Form distinction

[Aquila]

My daughter has been working through SFL and the 3rd conjugation present system passive voice (chapters 25 and 26). She has been having a hard time distinguishing between the 2nd P. Sing of the present tense with the 2nd P. Sing of the Future tense. It is written in the notes that they are distinguished audibly and visually by the accented symbol, however this accent - in both the answer key and the grammar forms - is not always included. Should I place the accent on the future form in the book, so as to help her find the distinction? Am I missing something?

[Michael]

Re: Form distinction

My daughter has been working through SFL and the 3rd conjugation present system passive voice (chapters 25 and 26). She has been having a hard time distinguishing between the 2nd P. Sing of the present tense with the 2nd P. Sing of the Future tense. It is written in the notes that they are distinguished audibly and visually by the accented symbol, however this accent - in both the answer key and the grammar forms - is not always included. Should I place the accent on the future form in the book, so as to help her find the distinction? Am I missing something?

Good morning,

Those two forms are tricky! In the present tense, the accent is on the antepenult (second-to-last syllable). This is indicated in the Form series by an accent mark over that syllable, e.g. régeris. In the future tense, the accent is on the penult (next-to-last syllable). This is indicated in the Forms series by *no* accent mark, e.g. regeris. Thus, no accent is a completely acceptable answer in the Forms, being used for the future tense.

However, because these forms are so confusing, we have begun adding a macron to the future tense to make that form even clearer, e.g. regēris. This macron is being consistently added as we reprint. Again, the original form without any accent is not wrong. We just wanted to help students more easily distinguish the two forms.

Thus, in summary:

2nd P. Sing., Present Tense: an accent mark
2nd P. Sing., Future Tense: EITHER no accent mark OR a macron

[Aquila]

Re: Form distinction

She greatly appreciates the summary. Now that I look closer at the words, I am noticing the presence (or omission) of the accent. I don't know why, but to me, the macron seems more defined, a stronger more distinctive mark that helps to distinguish it from a similar word. The subtlety in this language is amazing.

Thank you for the quick response.

[Michael]

Re: Form distinction

I don't know why, but to me, the macron seems more defined, a stronger more distinctive mark that helps to distinguish it from a similar word.

I completely agree, which is why we're adding the macrons. There are a few places in Latin, such as this, where the macrons are helpful rather than confusing. Another example is the macron in the ablative singular of the 1st declension.

Have a great day!