Latin Passive Periphrastic & Active Periphrastic Made Easy

The term “periphrastic” scares many Latin students, but there is no need to worry. This guide demystifies the passive periphrastic and walks you through all its quirks.

We will also look at the less well-known (but nevertheless important) active periphrastic.

Both grammatical constructions involve a combination of the Latin verb sum with a future participle. In the case of the passive periphrastic, we are dealing with the future passive participle, while the active periphrastic involves the future active participle.

Logical, right? So let’s get into the details. What does periphrastic mean, and how do periphrastic forms work?

This post may contain affiliate links and I may receive a commission, at no extra cost to you, if you make a purchase through a link. See my disclosures for more details.

What does “periphrastic” mean?

First of all, let’s define “periphrastic”. The word derives from the Ancient Greek verb περιφράζω (periphrazō), which means to “speak around” or use circumlocutions.

Periphrastic is the adjective form of periphrasis. You may have heard about periphrases if you studied literature in school. Basically, a periphrasis is when you use more words than strictly necessary to express an idea.

Often this is done for artistic effect. For instance, the use of “feathered folk” in a poem evokes a different, more whimsical feel than just saying “birds”. Periphrases can also be humorous, as this example from Britannica demonstrates.

In the context of linguistics, periphrasis refers to the use of a syntactic construction to express information usually conveyed by morphology. In less jargon-y terms, you combine multiple words instead of adding a verb or noun ending.

An excellent example in English is the comparison of adjectives. “More healthy” and “most healthy” are periphrastic constructions, since they can replace the single-word “healthier” and “healthiest”.

When we talk about the passive and active periphrastic in Latin, then, all we really mean is that concepts are being expressed by multiple words. Instead of tweaking a verb ending, the Romans combined participles with forms of the verb sum to achieve specific effects.

The Passive Periphrastic in Latin

The passive periphrastic is a Latin grammatical construction used to indicate obligation, necessity, or propriety. There are two essential components: 1) a future passive participle (or gerundive) and 2) a form of the verb sum.

Here’s a quick example.

Nummī numerandī sunt. = The coins must be counted.

Sunt is the 3rd person plural of sum (present tense), while numerandī is a future passive participle / gerundive. You can recognize these participles by their distinctive –nd-.

👉 My post on participles explains how you form and decline gerundives.

👉 Make sure you don’t confuse gerundives with gerunds, though. This post explains the difference.

Together, sunt and numerandī convey the idea of necessity. Perhaps you have stacks of coins sitting around, and you absolutely must count them to see how much you have saved.

Very literally, we might translate this sentence as “the coins are worthy-to-be-counted” or “the coins are needing-to-be-counted.” The gerundive supplies the sense of obligation, necessity, etc. while the form of sum tells us in what time frame the obligation, necessity, etc. exists.

If we change sunt to erunt (future tense), then the obligation shifts to the future.

Nummī numerandī erunt. = The coins will need to be counted.

Right now, the coins can remain in unorganized heaps. But in the future – tomorrow, say – it will become necessary to count the coins.

If we change sunt to erant (imperfect tense), the obligation existed in the past.

Nummī numerandī erant. = The coins needed to be counted.

At some point in the past – maybe yesterday – all those coins should have been organized. But note that the passive periphrastic does not clarify what actually did happen. Maybe you counted all the coins and deposited them in a bank; or maybe you totally forgot and so you didn’t pay your bills.

The passive periphrastic, coupled with sum in the imperfect, just states the existence of the obligation or necessity in the past.

It is also possible for sum to be in the perfect (fuit) or even the pluperfect (fuerat).

👉 For the full conjugation of sum, check out my post on this highly irregular verb.

Now that you are familiar with the general concept, let’s look at the two different variations of the Latin passive periphrastic.

Personal Use

The personal use of the passive periphrastic refers to when there is an explicit subject. In our previous sample sentence, nummī (“coins”) is in the nominative case and thus is the subject. 

(Note: “personal” in this instance is the grammatical opposite of “impersonal”. It doesn’t mean an actual person has to be involved.)

The gender and number of the subject control the gender and number of the gerundive. Since nummī is masculine plural, numerandī must also be masculine plural.

If the subject changes, the ending on the gerundive will change in agreement.

Urbēs numerandae erunt. = The cities will need to be counted.

In this sentence, urbēs is feminine plural, so numerandae likewise has a feminine plural ending.

The subject also affects the form of sum. For instance, if the subject is singular, the verb must also be singular.

Aurum numerandum erat. = The gold needed to be counted. 

Aurum is neuter singular, so numerandum has a neuter singular ending. Erat is likewise singular.

So far we have looked at examples of the passive periphrastic with sum in the third person. The verb may be in the first or second person, instead, if the subject is I / we (1st person) or you / y’all (2nd person).

In oppidum mittenda sum. = I (f.) ought to be sent into the town.

Laudandus es. = You (m.) should be praised. 

Since the passive periphrastic is a passive form, note that the personal use can only appear with a transitive verb (that is, a verb that can take a direct object).

Impersonal Use

The impersonal use of the passive periphrastic lacks an explicit subject. In Latin, we find a gerundive in the neuter singular. In English translation, we supply a dummy subject, “it.”

Intransitive verbs frequently appear in the impersonal construction.

Veniendum est. = It must be come. 

Veniō, “come,” is an intransitive verb (it can’t take a direct object). But it can take the passive future participial form in the neuter singular to convey a general obligation or necessity.

Translating this impersonal construction into English sounds weird. “It must be come” – what does that mean?

Generally, it is better to rephrase and supply a personal subject in your English translation.

Veniendum est. = We must come / they must come / etc.

Pugnandum erit. = We will have to fight.

Dative of Agent

In the passive periphrastic construction, if you want to express the agent who must perform a given action, then you use the dative of agent.

Nummī mihi sunt numerandī. = The coins must be counted by me.

Omnibus laudandus es. = You (m.) ought to be praised by all.

Cūr epistula regīnae scrībenda erat? = Why did a letter have to be written by the queen?

Nōbīs erit pugnandum. = It will need to be fought by us / We will need to fight.

This dative of agent may seem weird to you at first, since it is much more common ab + the ablative to express the personal agent. But you will get used to it! Just be on the lookout for datives floating around near a passive periphrastic construction.

At this point, one of my students always raises their hand to ask how we distinguish between the dative of agent and, say, a dative indirect object. What if you want to say that “a gift must be given to the friend by me”?

Well, if you use the dative of agent, the result is as follows: Dōnum amīcō mihi dandum est. Amīcō is in the dative because it is the indirect object; mihi is in the dative because it is the agent.

But how do we know this? The sentence could just as easily mean “A gift must be given to me by the friend”. There is no way to distinguish between the two uses of the dative, so there is no way to know who is the giver and who is the recipient of the gift.

In such circumstances, Romans would use the ablative of agent to clarify any ambiguity.

Dōnum amīcō ā mē dandum est. = The gift must be given to the friend by me.

Dōnum ab amīcō mihi dandum est. = The gift must be given to me by the friend.

Tips for Translating the Passive Periphrastic

Before we look at more examples, I want to discuss some strategies for translating the passive periphrastic into English. Since English does not have any one single equivalent for this construction, there are many valid ways to translate it.

Let’s go back to my original sample sentence: Nummī numerandī sunt. I translated it as “The coins must be counted,” but there are many other possibilities. The point is to convey the idea of obligation or necessity.

1. The coins must be counted.
2. The coins need to be counted.
3. The coins should be counted.
4. The coins ought to be counted.
5. The coins have to be counted.

Furthermore, as I mentioned above, it is often more idiomatic to reframe the sentence in the active voice with the appropriate agent.

1. We must / need to / should count the coins.
2. You must / need to / should count the coins.
3. They must / need to / should count the coins.

Of course, this kind of loose translation requires careful assessment of the surrounding context. If the preceding sentence is, “Come help me,” then “we should count the coins” could make sense. But if the preceding sentence is “Why aren’t you doing your job?”, the implication is probably that you are supposed to count the coins.

Sometimes a dative of agent will make the scenario super clear, and you can be confident that you understand who should be doing what.

Translation is not an exact art, and the passive periphrastic is a classic example of this. 

It is also worth noting how difficult it can be to translate the passive periphrastic literally when sum is in the future or imperfect tense. This is because of the peculiarities of English modal verbs such as should and must.

Nummī numerandī erunt. 

We can’t put should, ought, and must into the future tense, which narrows our options down considerably.

1. The coins will need to be counted.
2. The coins will have to be counted.

A similar problem arises when we try to convey the idea of past obligation or necessity. 

Nummī numerandī erant.

1. The coins needed to be counted.
2. The coins had to be counted.

We can say “the coins should have been counted” or “ought to have been counted” in English, but these phrases include the implication that the coins were not, in fact, counted. “The coins must have been counted”, on the other hand, implies that the coins were counted.

The Latin implies neither: the emphasis is on the obligation or the necessity itself, not on what actually happened. For this reason, it is best to avoid “should have,” “ought to have,” and “must have” in translating the passive periphrastic.

If the form of sum is in the perfect tense (e.g. nummī numerandī fuērunt), the translation options are the same as for the imperfect. If you have sum in the pluperfect tense (e.g. nummī numerandī fuerant), then it gets even more awkward: it would be something like “the coins had needed to be counted”. Luckily the pluperfect isn’t common in this context.

To summarize: when you discover a passive periphrastic, start with a literal translation. Anything that conveys the idea of obligation or necessity is fine.

Next, if the translation sounds clunky, consider converting it from the passive into the active voice. If there is an explicit dative of agent, this is easy. If not, you will need to pay attention to the sentence’s context and supply an agent.

Generations of students have been dissuaded from using the passive voice in English, which makes the passive periphrastic especially tough to translate. Always focus on the meaning, not on the specific phrasing, and you will be in good shape.

Examples of the Passive Periphrastic

The following examples of the passive periphrastic used by ancient Roman authors will give you an idea of what to expect “in the wild”. I point out features of note and potential stumbling blocks as we go.

Example #1

ipsī erant trānscendendae vallēs maximae ac difficillimae. . . .

He himself had to cross extremely large and difficult valleys. . . .

Caesar, Civil War 1.68

In this excerpt from Caesar’s Civil War, vallēs is the subject (modified by maximae and difficillimae). The gerundive is trānscendendae (feminine nominative plural to agree with vallēs), while erant is the 3rd plural imperfect of sum. Ipsī is the dative singular of the intensive pronoun, which serves as the dative of agent.

The literal translation would be “extremely large and difficult valleys had to be crossed by him himself.” But, as I discussed above, I have switched the English to the active voice (while retaining the idea of obligation / necessity).

Example #2

Parumne multa mercātōribus sunt necessāriō perīcula subeunda fortūnae?

Is it too little, that many dangers from fortune must necessarily be undertaken by merchants?

Cicero, In Verrem 2.5.157

In Example #2, the personal subject is multa perīcula fortūnae (many dangers of fortune). Subeunda is a neuter plural nominative gerundive agreeing with perīcula; sunt is the 3rd plural present of sum; and mercātōribus is the dative of agent.

Example #3

ibi igitur cotīdiē tuās litterās exspectābō et maximē dē lūdīs; dē quibus etiam ad Brūtum tibi scrībendum est.

Therefore, I will wait for your letters there every day, and especially one about the games; about which you ought also to write to Brutus.

Cicero, Epistulae ad Atticum 15.28

Cicero’s letter to his friend Atticus contains an impersonal use of the passive periphrastic. Scrībendum is a neuter singular gerundive with no explicit subject.

Ad Brūtum tibi scrībendum est could be rendered literally as “it ought to be written by you to Brutus”, but this sounds awkward in English. That’s why I have taken the dative of agent, tibi, and made it into the active subject in my translation.

Example #4

Nōlīte exspectāre dum stantēs vōs fugiant; inferenda sunt sīgna et vādendum in hostem.

Don’t stand here and wait until they flee; you must advance the standards and go against the enemy. 

Livy, Ab Urbe Condita 7.24.6

This sentence from the Roman historian Livy has two passive periphrastics in a row, one personal (inferenda sunt sīgna) and one impersonal (vādendum). I have once again taken liberties with my translation, departing from the more literal “the standards must be advanced and it must be gone against the enemy”.

Note the shorthand in use here. Livy did not write vādendum est; instead he abbreviated the phrase to vādendum. We, as readers, have to mentally supply est to complete the periphrastic construction.

Fortunately, it is usually pretty obvious when a form of sum has been elided. Here, for instance, Livy only drops the verb to be in the second of his series of periphrastics, once the reader has already been prepared for the construction.

Example #5

Cēterum cēnseō Carthāginem dēlendam esse.

Furthermore I believe that Carthage must be destroyed.

Cato the Elder

Cato the Elder’s famous exclamation about the destruction of Carthage provides an excellent example of the passive periphrastic inside an indirect statement. Because yes – the passive periphrastic can be combined with other grammatical constructions.

The quote – which is a modification of ancient sources already – is frequently shortened to Carthāgō dēlenda est, “Carthage must be destroyed.” In this formulation, Carthāgō is the subject and dēlenda is feminine nominative singular to agree with Carthāgō.

When we put this phrase into indirect discourse, the subject shifts into the accusative case (Carthāginem), which means that dēlenda also must be accusative (dēlendam). The present tense verb, est, turns into the present infinitive, esse.

And that’s how we end up with a passive periphrastic in the accusative case.

Here’s another example of this construction, this time from Vergil. The Latins have sent an embassy to Diomedes asking for aid against the Trojans, but their request is denied.

Example #6

ecce super maestī magnā Diomēdis ab urbe / lēgātī respōnsa ferunt . . . / . . . nīl dōna neque aurum / nec magnās valuisse precēs, alia arma Latīnīs / quaerenda. . . .

Behold, moreover, the sad legates bear responses from the great city of Diomedes . . . / . . . that the gifts and gold / and great entreaties had been worth nothing, other arms must be sought by the Latins. . . .

Vergil, Aeneid 11.226-230

I have kept this translation literal to make it easier for you to follow the grammar. First of all, the phrase respōnsa ferunt (“they bear responses”) introduces an indirect statement, which means that we are dealing with the accusative and infinitive construction.

Second, Vergil has omitted the form of sum from his passive periphrastic (poetic license prevails!). A more complete version of the Latin would be alia arma Latīnīs quaerenda esse. Arma is the neuter plural accusative subject of the indirect statement; quaerenda agrees with it. Latīnīs is a dative of agent.

As you can see, things can get tricky when the passive periphrastic coincides with other grammatical structures. In addition to being an infinitive, the form of sum can be in the subjunctive mood if its context requires it.

I hope these examples have given you an idea of what to expect. Good luck – and it definitely gets easier with time.

The Active Periphrastic in Latin

The active periphrastic is a compound future tense consisting of 1) a future active participle and 2) a form of the verb sum. Together these components express the idea of future or intended action.

👉 Don’t remember how to form the future active participle? Read my full explanation here.

As with the passive periphrastic, the participle takes its case, number, and gender from the subject of the sentence. A few examples will make this clear.

Līvia iter in Italiam factūra est. = Livia is about to make a journey to Italy. (f. sg. nom.)

Discipulī librōs lectūrī sunt. = The students are about to read the books. (m. pl. nom.)

Cūr elephantōs ad urbem ductūrus sum? = Why am I about to lead elephants to the city? (m. sg. nom.)

The participle conveys the idea of futurity, while the tense of sum specifies the timeframe in which the action is about to occur.

• Present Tense: ventūrus est – “he is about to come”
• Future Tense: ventūrus erit – “he will be about to come”
• Imperfect Tense: ventūrus erat – “he was about to come”
• Perfect Tense: ventūrus fuit – “he has been / was about to come”
• Future Perfect Tense: ventūrus fuerit – “he will have been about to come” (rare)
• Pluperfect Tense: ventūrus fuerat – “he had been about to come” (rare)

With a present indicative form of sum, the active periphrastic forms are roughly equivalent to the regular future tense. Ventūrus est (he is about to come) is quite similar to veniet (he will come).

The active periphrastic is particularly useful in indirect statements, which require infinitives. In fact, the future active infinitive is part of the active periphrastic conjugation: simply add esse to the appropriate form of the future active participle.

Dīcō Līviam iter in Italiam factūram esse. = I say that Livia is about to make a journey to Italy.

Magister putābat discipulōs librōs lectūrōs esse. = The teacher thought that the students were about to read the books.

Similarly, the active periphrastic allows us to express future action in indirect questions, which require subjunctives. Latin lacks a future subjunctive, so the active periphrastic fills the gap.

Rogō cūr elephantōs ad urbem ductūrus sim. = I ask why I am about to lead / will lead elephants to the city.

Rēx nesciēbat ubi canēs sessūrī essent. = The king did not know where the dogs were about to sit / would sit.

The active periphrastic is usually translated with periphrases like “is about to ___________” and “is going to __________” to distinguish it from the simple future. But it is also possible to translate the active periphrastic as a simple future tense (“will __________”).

Remember: translation isn’t exact. There are often multiple ways that you can convey a Latin construction in English.

Ventūra est could mean

1. she is about to come
2. she is going to come
3. she will come

depending on what sounds best in the specific context.

Final Thoughts on the Passive and Active Periphrastic

Congratulations on making it to the end of this long post on a complex topic! Here is your reward: a fun song that will hopefully help you to remember what is happening with the passive periphrastic.

I also want to take a moment to discuss terminology. Some grammar books, such as Allen and Greenough’s, will talk about the First Periphrastic Conjugation and the Second Periphrastic Conjugation.

The First Periphrastic Conjugation refers to the active periphrastic, while the Second Periphrastic Conjugation refers to the passive periphrastic. I personally don’t use these names because I think it overly complicates things, but I wanted to mention them in case you come across them.

Be sure to check out my posts on related topics:

The Ultimate Guide to Latin Participles

Gerunds vs. Gerundives in Latin

Latin Supines

How To Read Latin Fluently