This page has some beautiful tables, but the definition was wrong: 'sum' means 'I am', not 'to be'. The infinitive is 'esse'. 'Futurus' is not derived from 'sum', so I moved it to Related Terms. Should probably move the tables to 'esse'. RSvK 19:03, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This article seems to be getting a little mixed up recently. It's still a good article but a little restructuring now will make it much easier to maintain. The changes that I think are needed (in no particular order) are:
- Under the first Verb heading it says I am. This should be a POS example. It then goes on to give Noun definitions!
- There are more meanings given than there are translation sections; It's also not clear which meanings apply to the current translations.
- Under the Latin heading and before the Verb subheading is some text that belongs elsewhere.
Hopefully some wiki volunteers can do all or part of the work required. (Give it a couple of weeks and I may be able to do the work myself) -- Nick1nildram 18:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Added form other person 19/2/2011 - 08:20:
That audio file for latin sum is wrong. It sounds like sOM (similar to the word lONg), and it should be sUM, like in bOOM. I know it is very hard for english speakers to pronounce latin, as much as to pronounce italian or spanish; but try to listen when somebody knows. Maybe you should restrict latin pronounciations to romantic (romanic) languages speakers. Go to forvo http://es.forvo.com/search/sum/la/ and you will listen it pronounced correctly by different people. Think of sOOM, clearly oo. I strongly recommend to take that audio file away until you can get one properly pronounced. unsigned comment by User:18.104.22.168 11:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- It sounds correct to me, I’m not hearing anything that rhymes with long. —Stephen (Talk) 07:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
- I hear [sʊm], which is certainly unassailable. If anything, you seem to be suggesting [suːm], which would be completely wrong, as the u is a short vowel; and [sum], while better, and perhaps rather the intended pronunciation, would still be unlikely, given the further development in Romance. However, I suspect that the problem is the [ʊ]: Romance languages tend to lack lax vowels (at least in stressed syllables), and (my suspicion) Romance-speakers tend to perceive [ʊ] as an o-colored vowel, even as [ɔ]. Italianate Latin (and same for Spanish Latin, etc.) presumably uses the pronunciation [sum], indeed. Your idea that Romance-speakers have a more authentic pronunciation, while understandable, is a fallacy. --Florian Blaschke 22:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The Latin verb entry appears to have an erroneous alternative form 'ere' in the second-person singular future indicative. As far as I know, 'eris' was the only form used in the classical period. I'm guessing the template meant to supplement second-person singular passive forms ending in 'ris' with 're' has caused this.