION

Other possible synonims to explain the same story are collected in the table below

Gajus Marcum ita	afflictavĕrat;	quod		cecidit (ad terram);
	afflixĕrat (fusti caput);			accidit (ad terram; terrae);
	inflixĕrat			decidit;
	verberavĕrat (costas ense);		ille	incidit;
	tutudĕrat;			concidit;
	obtudĕrat;			excidit;
	percussĕrat;			occidit;
	incussĕrat;			occumbuit;
	collisĕrat;		ipse	succumbuit (victima ferro succumbens);
	planxĕrat;			delabi;
	pulsavĕrat;			illapsus est;
	offendĕrat;			ruit;
	cecidĕrat;			corruit;

Prepositions

cum Accusativo

	place	time	figurative
ad	to		to/for	ad bonam descriptionem et ad claram interpretationem	Ad denotat motum ad locum. Apud. factum in loro. Ad denotat motum ad locum. Apud, factum in loco. Fl. Sosip. Ad est nota termini, quo quid tendit; Apud vero est proximitatis nota. Et hoc, post verba motus non adhibetur; ittud, verba motus vel antecedit, vel subsequitur, ut: Ad te eo. Transeo ad forum. Lucil. Sat. x: Intro nos vocat ad sese , tenet intus apud se. Interdum tamen ad sumitur pro apud. Liv. x. 35: Minus cladis caeterum non plus animorum ad hostes erat. Virg. Aen. I. 24. Prima quod ad Troiam pro caris gesserat Argis. Contra Apud pro Ad. Modestinus Pandect. 2. l. 27. D. de Statu Lib. Cum apud eum, cui dare iussus est dominium quoque servi, pervenit. Venuleius de Officio Proconsulis, 6. l. 11. D. de Officio Proc. Reiicere legatus ajmd proconsulem debet. Ad, aut proprie personam significat,ut: eo adPompeium; aut locum, ut: abiit ad theatrum. At, differentiam rerum significat, ut cum dicimus: Scipio est bellator, at Marcus Cato orator. Fest. R.
adversum	towards				Adversión semper praepositio est, ut: Adversum te habeo gratianu Adversus interdum participium, ab Adverto. Donat Adversvs refertur ad personam tantum. Contra ad locum et personam, ut volunt Grammatici; cum tamen Adversus etiam ad locum referatur. Ter. Phorm. I. 2. 38 sq. ... ,ex adversum ei toco Tonstrina (h. e. apta sedes otiosis et nugivendis) erat quaedam. . . . Cic. Divin. I. 45: Ara Aio loquenti adversus eum locum consecrata est. Sed cum ad personam referuntur, hoc differunt; quod adversus levius est, quam contra. Nam contra inimicitias, dissidia et nocendi voluntatem ostendit: Adversus etiam cum bona voluntate est, et erga significat. Cato de Consulatu suo: Otnnia plena hostium, copiae magnae contra me sedebant. Ter. Andr. I. 1 . 15. Id gratum fuisse adversum te habeo gratiam. Cic. Nat. Deor. il. 2; Pietas adversus Deos.32 Adversum semper praepositio est, ut: Adversum te habeo gratiam. Adversus interdum participium , ab Adverto. Donat. ad. Ter. Adversvs ostendit frontem , aversus tergum. Adversum te, adversarius est; adversus te, imitator est. R.
adversus	against				Adversvs ostendit frontem , aversus tergum. Adversum te, adversarius est; adversus te , imitator est.
ante	in front of	before		ex ante dictis (?) clare apparet	Ante, Coram, Prae.Pro ila differunt. Anle respicit tempus, locum, personam et praestantiam; coram praesentiam alicuius; prae 1.° interdum quod ante, 2.° comparate ponitur, 3.° causaliter; pro 1.°commodum et utilitatem respicit, et sic ei opponitur contra , 2.° interdum normam, modum ac rationem, 3.° saepe etiam idem est, quod in, 4.P interdum notat ante, 5.° interdum negotium compensationis innuit, 6.° idem est, quod propter, 7.° idem quod vice, loco, 8.° comparationibus eleganter admodum inservit.
apud	at, near			apud temperaturam criticam	Apvd praepositio ad personam, vel locum immo et tempus simpliciterrefertur, etnudam detentionemet quasi custodiam denotat. Penes personam cum possessione, administratione, dominio ac potestate significat. Itaque penes dominum res est, quam omnirio possidet. Penes te amplius est, quamapitd te. Significat enim quasi intus vel intime apud aliquem esse. Nam apud te est, quod qualiter a te tenetur. Penes te est, quod quodammodo possidetur. Iavolenus Epist, xxnl. 9. D. de Usurp. : Quemadmodum eas solas et separatas ab aedificio non possedisti ; sic nec penes te singulae, aut separatae fuerunt. Sed hanc differentiam plerumque confundi apud iurisconsultos et alios auctores animadvertimus. Ulp. ad Edictum 68. Lib. 10. de Tab. Exh. Si quis forte confiteatur, penes se esse testamentum, iubendus est exhibere. Rhet. ad Herenn. iv. 1 0 : lta petulans es atque vafer , ut ne ad solarium quidem, idoneus,sed penes scenam etineiusmodi locisexercitatussis.
circā, circum	around				Circiter (1) ad numerum refertur, circum ad locum, ideoque describitur, quod sil nota situs rei, rem aliam undique ambientis. Circa ad tempus, quod est. Ergo dicimus, circumiisse muros, non circuisse.
circiter		about	about		Circiter (1 ) ad numerum refertur , circum ad locum, ideoque describitur, quod sit nota situs rei, rem aliam undique ambientis. Circa ad tempus, quod est. Ergo dicimus, circumiisse muros, non circuisse. Fl. Clarus. (1) Circiter non sotum ad numerum, sed etiam ad locum atque tempus commode referri posse, grammatici nonnntti exemptis demonstrarunt.
cis, citrā	this side
contrā	against		against		Contra, particula antitheseos est; rursus, et iterum iterationis; vicissim ἀνασροφὴς, reciprocationis seu conversionis vel alternationis. Interim haud negandum, Ciceronem, et alios probae notae scriptores , alicubi dicere rursus pro contra. Rursus etiam poni video pro vicissim apud Iul. Caes. B. G. vii. 47. Contra etiam nonnumquam pro vicissim poni videtur, sed ita, ut fere simul contrarietatem significet Gocl. obs. 36. sc.
ergā			towards		Erga ad affectum refertur, ut: Erga illum sum benignus. In ad simultatem. Hoc plerumque in malam; illud autem in bonam partem sumitur, ut: In illum sum saevus. Fl. Sosip. Adversus et adversum plerumque in malam partem, interdum in bonam, contra semper in malam partem.
extrā	outside			Net § 164.4	Extranevs dicitur, qui est ex aliena terra, quasi exterraneus. Exterraneus quoque dicitur, qui ante tempus natus, vel potius eiectus est; dictus autemexierraneus,quod eum mater exterrita, alvo eiecit. Fest. R. Extrarius, qui extra eamdem aream ; sive est alienus, qui extra focum, ius et sacra familiae est. Ter. Phorm. iv. 1. 13: Nam hanc conditionem si cui tulero extrario. Afranius in suspecta (p. 58.) : Ut me esse in hac re ducat abs te extrarium. Lucr. iv. 278 : Post extraria lux oculos perterget. Sed haec differentia, etsi Festumauctorem habet, mihitamen nonprobatur , videnturque haec duo eadem esse, neque plus differre, quam proletarius et proletaneus , praesentarius et praesentaneus, vicarius et vicaneus, quae veteres propter affinitatem litterarum indifferenter protulerunt. Conf.Gifanii observationesin LL. p. 91. Hinc iidem appellantur extrarii et extranei haeredes , quicumque scilicet testatoris iuri subiecti non sunt, vel generaliter, qui nullo cognationis vinculo testatori iunguntur. Svetonius in Claudio iv: Ne haeredem quidem nisi intertertios ac poene extraneos , e parte sexta nuncuparit. Iavolenus D. de Oper. Epistol. vnl. 3: Libertus qui solvendo non erat, praeterito patrono extrarios reliquit haeredes. Papinianus Responsor. D. de Leg. xl. 9. 78. Quod haeredem extrarium sine liberis decedens habuit. Externus est exterae gentis; Alienus non loco , sed re differt ; Extraneus, qui extra eamdem ianuam est. Corn. Fronto.
īnfrā	below				Infra ad dignitatem et locum : Intra vero ad numerum et spatium refertur.
inter	between, among
intrā	inside			Net § 164.4	Intro significatad locum, ut eointro: Intus in loco, ideoque intus est. Notat situs in occluso, et denotat quoque motum ex occluso, ut, sum intus. Quam differentiam Lucilius quoque referthis verbis: Nam veluti intro aliud longe esse, atque intus, videmus; Sic et apud te longe aliud est, neque idem valet ad te. Intro nos vocat ad sese, tenet intus apud se.Plaut. Aulul. I.2. 3:Redi nunc iamtwiro, atquewtusserva. Id. Capt. I. 2. 89: lbo intro, atque intus subducam ratiun-ulam.
jūxtā	near
ob			on account of
penes	in the power of				Penes personam cum possessione, administratione, dominio ac potestate significat. Itaque penes dominum res est, quam omnino possidet. Penes te amplius est, quam apud te. Significat enim quasi intus vel intime apud aliquem esse. Nam apud te est, quod qualiter a te tenetur. Penes te est, quod quodammodo possidetur.
per			through, by	per extrapolationem deducere velimus per linearem combinationem atomicorum orbitalium (LCAO)
pōne	behind
post		after
praeter	beyond
prope	near
propter			because of
secundum		next to	following	secundum varias methodos tractati
suprā	above
trāns	across
ultrā	on the further side
versus	towards

cum Ablativo

ā, ăb, abs	away from, on, by1	a temperaturā pendet	A vel ab, et de ita differunt, ut A notet causam efficientem, cuius vi res est , vel id , unde quid venit , ut Cic. Acad. iv. 33 : Mare quia nunc a sole collucet, albescit et vibrat. De vero materiam, de qua agitur, vel motum ab una re ad aliam. Cic. Divin. il. 2: Liber de contemnenda morte.
absque	without, but for
cōram	in presence of, before, in front of
cum	with	interactio monomeris cum monomere
dē	about/of, from	de Magnete
ē, ex	out of, from
prae	in comparison with
prō	for, in front of
sine	without
tenus	up to, as far as

¹For Ablativus Auctoris in Passive

Order of words

594. IMPORTANT RULES OF SYNTAX

1. A noun used to describe another, and denoting the same person or thing, agrees with it in Case (§ 282).
2. Adjectives, Adjective Pronouns, and Participles agree with their nouns in Gender, Number, and Case (§ 286).
3. Superlatives (more rarely Comparatives) denoting order and succession—also medius, (cēterus), reliquus —usually designate not what object, but what part of it, is meant (§ 293).
4. The Personal Pronouns have two forms for the Genitive plural, that in -um being used partitively, and that in -ī oftenest objectively (§ 295.b).
5. The Reflexive Pronoun (sē), and usually the corresponding possessive (suus), are used in the predicate to refer to the subject of the sentence or clause (§ 299).
6. To express Possession and similar ideas the Possessive Pronouns must be used, not the Genitive of the personal or reflexive pronouns (§ 302.a).
7. A Possessive Pronoun or an Adjective implying possession may take an appositive in the Genitive case agreeing in gender, number, and case with an implied noun or pronoun (§ 302.e).
8. A Relative Pronoun agrees with its Antecedent in Gender and Number, but its Case depends on its construction in the clause in which it stands (§ 305).
9. A Finite Verb agrees with its Subject in Number and Person (§ 316).
10. Adverbs are used to modify Verbs, Adjectives, and other Adverbs (§ 321).
11. A Question of simple fact, requiring the answer yes or no, is formed by adding the enclicic -ne to the emphatic word (§ 332).
12. When the enclitic -neis added to a negative word, as in nōnne, an affirmative answer is expected. The particle numsuggests a negative (§ 332.b).
13. The Subject of a finite verb is in the Nominative (§ 339).
14. The Vocative is the case of direct address (§ 340).
15. A noun used to limit or define another, and not meaning the same person or thing, is put in the Genitive (§ 342).
16. The Possessive Genitive denotes the person or thing to which an object, quality, feeling, or action belongs (§ 343).
17. The Genitive may denote the Substance or Material of which a thing consists (§ 344).
18. The genitive is used to denote Quality, but only when the quality is modified by an adjective (§ 345).
19. Words denoting a part are followed by the Genitive of the whole to which the part belongs (Partitive Genitive, § 346).
20. Nouns of action, agency, and feeling govern the Genitive of the object (Objective Genitive, § 348).
21. Adjectives denoting desire, knowledge, memory, fulness, power, sharing, guilt, and their opposites; participles in -nswhen used as adjectives; and verbals in -āx, govern the Genitive (§ 349.a-c).
22. Verbs of remembering and forgetting take either the Accusative or the Genitive of the object (§ 350).
23. Verbs of reminding take with the Accusative of the person a Genitive of the thing (§ 351).
24. Verbs of accusing, condemning, and acquitting take the Genitive of the charge or penalty (§ 352).
25. The Dative is used of the object indirectly affected by an action (Indirect Object, § 361).
26. Many verbs signifying to favor, help, please, trust, and their contraries; also, to believe, persuade, command, obey, serve, resist, envy, threaten, pardon, and spare, take the Dative (§ 367).
27. Many verbs compounded with ad, ante, con, in, inter, ob, post, prae, prō, sub, super, and some with circum, admit the Dative of the indirect object (§ 370).
28. The Dative is used with esse and similar words to denote Possession (§ 373).
29. The Dative of the Agent is used with the Gerundive, to denote the person on whom the necessity rests (§ 374).
30. The Dative often depends, not on any particular word, but on the general meaning of the sentence (Dative of Reference, § 376).
31. Many verbs of taking away and the like take the Dative (especially of a person) instead of the Ablative of Separation (§ 381).
32. The Dative is used to denote the Purpose or End, often with another Dative of the person or thing affected (§ 382).
33. The Dative is used with adjectives (and a few adverbs) of fitness, nearness, likeness, service, inclination, and their opposites (§ 384).
34. The Direct Object of a transitive verb is put in the Accusative (§ 387).
35. An intransitive verb often takes the Accusative of a noun of kindred meaning, usually modified by an adjective or in some other manner (Cognate Accusative, § 390).
36. Verbs of naming, choosing, appointing, making, esteeming, showing, and the like, may take a Predicate Accusative along with the direct object (§ 393).
37. Transitive verbs compounded with prepositions sometimes take (in addition to the direct object) a Secondary Object, originally governed by the preposition (§ 394).
38. Some verbs of asking and teaching may take two Accusatives, one of the Person, and the other of the Thing (§ 396).
39. The subject of an Infinitive is in the Accusative (§ 397.e).
40. Duration of Time and Extent of Space are expressed by the Accusative (§ 424.c, § 425).
41. Words signifying separation or privation are followed by the Ablative (Ablative of Separation, § 400).
42. The Ablative, usually with a preposition, is used to denote the source from which anything is derived or the material of which it consists (§ 403).
43. The Ablative, with or without a preposition, is used to express cause (§ 404).
44. The Voluntary Agent after a passive verb is expressed by the Ablative with ā or ab (§ 405).
45. The Comparative degree is often followed by the Ablative signifying than (§ 406).
46. The Comparative may be followed by quam, than. When quam is used, the two things compared are put in the same case (§ 407).
47. The Ablative is used to denote the means or instrument of an action (§ 409).
48. The deponents, ūtor, fruor, fungor, potior and vēscor, with several of their compounds, govern the Ablative (§ 410).
49. Opus and ūsus, signifying need, are followed by the Ablative (§ 411).
50. The manner of an action is denoted by the Ablative, usually with cum unless a limiting adjective is used with the noun (§ 412).
51. Accompaniment is denoted by the Ablative, regularly with cum (§ 413).
52. With Comparatives and words implying comparison the Ablative is used to denote the degree of difference (§ 414).
53. The quality of a thing is denoted by the Ablative with an adjective or genitive Modifier (§ 415).
54. The price of a thing is put in the Ablative (§ 416).
55. The Ablative of Specification denotes that in respect to which anything is or is done (§ 418).
56. The adjectives dīgnus and indīgnus take the Ablative (§ 418.b).
57. A noun or pronoun, with a participle in agreement, may be put in the Ablative to define the time or circumstances of an action (Ablative Absolute, § 419). An adjective, or a second noun, may take the place of the participle in the Ablative Absolute construction (§ 419.a).
58. Time when, or within which, is denoted by the Ablative; time how long by the Accusative (§ 423).
59. Relations of Place are expressed as follows:
    1. The place from which, by the Ablative with ab, dē, ex. 2. The place to which (or end of motion), by the Accusative with ad or in. 3. The place where, by the Ablative with in (Locative Ablative). (§ 423)
60. With names of towns and small islands, and with domus and rūs, the relations of place are expressed as follows:
    1. The place from which, by the Ablative without a preposition. 2. The place to which, by the Accusative without a preposition. 3. The place where, by the Locative. (§ 427)
61. The Hortatory Subjunctive is used in the present tense to express an exhortation, a command, or a concession. (§§ 439 - 440).
62. The Optative Subjunctive is used to express a wish. The Present tense denotes the wish as possible, the Imperfect as unaccomplished in present time, the Pluperfect as unaccomplished in past time (§ 441).
63. The Subjunctive is used in questions implying (1) doubt, indignation, or (2) an impossibility of the thing's being done (Deliberative Subjunctive, § 444).
64. The Potential Subjunctive is used to suggest an action as possible or conceivable (§ 446).
65. The Imperative is used in commands and entreaties (§ 448).
66. Prohibition is regularly expressed in classic prose (1) by nōlī with the Infinitive, (2) by cavē with the Present Subjunctive, (3) by nē with the Perfect Subjunctive (§ 450).
67. The Infinitive, with or without a subject accusative, may be used with est and similar verbs (1) as the Subject, (2) in Apposition with the subject, or (3) as a Predicate Nominative (§ 452).
68. Verbs which imply another action of the same subject to complete their meaning take the Infinitive without a subject accusative (Complementary Infinitive, § 456).
69. The Infinitive, with subject accusative, is used with verbs and other expressions of knowing, thinking, telling, and perceiving (Indirect Discourse, see § 459).
70. The Infinitive is often used for the Imperfect Indicative in narration, and takes a subject in the Nominative (Historical Infinitive, § 463).
71. SEQUENCE OF TENSES. In complex sentences, a primary tense in the main clause is followed by the Present or Perfect Subjunctive in the dependent clause; a secondary tense by the Imperfect or Pluperfect (§ 483).
72. Participles denote time as present, past, or future with respect to the time of the verb in their clause (§ 489).
73. The Gerund and the Gerundive are used, in the oblique cases, in many of the constructions of nouns (§§ 501 - 507).
74. The Supine in -umis used after verbs of motion to express Purpose (§ 509).
75. The Supine in -ūis used with a few adjectives and with the nouns fās, nefās, and opus, to denote Specification (§ 510).
76. Dum, modo, dummodo, and tantum ut, introducing a Proviso, take the Subjunctive (§ 528).
77. Final clauses take the Subjunctive introduced by ut (utī), negative nē (ut nē), or by a Relative Pronoun or Relative Adverb (§ 531).
78. A Relative Clause with the Subjunctive is often used to indicate a characteristic of the antecedent, especially where the antecedent is otherwise undefined (§ 535).
79. Dīgnus, indīgnus, aptus, and idōneus, take a Subjunctive clause with a relative (rarely with ut) (§ 535.f).
80. Clauses of Result take the Subjunctive introduced by ut so that (negative, ut nōn), or by a Relative Pronoun or Relative Adverb (§ 537).
81. The Causal Particles quod, quia, and quoniam take the Indicative when the reason is given on the authority of the writer or speaker; the Subjunctive when the reason is given on the authority of another (§ 540).
82. The particles postquam (posteāquam), ubi, ut (ut prīmum, ut semel), simul atque (simul ac, or simul alone) take the Indicative (usually in the Perfect or the Historical Present ) (§ 543).
83. A Temporal clause with cum (when) and some past tense of the Indicative dates or defines the time at which the action of the main verb occurred (§ 545).
84. A Temporal clause with cum and the Imperfect or Pluperfect Subjunctive describes the circumstances that accompanied or preceded the action of the main verb (§ 546).
85. Cum Causal or Concessive takes the Subjunctive (§ 549). For other concessive particles, see § 527.
86. In Indirect Discourse the main clause of a Declaratory Sentence is put in the Infinitive with Subject Accusative. All subordinate clauses take the Subjunctive (§ 580).
87. The Present, the Perfect, or the Future Infinitive is used in Indirect Discourse, according as the time indicated is present, past, or future with reference to the verb of saying etc. by which the Indirect Discourse is introduced (§ 584).
88. In Indirect Discourse a real question is generally put in the Subjunctive; a rhetorical question in the Infinitive (§ 586).
89. All Imperative forms of speech take the Subjunctive in Indirect Discourse (§ 588).
90. A Subordinate clause takes the Subjunctive when it expresses the thought of some other person than the writer or speaker (Informal Indirect Discourse, § 592).
91. A clause depending on a Subjunctive clause or an equivalent Infinitive will itself take the Subjunctive if regarded as an integral part of that clause (Attraction, § 593). For Prepositions and their cases, see §§ 220 - 221. For Conditional Sentences, see § 512 ff. (Scheme in § 514). For ways of expressing Purpose, see § 533.

Propositions

Orthography

• I would suggest to use macrons and breves wherever it is necessary to disambiguate forms. e.g. Ablativus from Nominativus (aquā vs aqua).
• We think quum must be used exclusively as a conjunction, whereas cum to be reserved for the preposition (with Ablative) only.
• If we only agree to write Abl. Sing. II with -ō and Dat. Sing. with -o this is going to open enormous possibilities of using Dat. for describing pupose/direction without preposition which in this case is going to become unambiguous at least in the written language.
• In relation to above the Hardware/Software produces need to think about "-", ""

THINGS NOT TO DO

Normally Latin grammarians of last century strictly forbid “inventing nonexistent things” and among them first of all

• Present Participle Passive.

• Adverbial Participle. sapienter - exists scribenter - not

• Passive of intransitive verbs (?)

Article

Notae

[Usor:Tchougreeff/QUOMODO sive HOW TO/Elliot's Brief Introduction To Medeval Latin Grammar with remarks]