Ipso ito dito
- Thread starter Maja2021
- Start date
Greetings, and welcome to the Latin Forum.
I regret to say that ipso ito dito makes no sense at all in Latin, though I suppose you might find something of the kind in a casually scribbled grafito on a wall in Pompeii.
Could you give some indication, please, of the context in which you have come across this utterance?
Σ
I regret to say that ipso ito dito makes no sense at all in Latin, though I suppose you might find something of the kind in a casually scribbled grafito on a wall in Pompeii.
Could you give some indication, please, of the context in which you have come across this utterance?
Σ
Hello, Scholiast,
well, I found it in the book titled "Max" of the German author Markus Orths. The lady enters an office, looking for her brother, who is working there, and she says that she is the sister of ... A little later, after short conversation, the man, who is working there, concludes: "So, you are the sister of ....", and she answers: "Ipso ito dito". That's why I thought it ment something like: "So I said."
Hello
Since the author is German, perhaps it can be mentioned that ''dito'' is often used in German to indicate a repetition (= idem). So it can probably mean ''as was said''. But I have no idea about the meaning of ''ipso ito'' - although ''ipso'' could be an alteration of ''ipse'' (= himself).
Since the author is German, perhaps it can be mentioned that ''dito'' is often used in German to indicate a repetition (= idem). So it can probably mean ''as was said''. But I have no idea about the meaning of ''ipso ito'' - although ''ipso'' could be an alteration of ''ipse'' (= himself).
saluete de nouo!
In a work of fiction, it is perfectly possible that the author intends to make his character speak pretentiously, but incorrectly, in pseudo-'Latin'. But I suspect that the mistake(s) is/are the author's own. Better would have been 'ita ut dixi', or 'ipsa dixi'.
And bearded: is the word not 'ditto' with double 't'?
Σ
In a work of fiction, it is perfectly possible that the author intends to make his character speak pretentiously, but incorrectly, in pseudo-'Latin'. But I suspect that the mistake(s) is/are the author's own. Better would have been 'ita ut dixi', or 'ipsa dixi'.
And bearded: is the word not 'ditto' with double 't'?
Σ
Hi Scholiast
In German texts, both spellings can be found.
dito - Wörterbuch Deutsch-Englisch - WordReference.com
Salvete omnes.
Be clement to my brazenness:
Could "ito" be the future imperative of "eo" (= go and call him)?
And "ipso ...di(c)to" does n't remind you "ipso facto" (= as already I told you)?
Be clement to my brazenness:
Could "ito" be the future imperative of "eo" (= go and call him)?
And "ipso ...di(c)to" does n't remind you "ipso facto" (= as already I told you)?
Last edited:
saluete omnes!
Sorry, aefrizzo, good try but I don't think this can work. Of course the verb eo, ire is irregular, but Latin has no conjugated 'future imperative', and were it to exist, ito would be a third person imperative ('he/she is to go/must go'). Secondly ipso dicto, as aefrizzo says, is indeed reminiscent of ipso facto, but to construe this as 'as I told you before' is stretching the sense too far.
Σ
Sorry, aefrizzo, good try but I don't think this can work. Of course the verb eo, ire is irregular, but Latin has no conjugated 'future imperative', and were it to exist, ito would be a third person imperative ('he/she is to go/must go'). Secondly ipso dicto, as aefrizzo says, is indeed reminiscent of ipso facto, but to construe this as 'as I told you before' is stretching the sense too far.
Σ
Last edited:
DIZIONARIO LATINO OLIVETTI - Latino-Italiano
Apparently, some verbs do have a future imperative (and the -to ending can indicate a 2nd person singular).
Thank you, Scholiast, for your attention as well as for that "negationist" sentence of yours. The latter seems to me hardly to swallow where loads of scouts have grown up with the motto "estote parati" (by the way, introduced from UK). Several web-accessible Latin grammars report direction and even tables (Grazie, Dario) on how to form future imperative. Let'us realize that the relevant products are not dependable unless occurring and already reported somewhere in the Latin language corpus (litterature, paleography).
In the meanwhile may I ask for your opinion on different schools of thought (Latin 309 - Imperative Mood)? On my own, I got lost.
Ciao. Angelo.
In the meanwhile may I ask for your opinion on different schools of thought (Latin 309 - Imperative Mood)? On my own, I got lost.
Ciao. Angelo.
Last edited:
saluete omnes amici conlegaeque!
A propos bearded's remarks (# 10) and aefrizzo's (# 11), I suspect this is a matter simply of terminology. After a lifetime (nearly!) of studying, and teaching, Latin, I can safely say that I have never come across the term 'future imperative' in any grammar-manual or school textbook designed for use in English-speaking educational contexts—though I am aware of some terminological differences between those published in the UK and their American counterparts (US textbooks, for instance, sometimes subsume gerundives under 'participles'). This is in contrast with ancient Greek, where regular verbs may have (at least) present- and aorist-tense imperatives, and a conjugated future imperative is at least conceivable (e.g. γράψε or ποιήσε). And in one sense any imperative, in any language, has at least a future(-ish) aspect, in that if it is used at all, it implies that the enjoined action has not yet been performed at the time of the utterance.
This makes it unclear to me what the conceptual difference is, or would be, between a 'present' imperative and a 'future' (though in classical Greek the aspectual distinction between present and aorist is to me perfectly transparent).
Thoughts anyone?
Σ
A propos bearded's remarks (# 10) and aefrizzo's (# 11), I suspect this is a matter simply of terminology. After a lifetime (nearly!) of studying, and teaching, Latin, I can safely say that I have never come across the term 'future imperative' in any grammar-manual or school textbook designed for use in English-speaking educational contexts—though I am aware of some terminological differences between those published in the UK and their American counterparts (US textbooks, for instance, sometimes subsume gerundives under 'participles'). This is in contrast with ancient Greek, where regular verbs may have (at least) present- and aorist-tense imperatives, and a conjugated future imperative is at least conceivable (e.g. γράψε or ποιήσε). And in one sense any imperative, in any language, has at least a future(-ish) aspect, in that if it is used at all, it implies that the enjoined action has not yet been performed at the time of the utterance.
This makes it unclear to me what the conceptual difference is, or would be, between a 'present' imperative and a 'future' (though in classical Greek the aspectual distinction between present and aorist is to me perfectly transparent).
Thoughts anyone?
Σ
Last edited:
Dear Scholiast,
Nobody in the forum could doubt that you are most competent, as far as the Latin language is concerned, and I hope that I did not offend you with my blunt objection/contradiction in #10.
I'm sure it's just a matter of terminology. At Italian schools we are taught that a number of Latin verbs possess the ''future imperative'' mood. For example the verb 'laudo' has a simple/present imperative 'lauda/laudate' (=praise!) and a future imperative ('laudato/laudatote') being usually translated as ''you'll have to praise''... There is even a rare form 'laudanto' for the third person plural.
L'imperativo futuro - Studente Modello
Now, since forms like 'laudato/laudatote' (or 'esto/estote' from 'sum') are certainly not unknown to you, I would be curious to know what you call them, i.e. what the definition is according to your/English terminology.
Nobody in the forum could doubt that you are most competent, as far as the Latin language is concerned, and I hope that I did not offend you with my blunt objection/contradiction in #10.
I'm sure it's just a matter of terminology. At Italian schools we are taught that a number of Latin verbs possess the ''future imperative'' mood. For example the verb 'laudo' has a simple/present imperative 'lauda/laudate' (=praise!) and a future imperative ('laudato/laudatote') being usually translated as ''you'll have to praise''... There is even a rare form 'laudanto' for the third person plural.
L'imperativo futuro - Studente Modello
Now, since forms like 'laudato/laudatote' (or 'esto/estote' from 'sum') are certainly not unknown to you, I would be curious to know what you call them, i.e. what the definition is according to your/English terminology.
Last edited:
Greetings again.
This is chiefly in (grateful) reaction to bearded's latest contribution (# 13). Of course I am not offended!
To avoid any disputes about the Kaiser's beard: apart from esto/estote (I acknowledge, incidentally, that these are not (or not exclusively) '3rd person' as I wrongly wrote in my # 9—though I am sure, without right now being able to check, that esto can also be 3rd-person, with the sense 'Be it so'), however, the forms like laudato(te) are (a) very rare in classical sources; and have (b) a somewhat legalistic and archaic flavour to them. I seem to remember this from e.g. Plautus and maybe Sallust, but from my own school-days I cannot recall being taught these or the 'rules' governing their formation and use; but were I teaching still (I am now retired), I would describe them exactly so, as 'archaic' or 'legalese'. Formal legal English likewise tends conservatively to keep 'fossilised' forms of expression that have fallen out of use in the Umgangssprache, and I suspect this applies to other modern tongues too.
Σ
This is chiefly in (grateful) reaction to bearded's latest contribution (# 13). Of course I am not offended!
To avoid any disputes about the Kaiser's beard: apart from esto/estote (I acknowledge, incidentally, that these are not (or not exclusively) '3rd person' as I wrongly wrote in my # 9—though I am sure, without right now being able to check, that esto can also be 3rd-person, with the sense 'Be it so'), however, the forms like laudato(te) are (a) very rare in classical sources; and have (b) a somewhat legalistic and archaic flavour to them. I seem to remember this from e.g. Plautus and maybe Sallust, but from my own school-days I cannot recall being taught these or the 'rules' governing their formation and use; but were I teaching still (I am now retired), I would describe them exactly so, as 'archaic' or 'legalese'. Formal legal English likewise tends conservatively to keep 'fossilised' forms of expression that have fallen out of use in the Umgangssprache, and I suspect this applies to other modern tongues too.
Σ
Last edited: