4
The next word is a verb, impero (1), meaning “give orders to, command.” This is one of the ten
“special verbs” featured in this chapter. It takes a dative object. How would Latin say “Let us not
command this army”? [“Let”? How does Latin say “let”? Yes, the jussive subjunctive. So what’s
the present-tense subjunctive marker for first conjugation? Who reads a diary? “She” does! And
the word for “army” will be in what case? That’s right: dative. Finally, how does hic, haec, hoc
form its dative singular? Hic, haec, hoc; huius, huius, huius, … huic! So what’s the answer?] Ne
exercitui huic imperemus!
Next is another verb, miror, mirari, miratus (sum), meaning “marvel at, admire, wonder,” a first-
conjugation deponent. Like the vast majority of deponents, miror expects an accusative direct
object. So how would Latin say “If someone should flee danger, why would I admire him?” [I
told you we’d practice sentences in this vocabulary. Do I lie? Okay, let’s take this one thing at a
time. What kind of condition uses “should … would”? FLV, which in Latin has what tense and
mood? Present subjunctive. How do you say “someone” after “if”? “After si, nisi, num and ne,
…” Yeah, “… ali- takes a holiday.” So it’ll be si … quis. And the translation?] Si quis periculum
fugiat, cur eum mirer?
And here’s another verb: noceo, nocere, nocui, nocitum, meaning “do harm to, harm, injure.” It’s
second-conjugation and another of those “special verbs” which take the dative. The last principal
part nocitum hints that this verb has a passive, which it does … but it doesn’t. No true passive.
Nocitum is necessary to see how to form nociturus, the future active participle which is used in
the future active infinitive which is seen often in indirect statement. So you need to know the
perfect passive base nocit- but you won’t actually see it as a real passive because this verb
doesn’t have a real passive. Latin can’t use noceo, or indeed any of this chapter’s “special verbs”
that take the dative, in a true passive sense. These verbs don’t have direct objects so there’s
nothing to turn into the subject in a passive context, and the one thing verbs have to have is a
subject. So no true passives with any of the “special verbs” in this chapter! How would Latin say
“No one will harm her”? [What case will “her” be? Dative. And what conjugation is noceo?
Second. How’s the future formed in second? -bi-! So, …] Nemo ei nocebit. [Or you can use illi
or huic, or isti if for some reason you don’t like her.]
Next is parco, parcere, peperci, parsurus, meaning “be lenient to, spare,” a third-conjugation
verb, yet another “special verb” that takes the dative. The last principal part parsurus is the
future active participle. It’s cited, in place of a perfect passive participle, because as we just
noted, none of these “special verbs” have true passives. Think about it! You can’t “be ‘be
lenient’-ed to”! Note the reduplication in the third principal part, peperci. By now reduplication
in the perfect active should come as no surprise to you. How would Latin say “Who spared ─ use
the perfect ─ that most wretched city”? [Remember you can’t say it exactly that way. You have
to change the English to make it conform better to the Latin. Can you say “spare” plus an
accusative direct object? No. So rephrase it the way Latin would say this.] “Who was lenient to
that most wretched city?” [So, what’s the Latin?] Quis urbi miserrimae pepercit?
The next word is another “special verb,” pareo, parere, parui, meaning “be obedient to , obey,”
second-conjugation. It takes the dative. And be careful. It looks a lot like paro, parare (1),
meaning “prepare, provide, get.” Very different verbs with very different meanings. Speaking of
which, the meaning of pareo is for some reason hard for English speakers to memorize, no doubt