Would "non volo" be still correct or if both are as correct is there a difference of intensity?
Sometimes they say that ne+volo is "nolo",
and sometimes that's rather non+volo.
I would think it's rather the latter.
But it's clear, it's a contracted form, mandatory? Or not mandatory?
Nolo (non-volo) I
Non vis singular you
Non vult he/she/it
Nolit (non velit) he/she/it
Nolim (non velim) I
Nolis (non velis) singular you
Nolumus (non volumus) we
Nolimus (non volimus) we
Non vultis plural you
Nolitis (non velitis) plural you
Nolunt (non volunt) they
Nolint (non velint) they
Imperative forms: noli (sing.)/nolite (plur.)
Good point, SuzanneNussbaum. It should be nolo. E.g., de spiritalibus autem nolo vos ignorare fratres (1 Cor. 12:1). Cicero to Atticus 7.18.3: tu tamen videbis, si erit, quod nolim, arcessendus, ne molesti simus invito. DL Latin does a lot of things well, but it's the beta version and can be corrected in the next iteration. This mistake and others, such as the use of labrum as if it was a place for washing like a modern tub /bathtub, help build vocabulary. Nolo = elision of non volo. Maybe it's deliberate: start with non volo to build toward nolo?