Present Indicative of Volo, Nolo, and Malo

Latin organizes desire around three closely related verbs: volō, velle, voluī “want; be willing,” nōlō, nōlle, nōluī “not want; be unwilling,” and mālō, mālle, māluī “prefer.” Their meanings form a clear set, but their present forms preserve contractions and stem alternations that cannot be generated by the endings of a regular conjugation.

All three are present active indicative. They describe an actual current desire, willingness, refusal, or preference. They have no ordinary passive forms. Most commonly they govern an infinitive: the finite verb identifies who wants, while the infinitive names the wanted action.

The three paradigms side by side

The endings still identify person and number, but the stems alternate. Volō has vol- in volō, volumus, volunt, unique vīs in the second-person singular, and vul- in vult, vultis. Nōlō developed from negated volō: some forms are fused (nōlō, nōlumus, nōlunt), while nōn vīs, nōn vult, and nōn vultis remain two words. Mālō developed from an expression meaning “want more”; it has mā- in mālō, mālumus, mālunt but māv- before -īs, -ult, and -ultis.

Desire plus an infinitive

With the same understood subject, Latin places the infinitive directly after the verb of desire: dormīre volō “I want to sleep,” exīre nōn vult “she does not want to go out,” manēre mālumus “we prefer to stay.” Do not introduce that infinitive with ad or try to conjugate it as a second finite verb.

With mālō, quam introduces the alternative: mālō X quam Y “I prefer X to Y / would rather X than Y.” English often uses “would rather,” but a present mālō is still morphologically present indicative. The English auxiliary “would” is an idiomatic translation of present preference, not evidence that the Latin is subjunctive or past.

The complements can also be nouns in the accusative, as aquam volō and pācem mālunt show. The construction does not require an infinitive when the desired or preferred thing is a noun.

When the wanted action has a different subject

If I want you to come, Latin can use an accusative subject with an infinitive: volō tē venīre. English also has “I want you to come,” but Latin structure is worth parsing precisely. Volō is first-person singular; tē is the accusative subject of venīre; the infinitive itself does not mark person.

At higher levels, Latin also uses a clause with ut or nē and the subjunctive, especially where willing or bringing about an event is prominent. Do not mix the two frames. Volō tē venīre and volō ut veniās are complete constructions; volō ut venīre combines incompatible pieces.

Negation and nuance

Nōlō lexicalizes unwillingness. Ordinary nōn volō is also possible when the negative itself is contrastive, but nōlō is the compact high-frequency verb learners should command. Calling every occurrence of nōn volō “ungrammatical” would be false; the choice can reflect emphasis and phrasing.

The present indicative can range from a passing wish to settled refusal. Adverbs and context sharpen the force:

Both finite verbs are present in form even though the preferred response lies in the future. English “would rather” is idiomatic here, not evidence of a Latin past or subjunctive. This is why tense labels and English auxiliaries must not be matched one for one.

Catullus uses the ordinary present vult in direct, emotionally charged advice (literary). The quotation is reproduced without added macrons:

The forms nōlī and nōlīte with an infinitive make a common negative command, “do not …” (neutral Classical prose). They are imperatives, not members of the indicative table on this page. Likewise, poets may separate, contract, or arrange these verbs for meter (literary), but the prose paradigms above remain the parsing baseline.

Principal parts as a stem map

The principal parts are volō, velle, voluī; nōlō, nōlle, nōluī; mālō, mālle, māluī. The doubled ll in each infinitive reflects contraction or assimilation in the verb’s history. The perfects provide the stems volu-, nōlu-, and mālu-; those stems do not replace the alternating present forms.

There is no honest single rule that predicts vīs from volō. High frequency helped preserve old forms, so the small paradigm must be learned. The relationship among the three verbs, however, greatly reduces the memory load. For their full systems, see Volo, Nolo, and Malo.

Common Mistakes

1. Regularizing the second-person singular of volō. The correct inherited form is vīs.

2. Fusing nōlō where Classical Latin keeps two words. The second-person singular is nōn vīs.

3. Omitting v in the second-person singular of mālō. Mālīs belongs to a different mood analysis; present indicative is māvīs.

4. Combining ut with an infinitive. Choose either accusative-and-infinitive or ut plus a finite subjunctive.

5. Using a preposition instead of quam after mālō. The compared alternative is normally introduced by quam.

Key Takeaways

Use volō for desire or willingness, nōlō for unwillingness, and mālō … quam … for preference. Parse the irregular form by person and number, attach a direct infinitive when the same person performs the wanted action, and resist building these forms from English “want” or “would rather.”