Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

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:

  1. Under the first Verb heading it says I am. This should be a POS example. It then goes on to give Noun definitions!
  2. There are more meanings given than there are translation sections; It's also not clear which meanings apply to the current translations.
  3. 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 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: 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.