interretialia: crazyqueerclassicist: artemisia-at-salamis: o-eheu: The conjugations of yolo. It had
interretialia:crazyqueerclassicist:artemisia-at-salamis:o-eheu:The conjugations of yolo. It had to be done.Wouldn’t it make more sense to conjugate it like volo?yolo, yolle, yolui, yol(u)tusNope, it would not make more sense, since volo, velle was not productive, that is, it was never taken as a model for the creation of different, unrelated verbs. The only verbs in Latin that are anything like velle are its oddly created and oddly inflected compounds, malle and nolle, and even then there are some notable differences among them. That yolle mentioned above has problems itself because it is difficult to tell whether it is based on velle, malle, or nolle, which causes trouble for us when we ask ourselves how it should be inflected: “Okay, velle has vis, nolle has non vis, malle has mavis, and this yolle has yo… we can’t tell.” Moreover, the present stem of velle flips among vol- (volo, volunt) and vel- (velle, velim) and the enigmatic vi- (vis), but the word yolo has only the yol- element, not yel- or yi-. (Incidentally, the supine stem of velle would rather be volit-; we have the future participle voliturus.) Finally, yolo is an abbreviation, and therefore is nominal, so it would be treated the usual way when nomina are turned into verbs in Latin. It turns out that denominative verbs tended to be taken into the first conjugation very often, hence yolo, yolare. In this case, yolo, yolare is not like volo, volare (“fly”) since the latter is not seen as denominative.So, the creation of the verb yolo, yolare here is more like bello, bellare (from bellum, stem bello-) than either volo, velle or volo, volare.Seriously wonderful explanation, thanks!Having had to learn volo/nolo/malo for a quiz Friday I can indeed verify that they are as weird as shit. -- source link
#latin#tagamemmnon