- Forum >
- Topic: Latin >
- "You are not the father."
"You are not the father."
Translation:Tu non es pater.
36 Comments
Maury Povich is an American TV show host who deals with a lot of family drama. His show has a feature that deals with paternity testing, and his revelation "You are not the father" has become a meme.
Sum - I am
Es - you are
Est - he/she/it is
Sumus - we are
Estis - you (plural) are
Sunt - they are
Does that help? Don't be afraid to ask for clarification on grammar.
thank you, this does help as I work through the beginning stages. And this was the first or second time Tu es came up.
It's exactly where French gets it from, so any similarities you might find are not at all coincidental. Definitely use them to help you.
You cleared something up for me! I couldn't figure out why "tu no es pater" was correct for "you are not the father" and not also "tu sunt non pater" wasn't also right. The reason is "sunt" would make the translation "they are not the father".
Est is 3rd person singular. It means is. You use it with he, she, it, and singular nouns. Es is second person singular. It means you are. You use it when you are speaking to one person about himself, for example: you are talking too fast, you are my friend, etc.
Hope this helps.
The young female voice pronounces "non" to rhyme with the English word "cone", but the older male voice pronounces "non" to rhyme with English "con". Which is the preferred pronunciation?
Non es pater, Pater non es, which one is more like "you are not (a) father", and which one "you are not the father" (the father of this child, implied), yes, I know, it's about context, but there's certainly an emphasis difference.
Would other word order possible (I read it was possible, but it gives a myriad of possibilities): Non tu es pater, Non es tu pater, Non es pater tu, etc...
Which ones are weird? Apparently, it's not wrong to unlink "non" and "es": Non es pater, Non pater es.
Does someone could explain me the difference in emphasis in those cases?
The sentence would be exactly the same ("Tu non est pater"). As Latin doesn't have articles at all, only context can be used to determine.
"Non" must come right before what it negates, which in this case is the verb.
"Es" implies "tu", I wouldn't go so far as to say it means "you are". Either way, the subject pronoun is optional in Latin. It is just as correct to write "Non es pater".
"Es" is the 2nd person singular present active indicative conjugation of "esse". There is a subtle but important distinction between "it means 'you are'" and "it means 'are' but it only goes with 'tu'".
Yes, the subject pronoun was omitted more often than not because the verb conjugation implies the subject pronoun. Inclusion was generally reserved for emphasis.
Redundancy is not inherently a bad thing. I'm not saying "always be redundant", I'm just saying there's no need to treat it as though it were grammatically incorrect.
No. You need the nominative "pater". "Esse/to be" is a verb of state. It is used to compare or equate the subject with the predicate. There is no action and no direct object (accusative) to receive the non-existent action.
