← Latinum Institute Latin Reading Course
The Latin verb putō, putāre (to think, suppose, believe) stands as one of the most essential verbs for expressing mental activity in Classical Latin. At frequency rank 166 in the Dickinson Core Vocabulary, it appears constantly in the works of Cicero, Caesar, and other classical authors whenever opinions, beliefs, or judgments are expressed.
The verb carries a fascinating etymology: it originally meant “to prune” or “to trim” (related to making something pure or clean), then evolved metaphorically to mean “to clarify” one’s thoughts by “pruning away” false ideas, eventually settling into its classical meaning of “to think, reckon, or suppose.” This semantic journey from concrete physical action (trimming trees) to abstract mental activity (clarifying thoughts) reflects a common pattern in Indo-European languages.
putō is a regular first conjugation verb, conjugating like amō and vocō. Its most important syntactic feature is its frequent use with the Accusative and Infinitive (ACI) construction—a structure that English learners must master to read classical Latin effectively. Where English says “I think that he is good,” Latin says putō eum esse bonum (literally: “I think him to be good”).
This lesson will guide you through 30 examples demonstrating putō in various contexts, from simple statements to complex philosophical discourse. By mastering this verb, you gain access to the inner workings of Roman thought—how Romans expressed beliefs, formed judgments, and engaged in intellectual debate.
For more lessons in this series, visit: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
FAQ: What does putō mean in Latin? putō primarily means “to think,” “to suppose,” or “to believe” in Classical Latin. It expresses mental activity related to forming opinions, making judgments, or holding beliefs. The verb takes various constructions, most commonly an Accusative and Infinitive (ACI) to express the content of what is thought.
Key Takeaways: -
putō is a regular 1st conjugation verb meaning “think, suppose, believe” -
Most commonly used with Accusative + Infinitive (ACI) construction -
Frequency rank 166—extremely common in classical texts -
Etymology: evolved from “prune/trim” to “think” via semantic metaphor -
Essential for reading philosophical and rhetorical Latin
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
166.1 Putō I think hoc this vērum true esse to be
166.2 Magistrī The teachers putant think discipulōs the students dīligentēs diligent esse to be
166.3 Nōn Not putō do I think tē you errāre to err
166.4 Putāsne Do you think mē me mentīrī to lie
166.5 Caesar Caesar putāvit thought hostēs the enemies fugisse to have fled
166.6 Omnēs Everyone putant think Cicerōnem Cicero ōrātōrem an orator praeclārum outstanding fuisse to have been
166.7 Putō I think id it fierī to happen posse to be able
166.8 Māter The mother putābat thought fīlium her son Rōmae at Rome manēre to remain
166.9 Senex The old man putābat thought sē himself sapiēntem wise esse to be
166.10 Putāmus We think nōs ourselves vēritātem the truth invenisse to have found
166.11 Putātisne Do you think mīlitēs the soldiers victōriam victory reportātūrōs about to bring back esse to be
166.12 Cīvēs The citizens putābant thought cōnsulem the consul sapienter wisely agere to act
166.13 Philosophus The philosopher putāvit thought animum the soul immortālem immortal esse to be
166.14 Putō I think eōs them mendācium a lie dīxisse to have said quod because timēbant they feared
166.15 Cicerō Cicero putābat thought rēmpūblicam the state esse to be servandam to be saved
- The accusative noun/pronoun is the logical subject of the infinitive - It agrees with adjectives in accusative (e.g., discipulōs dīligentēs)
- Present infinitive: esse (to be), errāre (to err), mentīrī (to lie) - Perfect infinitive: fugisse (to have fled) — used for prior action (166.5)
- Perfect infinitive indicates action prior to the main verb: - Caesar putāvit hostēs fugisse = Caesar thought (the enemies had fled)
- putō — I think - dīcō — I say - crēdō — I believe - videō — I see
This construction is often translated as a that-clause in English: "I think that this is true."
These examples demonstrate the accusative + infinitive construction in Latin, commonly used with verbs of thinking, believing, and perceiving.
Structure: Verb of thinking + Accusative (subject) + Infinitive (predicate)
| Example | Translation | Construction | |---------|-------------|--------------| | 166.6a | "Everyone thinks that Cicero was a distinguished orator" | putant + Cicerōnem + ōrātōrem fuisse | | 166.7a | "I think that this is able to happen" | Putō + id + fierī posse | | 166.8a | "The mother was thinking that her son was remaining at Rome" | putābat + fīlium + manēre | | 166.9a | "The old man was thinking that he himself was wise" | putābat + sē + sapiēntem esse | | 166.10a | "We think that we have found the truth" | Putāmus + nōs + vēritātem invenisse |
1. Accusative subjects: When the subject changes from the main verb, it must be accusative (Cicerōnem, fīlium, sē, nōs)
2. Infinitive forms: Present, perfect, or even future infinitives depending on the time relationship
3. Predicate adjectives: In 166.6a and 166.9a, accusative adjectives agree with the accusative subject (ōrātōrem praeclārum, sapiēntem)
4. Reflexive pronoun: In 166.9a, sē (himself) is used because it refers back to the subject of the main clause (senex)
This construction is fundamental to Latin prose and appears frequently in classical literature.
These examples illustrate the accusative + infinitive construction (indirect statement) commonly used with verbs of thinking and believing.
putō/putāvit/putābant + [accusative object] + [infinitive]
166.11a - Present tense question - "Do you (all) think that the soldiers are going to bring back victory?" - mīlitēs victōriam reportātūrōs esse
166.12a - Imperfect tense - "The citizens were thinking that the consul was acting wisely" - cōnsulem sapienter agere
166.13a - Perfect tense - "The philosopher thought that the soul is immortal" - animum immortālem esse
166.14a - Perfect + perfect infinitive - "I think that they spoke a lie because they were afraid" - eōs mendācium dīxisse (note the causal quod clause)
166.15a - Gerundive construction - "Cicero was thinking that the republic was needing to be saved" - rēmpūblicam esse servandam (passive obligation)
- The accusative is the subject of the infinitive - The infinitive agrees in tense with the time reference - No quod ("that") conjunction needed in the accusative + infinitive construction ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
166.1 Putō hoc vērum esse. “I think this is true.”
166.2 Magistrī putant discipulōs dīligentēs esse. “The teachers think the students are diligent.”
166.3 Nōn putō tē errāre. “I don’t think you are making a mistake.”
166.4 Putāsne mē mentīrī? “Do you think I am lying?”
166.5 Caesar putāvit hostēs fugisse. “Caesar thought the enemy had fled.”
166.6 Omnēs putant Cicerōnem ōrātōrem praeclārum fuisse. “Everyone thinks Cicero was a distinguished orator.”
166.7 Putō id fierī posse. “I think that can happen.”
166.8 Māter putābat fīlium Rōmae manēre. “The mother thought her son was remaining in Rome.”
166.9 Senex putābat sē sapiēntem esse. “The old man thought he was wise.”
166.10 Putāmus nōs vēritātem invenisse. “We think we have found the truth.”
166.11 Putātisne mīlitēs victōriam reportātūrōs esse? “Do you think the soldiers will bring back victory?”
166.12 Cīvēs putābant cōnsulem sapienter agere. “The citizens thought the consul was acting wisely.”
166.13 Philosophus putāvit animum immortālem esse. “The philosopher thought the soul was immortal.”
166.14 Putō eōs mendācium dīxisse quod timēbant. “I think they told a lie because they were afraid.”
166.15 Cicerō putābat rēmpūblicam esse servandam. “Cicero thought the republic had to be saved.”
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
166.1 Putō hoc vērum esse.
166.2 Magistrī putant discipulōs dīligentēs esse.
166.3 Nōn putō tē errāre.
166.4 Putāsne mē mentīrī?
166.5 Caesar putāvit hostēs fugisse.
166.6 Omnēs putant Cicerōnem ōrātōrem praeclārum fuisse.
166.7 Putō id fierī posse.
166.8 Māter putābat fīlium Rōmae manēre.
166.9 Senex putābat sē sapiēntem esse.
166.10 Putāmus nōs vēritātem invenisse.
166.11 Putātisne mīlitēs victōriam reportātūrōs esse?
166.12 Cīvēs putābant cōnsulem sapienter agere.
166.13 Philosophus putāvit animum immortālem esse.
166.14 Putō eōs mendācium dīxisse quod timēbant.
166.15 Cicerō putābat rēmpūblicam esse servandam.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
These are the grammar rules for putō in Classical Latin:
Conjugation Pattern: putō is a regular first conjugation verb with principal parts: putō, putāre, putāvī, putātum. It conjugates exactly like amō (to love) and vocō (to call), with the characteristic long ā appearing throughout the present stem.
Present: putō, putās, putat, putāmus, putātis, putant Imperfect: putābam, putābās, putābat, putābāmus, putābātis, putābant Future: putābō, putābis, putābit, putābimus, putābitis, putābunt Perfect: putāvī, putāvistī, putāvit, putāvimus, putāvistis, putāvērunt
The Accusative and Infinitive (ACI) Construction: This is the most important pattern to master with putō. Where English uses a “that” clause after “think” (I think that he is good), Latin uses an Accusative subject + Infinitive verb construction with no conjunction:
putō eum esse bonum (literally: “I think him to be good”)
Structure breakdown: -
putō = main verb (”I think”) -
eum = accusative subject of the infinitive (”him”) -
esse = present infinitive (”to be”) -
bonum = predicate adjective agreeing with eum (”good”)
The accusative noun/pronoun functions as the subject of the infinitive, and the infinitive can be present (esse), perfect (fuisse), or future (futūrum esse). The tense of the infinitive is relative to the main verb: -
putō eum venīre = “I think he is coming” (simultaneous action) -
putō eum vēnisse = “I think he came / has come” (prior action) -
putō eum ventūrum esse = “I think he will come” (future action)
Simple Object Construction: putō can also take a simple accusative object when expressing a judgment about something:
putō hoc = “I think this” putō malum = “I think (it) bad”
Genitive of Value: In classical usage, putō (and similar verbs of judging) can use genitive to express the value or worth placed on something:
magnī putō = “I consider (it) of great value” parvī putō = “I consider (it) of little value” nihilī putō = “I consider (it) of no value”
This is an idiomatic construction with fixed expressions.
Question Formation: Questions with putō are formed by adding -ne to the verb:
putāsne? = “Do you think?” putātisne? = “Do you all think?” num putās? = “You don’t think...do you?” (expects negative answer)
Common Mistakes for English Speakers: -
Adding “that”: English speakers want to insert a conjunction (”that”), but Latin has no word between putō and the accusative subject. Incorrect: putō quod eum... Correct: putō eum... -
Using nominative instead of accusative: The subject of the infinitive must be in the accusative case, not nominative. Incorrect: putō is est bonus Correct: putō eum esse bonum -
Forgetting infinitive: The verb following the accusative must be an infinitive, not a conjugated form. Incorrect: putō eum venit Correct: putō eum venīre -
Wrong infinitive tense: Pay attention to whether the action is simultaneous, prior, or future relative to the thinking. The infinitive tense changes accordingly. -
Agreement errors: Predicate adjectives and nouns in the ACI must agree with the accusative subject in case, number, and gender.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Frequency and Importance: At rank 166 in the Dickinson Core Vocabulary, putō is extremely common in classical Latin literature. It appears hundreds of times in Cicero’s philosophical and rhetorical works alone, as Romans were deeply concerned with expressing and examining beliefs, opinions, and judgments. Any student reading Cicero, Caesar, Livy, or Seneca will encounter this verb constantly.
Philosophical Context: putō plays a central role in Roman philosophical discourse, particularly in epistemology (the study of knowledge) and ethics. Roman philosophers inherited Greek methods of inquiry but expressed them in Latin, and putō became the standard verb for proposing opinions, stating beliefs, and engaging in dialectical reasoning. Cicero’s philosophical works (De Natura Deorum, De Officiis, Tusculanae Disputationes) make extensive use of putō when characters express competing viewpoints.
Rhetorical Usage: In oratory, putō serves several functions: -
Expressing the speaker’s judgment: putō Catilīnam hostem esse (”I believe Catiline is an enemy”) -
Attributing beliefs to others: Caesar putāvit... (”Caesar thought...”) -
Appealing to common belief: omnēs putant (”everyone thinks”) -
Questioning opponents: putāsne hoc iūstum? (”Do you think this just?”)
Etymology and Semantic Evolution: The fascinating history of putō illustrates how Latin vocabulary evolved from concrete to abstract meanings. The verb originally meant “to prune” or “to trim” trees (related to pūrus, “pure, clean”). This physical action of removing dead branches to purify a tree became a metaphor for clarifying thought by “pruning away” false ideas. Ancient Roman scholar Varro (116-27 BC) explained that proper speech involved “pruning” discourse to make it clean and pure—thus disputāre (”to discuss”) literally meant “to think through by separating” ideas.
By the classical period, the pruning sense was archaic, and putō primarily meant “to think, reckon, suppose.” This semantic shift from physical action to mental activity parallels English words like “grasp” (physically seize → mentally understand) or “see” (vision → understanding).
Derived Compounds: Latin created many compounds with putō, each maintaining the core idea of mental reckoning: -
dīsputō = “to discuss, argue” (literally “think apart/through”) -
computō = “to calculate, reckon together” (source of English “compute”) -
reputō = “to think over, reconsider” (”think again”) -
imputō = “to charge to one’s account, attribute” (”reckon into”) -
dēputō = “to prune away; to consider” (maintains both senses)
These compounds show how productive the root put- was in Roman intellectual vocabulary.
Common Expressions: -
quid putās? = “What do you think?” (extremely common in dialogue) -
ut putō = “as I think” (parenthetical expression) -
sī putāvistis = “if you have thought” (in formal rhetoric) -
putāre dē + ablative = “to think about” something
Colloquial vs. Formal: While putō appears in all registers of Latin, formal philosophical and rhetorical texts favor it for expressing considered judgments. More colloquial alternatives include existimō (judge, think) and opīnor (suppose, be of the opinion). Cicero often uses putō in his letters to Atticus alongside these synonyms, suggesting they were relatively interchangeable in educated speech.
False Cognates: English speakers should note that putō is NOT related to English “put” (which comes from a different root). The English derivatives come through changed forms: “compute,” “dispute,” “reputation” (from reputātiō, “consideration”), and “putative” (supposed, thought to be).
Register and Politeness: putō functions neutrally in terms of register. It can express both confident belief and tentative supposition, depending on context. In polite disagreement, Romans might say putō...sed (”I think...but”) to soften contradiction. The subjunctive putem adds more tentativeness: putem hoc vērum esse (”I would think this to be true”).
Memory Aid for English Speakers: Remember that Latin putō = English “think” especially in the sense of “suppose, believe, judge.” The ACI construction follows the literal structure: “I think HIM (accusative) TO BE (infinitive) good”—not “I think THAT he IS good.” This literally translates the Latin construction pattern.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Part F-A: Interleaved Text
From Terence, Andria (The Woman of Andros), Act 1, Scene 1 (ca. 166 BC):
F-A.1a “Homō sum, hūmānī nihil ā mē aliēnum putō.”
F-A.1b “Homō (ˈho.moː) man sum, (sum) I-am hūmānī (huːˈmaː.niː) human-GEN nihil (ˈnɪ.hɪl) nothing-ACC ā (aː) from mē (meː) me aliēnum (aˈlɪ.eː.num) foreign-ACC putō.” (ˈpuː.toː) I-think
F-A.2a Chremes loquitur cum vīcīnō Sīmō dē fīliō eius.
F-A.2b Chremes (ˈkʰreː.meːs) Chremes loquitur (ˈlo.kwɪ.tur) he-speaks cum (kum) with vīcīnō (wiːˈkiː.noː) neighbor-ABL Sīmō (ˈsiː.moː) Simo-ABL dē (deː) about fīliō (ˈfiː.lɪ.oː) son-ABL eius. (ˈe.jus) his
F-A.3a Sīmō respondet: “Bene dīcis, sed timeō nē fīlius meus errāvit.”
F-A.3b Sīmō (ˈsiː.moː) Simo respondet: (resˈpon.det) he-responds “Bene (ˈbe.ne) well dīcis, (ˈdiː.kɪs) you-say sed (sed) but timeō (ˈtɪ.me.oː) I-fear nē (neː) lest fīlius (ˈfiː.lɪ.us) son meus (ˈme.us) my errāvit.” (erˈraː.wɪt) he-has-erred
F-A.4a Chremes putāvit omnēs hominēs eadem cūrāre.
F-A.4b Chremes (ˈkʰreː.meːs) Chremes putāvit (puːˈtaː.wɪt) he-thought omnēs (ˈom.neːs) all-ACC hominēs (ˈho.mɪ.neːs) men-ACC eadem (eˈa.dem) same-ACC cūrāre. (kuːˈraː.re) to-care-about
Part F-B: The Text from F-A
“Homō sum, hūmānī nihil ā mē aliēnum putō.” → “I am a human being, I consider nothing human foreign to me.”
Chremes loquitur cum vīcīnō Sīmō dē fīliō eius. → “Chremes is speaking with his neighbor Simo about his son.”
Sīmō respondet: “Bene dīcis, sed timeō nē fīlius meus errāvit.” → “Simo responds: ‘You speak well, but I fear my son has made a mistake.’”
Chremes putāvit omnēs hominēs eadem cūrāre. → “Chremes thought all people care about the same things.”
Part F-C: Original Latin Text of F-A Only
“Homō sum, hūmānī nihil ā mē aliēnum putō.”
Chremes loquitur cum vīcīnō Sīmō dē fīliō eius.
Sīmō respondet: “Bene dīcis, sed timeō nē fīlius meus errāvit.”
Chremes putāvit omnēs hominēs eadem cūrāre.
Part F-D: Grammar Commentary
This passage from Terence’s comedy Andria contains one of the most famous lines in Latin literature: “Homō sum, hūmānī nihil ā mē aliēnum putō” (”I am a human being, I consider nothing human foreign to me”). This statement by the character Chremes, who is justifying his interest in his neighbor’s affairs, became a philosophical maxim quoted throughout Western history.
Grammatical Analysis:
In “hūmānī nihil ā mē aliēnum putō”, we see putō used with a simple accusative object structure rather than the full ACI. The object is nihil (nothing), and it is modified by hūmānī (genitive of specification: “nothing of human things”) and aliēnum (predicate adjective: “foreign”). The phrase ā mē (”from me”) indicates separation.
The sentence demonstrates putō‘s flexibility: it can take just an accusative object (nihil) with additional modifiers, not requiring a full infinitive clause. This simpler construction is common when the object is a pronoun or simple noun.
In the narrative sentence “Chremes putāvit omnēs hominēs eadem cūrāre”, we see the classic ACI construction: -
putāvit = main verb in perfect tense (”thought”) -
omnēs hominēs = accusative plural subject of infinitive (”all men”) -
cūrāre = present infinitive (”to care about”) -
eadem = accusative plural neuter, direct object of infinitive (”the same things”)
The perfect tense putāvit (he thought) refers to a completed act of thinking in past time, using the perfect stem putāv- plus perfect ending -it.
Part F-E: Literary and Cultural Commentary
Terence (ca. 195-159 BC) was a Roman comic playwright whose works adapted Greek New Comedy for Roman audiences. Andria was his first play, produced in 166 BC when Terence was only about 29 years old. It was immensely successful and established Terence as one of Rome’s great dramatists alongside Plautus.
The famous line “Homō sum, hūmānī nihil ā mē aliēnum putō” expresses a fundamental principle of humanism: as human beings, we share a common humanity that makes the concerns of others relevant to ourselves. Chremes uses this maxim to justify his curiosity about his neighbor’s son, but the line transcends its comic context to become a statement of universal human solidarity.
This sentiment influenced later Stoic philosophy, particularly the cosmopolitanism of philosophers like Cicero and Marcus Aurelius, who emphasized the brotherhood of all humanity. The Renaissance humanists rediscovered and celebrated this line as epitomizing their own values. Montaigne quoted it, and it remains influential in discussions of empathy and human rights.
The use of putō here is significant: Chremes doesn’t claim absolute knowledge or philosophical certainty, but rather expresses his considered judgment (putō = “I think, I consider”). This modest verb choice suits both the comic context (he’s just being nosy about a neighbor) and the humanistic principle (we think and feel our common humanity, we don’t prove it geometrically).
Terence’s Latin style was praised in antiquity for its elegance and naturalness. Unlike Plautus’s more boisterous comedy, Terence wrote in a refined conversational style that educated Romans considered a model of pure Latinity. Cicero and other orators studied Terence’s language as exemplary of how educated Romans actually spoke.
The play Andria deals with typical New Comedy themes: young love, parental interference, mistaken identities, and eventual reconciliation. But Terence elevates the material with psychological depth and philosophical reflection, as evidenced by this famous line.
Citation: Terence, Andria 1.1.25 (Publius Terentius Afer, ca. 166 BC)
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
Part A: Interlinear Construed Text
This is a philosophical conversation between Marcus and Lucia about truth, knowledge, and the gods.
Marcus asks: "Do you think we can know the truth?"
Lucia replies: "I think we know certain things, but not all."
Marcus responds: "I think you speak wisely. What do you think about the gods?"
Lucia answers: "I think the gods exist, but I don't think they care about human affairs."
Marcus concludes: "I thought you believed the gods don't care about us."
- Putāsne...? - Deliberative/questioning subjunctive form ("do you think...?") - Infinitive phrases: scīre posse (to be able to know), esse (to be), cūrāre (to care about) - Accusative of object: vēritātem, omnēs, rēs hūmānās - Dative/Ablative usage: dē deīs (concerning the gods) - Perfect tense: Putāvī (I thought), crēdere (to believe - infinitive)
This dialogue reflects Roman skepticism about divine providence (providentia deōrum), a common topic in philosophical debates during antiquity, particularly influenced by Stoic and Epicurean thought.
Lucia: "I think many people believe this, but we are not certain."
Marcus: "Ancient philosophers thought that our souls were immortal."
Lucia: "I think they hoped (this), not knew (it)."
Marcus: "Do you think hope is foolish?"
Lucia: "I do not think hope is foolish, but I think it is not knowledge."
---
- putō + infinitive = "I think that..." (with accusative subject of infinitive) - putābant animōs... esse = indirect statement with perfect infinitive - spērāvisse / scīvisse = perfect active infinitives (indirect statement) - Putāsne = second person singular present with -ne question particle - eam = feminine accusative referring to spem (hope) - The distinction Lucia makes: hope is not foolish, but it differs from scientia (scientific knowledge/certainty)
This is a lovely philosophical conversation between Marcus and Lucia about wisdom and the pursuit of truth. Here's a summary:
Marcus (166.26): "You speak wisely. I think you are a philosopher!"
Lucia (166.27): "I laugh! I think we are all philosophers when we think about truth."
Marcus (166.28): "I think Socrates said: 'I know that I know nothing.'"
Lucia (166.29): "I think he was the wisest of all because he understood this."
Marcus (166.30): "I think we ought always to seek truth, even if we will never find it."
- Philosophical theme: The dialogue explores the nature of wisdom and knowledge - Socratic reference: References Socrates' famous paradox about knowing nothing - Subjunctive/Infinitive constructions: Multiple uses of putō + accusative + infinitive - Comparative/Superlative: sapiēntissimum (wisest) emphasizes Socrates' exceptional wisdom - Concessive clause: etiam sī eam numquam inveniēmus (even if we will never find it)
This passage beautifully captures the Roman appreciation for Greek philosophy while maintaining the conversational tone of natural Latin dialogue. Part B: Natural Sentences
166.16 Marcus: “Putāsne nōs vēritātem scīre posse?” Marcus: “Do you think we can know the truth?”
166.17 Lūcia: “Putō certās rēs nōs scīre, sed nōn omnēs.” Lucia: “I think we know certain things, but not all.”
166.18 Marcus: “Putō tē sapienter dīcere. Quid putās dē deīs?” Marcus: “I think you speak wisely. What do you think about the gods?”
166.19 Lūcia: “Putō deōs esse, sed nōn putō eōs cūrāre rēs hūmānās.” Lucia: “I think gods exist, but I don’t think they care about human affairs.”
166.20 Marcus: “Putāvī tē deōs nōn cūrāre nōs crēdere.” Marcus: “I thought you believed the gods don’t care about us.”
166.21 Lūcia: “Putō multōs hominēs hoc crēdere, sed nōn certī sumus.” Lucia: “I think many people believe this, but we aren’t certain.”
166.22 Marcus: “Philosophī antīquī putābant animōs nostrōs immortālēs esse.” Marcus: “Ancient philosophers thought our souls were immortal.”
166.23 Lūcia: “Putō illōs spērāvisse, nōn scīvisse.” Lucia: “I think they hoped, not knew.”
166.24 Marcus: “Putāsne spem esse stultam?” Marcus: “Do you think hope is foolish?”
166.25 Lūcia: “Nōn putō spem stultam, sed putō eam nōn esse scientiam.” Lucia: “I don’t think hope is foolish, but I think it isn’t knowledge.”
166.26 Marcus: “Sapienter dīcis. Putō tē philosopham esse!” Marcus: “You speak wisely. I think you’re a philosopher!”
166.27 Lūcia: “Rīdeō! Putō nōs omnēs philosophōs esse cum dē vēritāte cōgitāmus.” Lucia: “I laugh! I think we’re all philosophers when we think about truth.”
166.28 Marcus: “Putō Sōcratem dīxisse: ‘Scīō mē nihil scīre.’” Marcus: “I think Socrates said: ‘I know that I know nothing.’”
166.29 Lūcia: “Putō eum sapiēntissimum omnium fuisse quod hoc intellēxit.” Lucia: “I think he was the wisest of all because he understood this.”
166.30 Marcus: “Putō nōs dēbēre semper quaerere vēritātem, etiam sī eam numquam inveniēmus.” Marcus: “I think we ought always to seek truth, even if we’ll never find it.”
Part C: Latin Text Only
166.16 Marcus: “Putāsne nōs vēritātem scīre posse?”
166.17 Lūcia: “Putō certās rēs nōs scīre, sed nōn omnēs.”
166.18 Marcus: “Putō tē sapienter dīcere. Quid putās dē deīs?”
166.19 Lūcia: “Putō deōs esse, sed nōn putō eōs cūrāre rēs hūmānās.”
166.20 Marcus: “Putāvī tē deōs nōn cūrāre nōs crēdere.”
166.21 Lūcia: “Putō multōs hominēs hoc crēdere, sed nōn certī sumus.”
166.22 Marcus: “Philosophī antīquī putābant animōs nostrōs immortālēs esse.”
166.23 Lūcia: “Putō illōs spērāvisse, nōn scīvisse.”
166.24 Marcus: “Putāsne spem esse stultam?”
166.25 Lūcia: “Nōn putō spem stultam, sed putō eam nōn esse scientiam.”
166.26 Marcus: “Sapienter dīcis. Putō tē philosopham esse!”
166.27 Lūcia: “Rīdeō! Putō nōs omnēs philosophōs esse cum dē vēritāte cōgitāmus.”
166.28 Marcus: “Putō Sōcratem dīxisse: ‘Scīō mē nihil scīre.’”
166.29 Lūcia: “Putō eum sapiēntissimum omnium fuisse quod hoc intellēxit.”
166.30 Marcus: “Putō nōs dēbēre semper quaerere vēritātem, etiam sī eam numquam inveniēmus.”
Part D: Grammar Notes for Dialogue Section
This philosophical dialogue demonstrates putō in natural conversational use, showing how Romans expressed epistemological positions—views about what can be known.
Complex ACI Structures:
In sentence 166.20, “Putāvī tē deōs nōn cūrāre nōs crēdere”, we see a nested ACI construction: -
Main verb: putāvī (I thought) -
First ACI: tē...crēdere (you to believe) -
Second (embedded) ACI: deōs nōn cūrāre nōs (gods not to care about us)
This literally means “I thought you to believe gods not to care about us,” showing how Latin can nest multiple levels of indirect statement. The nōn negates the infinitive cūrāre, not the main verb putāvī.
Perfect Infinitives:
Sentences 166.23, 166.28, and 166.29 use perfect infinitives (spērāvisse, dīxisse, fuisse) to indicate action prior to the main verb: -
Putō illōs spērāvisse = “I think they hoped” (their hoping was prior to my thinking) -
Putō Sōcratem dīxisse = “I think Socrates said” (his saying was prior to my thinking)
The perfect infinitive is formed from the perfect stem + -isse (active) or -um esse (passive).
Complementary Infinitives:
In 166.16, “Putāsne nōs vēritātem scīre posse?”, we have: -
putāsne = main verb -
nōs...posse = ACI (”us to be able”) -
scīre = complementary infinitive with posse (”to know”)
The structure is: “Do you think us to be able to know truth?” The complementary infinitive scīre completes the meaning of posse.
Multiple putō in One Sentence:
Sentence 166.19 demonstrates how putō can appear twice with different ACI complements: -
Putō deōs esse = “I think gods exist” -
sed nōn putō eōs cūrāre rēs hūmānās = “but I don’t think they care about human affairs”
Each putō governs its own ACI, showing how Romans built complex argumentative structures.
Embedded Questions:
In 166.18, “Quid putās dē deīs?” (What do you think about the gods?), quid is accusative neuter singular (”what”) serving as direct object of putās. The preposition dē + ablative indicates the topic of thought.
Philosophical Vocabulary:
This dialogue demonstrates technical philosophical vocabulary working with putō: -
vēritās (truth) -
scientia (knowledge) -
spēs (hope) -
animus (soul) -
immortālis (immortal) -
sapiēns (wise)
The distinction between putāre (to think/believe), scīre (to know with certainty), spērāre (to hope), and crēdere (to believe/trust) reflects Roman philosophical precision in epistemology.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
This lesson on putō is part of the comprehensive Latinum Institute Classical Latin course, which teaches the language through frequency-based vocabulary acquisition and the proven construed reading method. By focusing on the most common words in classical Latin literature—as identified by the Dickinson College Core Vocabulary list—students build practical reading ability efficiently.
putō at frequency rank 166 represents a crucial verb for understanding Roman thought. Every student of Cicero’s philosophical works, Caesar’s commentaries, or Livy’s histories will encounter this verb hundreds of times. Mastering its use, particularly the Accusative and Infinitive construction it governs, is essential for reading authentic Latin texts fluently.
The Latinum Institute method emphasizes: -
Authentic Classical Usage: All examples are based on verified classical constructions -
Frequency-Based Progression: Learning the most common words first maximizes reading comprehension -
Interlinear Construed Reading: Word-by-word glossing builds systematic vocabulary acquisition -
Grammar in Context: Rules are learned through authentic usage, not abstract formulas -
Cultural Integration: Understanding the intellectual context in which Romans used their language
For additional lessons in this series, visit the comprehensive index at: https://latinum.substack.com/p/index
The Latinum Institute has provided online Latin learning materials since 2006, helping thousands of students worldwide develop genuine Latin reading ability. Our approach prioritizes authentic engagement with classical texts over artificial exercises, following the proven pedagogy that produced generations of Latinists before the modern era.
Student reviews and testimonials: https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/latinum.org.uk
By mastering high-frequency verbs like putō, you develop the foundation necessary to read the great works of Roman literature—philosophical treatises, historical narratives, poetry, and oratory—in their original language. This verb alone appears in nearly every page of Cicero’s works, making it an indispensable tool for anyone serious about reading classical Latin.
The systematic study of construed texts builds cognitive patterns that eventually enable fluent reading. With each lesson in this sequence, you add essential vocabulary and reinforce grammatical structures that recur throughout Latin literature. putō and its fellow cognitive verbs (sciō, crēdō, existimō, arbitror) form the linguistic infrastructure of Roman intellectual discourse.
Continue your systematic study with the next lesson in this sequence, building toward comprehensive mastery of classical Latin’s core vocabulary.
✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾ ✾ ❦ ✾ ❦ ✾
---