Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Gerund or gerundive?
11 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Johannes Patruus
Mar 28, 2012, 2:46:11 PM3/28/12
to
On 28/03/2012 19:06, B. T. Raven wrote:
> Desiderium amandi
> Desiderium mei amandi
> Desiderium me amandi
>
> Can the second phrase above be construed with a gerundive? (desire of me
> being loved)
As I understand it, "amandi" is a gerundive in the second ("desire of me
to-be-loved"), and a gerund in the others.
> Could it ever have been used thus since it is phonetically almost
> indistinguishable from the third, which must mean something else?
Again as far as I understand it, the second and third are identical in
meaning, the second being considered stylistically preferable in classical
prose.
Patruus
> Desiderium amandi
> Desiderium mei amandi
> Desiderium me amandi
>
> Can the second phrase above be construed with a gerundive? (desire of me
> being loved)
As I understand it, "amandi" is a gerundive in the second ("desire of me
to-be-loved"), and a gerund in the others.
> Could it ever have been used thus since it is phonetically almost
> indistinguishable from the third, which must mean something else?
Again as far as I understand it, the second and third are identical in
meaning, the second being considered stylistically preferable in classical
prose.
Patruus
Ed Cryer
Mar 28, 2012, 3:44:33 PM3/28/12
to
B. T. Raven wrote:
> Desiderium amandi
> Desiderium mei amandi
> Desiderium me amandi
>
> Can the second phrase above be construed with a gerundive? (desire of me
> being loved)
> Desiderium amandi
> Desiderium mei amandi
> Desiderium me amandi
>
> Can the second phrase above be construed with a gerundive? (desire of me
> being loved)
> Could it ever have been used thus since it is phonetically almost
> indistinguishable from the third, which must mean something else?
I have no trouble with 1 & 3. I give them both approval in classical Latin.
> indistinguishable from the third, which must mean something else?
The natural interpretation of 2 is "longing for my loving". But your
other possibility renders it ambiguous and to be avoided.
I find things like this ok;
desiderium navium reficiendarum
desiderium itineris faciendi
desiderium huius orbis terrarum emendandi
(all gerundives)
Ed
Message has been deleted
Evertjan.
Mar 29, 2012, 3:32:26 AM3/29/12
to
B. T. Raven wrote on 28 mrt 2012 in alt.language.latin:
> Doesn't "mei amandi" mean "of me being loved" in that context?
So "ars amandi" is both
"the art of loving"
and
"the art of being loved"
as done by "amatores"?
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
> Doesn't "mei amandi" mean "of me being loved" in that context?
So "ars amandi" is both
"the art of loving"
and
"the art of being loved"
as done by "amatores"?
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Johannes Patruus
Mar 29, 2012, 4:30:03 AM3/29/12
to
On 29/03/2012 08:32, Evertjan. wrote:
> B. T. Raven wrote on 28 mrt 2012 in alt.language.latin:
>
>> Doesn't "mei amandi" mean "of me being loved" in that context?
>
> So "ars amandi" is both
>
> "the art of loving"
>
> and
>
> "the art of being loved"
>
> as done by "amatores"?
A&G §503 NOTE 1 pertains -
> B. T. Raven wrote on 28 mrt 2012 in alt.language.latin:
>
>> Doesn't "mei amandi" mean "of me being loved" in that context?
>
> So "ars amandi" is both
>
> "the art of loving"
>
> and
>
> "the art of being loved"
>
> as done by "amatores"?
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0001%3Asmythp%3D503
Patruus
Ed Cryer
Mar 29, 2012, 4:35:53 PM3/29/12
to
B. T. Raven wrote:
> Die Wed Mar 28 2012 14:44:33 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) Ed Cryer
> <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> scripsit:
> "loving." A back translation of your translation yields "desiderans
> amorem meum, or desiderium amoris mei." Here is an example from from a
> more fluent writer (Bartholomeo Ricci (c. 1560):
>
> Cui solatio id quoque accedit, quod hunc video aequissimis passibus
> magistrum suum brevi assecuturum ut quod damni in illo factum sit, iste
> non multo post sit optime praestiturus: in quo neque ego separatim mei
> amandi totum desiderium omisero, quando in hoc meo Bartholomaeo illud
> sim optime renovaturus, ad quod mecum mutuo faciendum hoc modo visus sum
> benigne illum invitare, ut, quemadmodum ego illum ex ejus scriptis amare
> coepi, ita ille quoque, si prius non fecit, nunc me ex meis diligere
> incipiat.
> passive nature of the gerundive, reveals who is doing the desiring,
> unless meum, tuum, eius comes before desiderium. Why do you think that
> "mei amandi" is different in this respect? This example (taken from the
> Grex) is, in full, "Iesu libera me a desiderio mei amandi." Is the force
> of the gerundive still ambiguous in that context?
>
>>
>> Ed
>
> Eduardus
>
>
Thinking about this I've come to see that there's an ambiguity in the
English equivalent too.
News of my sacking spread like wildfire.
Von Stauffenberg's shooting ended the affair.
Both of those are ambiguous as to active/ passive, but for some purely
contextual reason I take them both as passive. There are many more in
the same line.
Ed
> Die Wed Mar 28 2012 14:44:33 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) Ed Cryer
> <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> scripsit:
>
>> B. T. Raven wrote:
>>> Desiderium amandi
>>> Desiderium mei amandi
>>> Desiderium me amandi
>>>
>>> Can the second phrase above be construed with a gerundive? (desire of me
>>> being loved)
>>> Could it ever have been used thus since it is phonetically almost
>>> indistinguishable from the third, which must mean something else?
>>
>> I have no trouble with 1& 3. I give them both approval in classical Latin.
>> B. T. Raven wrote:
>>> Desiderium amandi
>>> Desiderium mei amandi
>>> Desiderium me amandi
>>>
>>> Can the second phrase above be construed with a gerundive? (desire of me
>>> being loved)
>>> Could it ever have been used thus since it is phonetically almost
>>> indistinguishable from the third, which must mean something else?
>>
>>
>> The natural interpretation of 2 is "longing for my loving". But your
>> other possibility renders it ambiguous and to be avoided.
>
> But if 2 is a gerundive then "amandi" means "of being loved," not
>> The natural interpretation of 2 is "longing for my loving". But your
>> other possibility renders it ambiguous and to be avoided.
>
> "loving." A back translation of your translation yields "desiderans
> amorem meum, or desiderium amoris mei." Here is an example from from a
> more fluent writer (Bartholomeo Ricci (c. 1560):
>
> Cui solatio id quoque accedit, quod hunc video aequissimis passibus
> magistrum suum brevi assecuturum ut quod damni in illo factum sit, iste
> non multo post sit optime praestiturus: in quo neque ego separatim mei
> amandi totum desiderium omisero, quando in hoc meo Bartholomaeo illud
> sim optime renovaturus, ad quod mecum mutuo faciendum hoc modo visus sum
> benigne illum invitare, ut, quemadmodum ego illum ex ejus scriptis amare
> coepi, ita ille quoque, si prius non fecit, nunc me ex meis diligere
> incipiat.
>
> Doesn't "mei amandi" mean "of me being loved" in that context?
>
>>
> Doesn't "mei amandi" mean "of me being loved" in that context?
>
>>
>> I find things like this ok;
>> desiderium navium reficiendarum
>> desiderium itineris faciendi
>> desiderium huius orbis terrarum emendandi
>> (all gerundives)
>
> And these are all well formed even though none of them, due to the
>> desiderium navium reficiendarum
>> desiderium itineris faciendi
>> desiderium huius orbis terrarum emendandi
>> (all gerundives)
>
> passive nature of the gerundive, reveals who is doing the desiring,
> unless meum, tuum, eius comes before desiderium. Why do you think that
> "mei amandi" is different in this respect? This example (taken from the
> Grex) is, in full, "Iesu libera me a desiderio mei amandi." Is the force
> of the gerundive still ambiguous in that context?
>
>>
>> Ed
>
> Eduardus
>
>
Thinking about this I've come to see that there's an ambiguity in the
English equivalent too.
News of my sacking spread like wildfire.
Von Stauffenberg's shooting ended the affair.
Both of those are ambiguous as to active/ passive, but for some purely
contextual reason I take them both as passive. There are many more in
the same line.
Ed
Message has been deleted
Ed Cryer
Mar 30, 2012, 8:51:40 AM3/30/12
to
B. T. Raven wrote:
> Die Thu Mar 29 2012 15:35:53 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) Ed Cryer
> Formally, at least, both are gerunds and both are active in both senses.
> The question is whether we are to understand "... sacking of someone,
> ... sacking by someone, ... shooting of someone, ... shooting by
> someone. Of course you could paraphrase "my sacking by someone" as "my
> being sacked (passive) but that requires a change in form from "sacking"
> to "sacked." In addition there is the complication that "sack" may mean
> pillage and "shoot" also has a wide range of meaning. If it can be
> established that Ricci in the passage above used "amandi" as a
> gerundive, then the the Latin version of the prayer (by Merry del Val in
> Spanish) is correct for "Jesus, free me from the desire of (wanting) to
> be loved." Patruus' link to the grammar book doesn't have enough
> examples to settle the question for me. Gildersleeve and Lodge 427 Note
> 3 and 428 Remark 1 seem to allow the gerundive construction with with
> transitive verbs and pronouns.
>
> Eduardus
>
The point I was trying to make is that I instinctively take both of them
as passive in meaning. When you consider others that I instinctively
take as active (eg. his giving, her receiving, their doing) you have to
admit that there are factors at play other than purely grammatical ones.
Pace some kind of Chomskyan universal grammar wrapped up in our genes,
it looks as though mere conventional usage is at play.
There ain't no reason for it.
Does the double negative cancel out and leave us with an affirmation
that there is a reason? No.
Ed
> Die Thu Mar 29 2012 15:35:53 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) Ed Cryer
> The question is whether we are to understand "... sacking of someone,
> ... sacking by someone, ... shooting of someone, ... shooting by
> someone. Of course you could paraphrase "my sacking by someone" as "my
> being sacked (passive) but that requires a change in form from "sacking"
> to "sacked." In addition there is the complication that "sack" may mean
> pillage and "shoot" also has a wide range of meaning. If it can be
> established that Ricci in the passage above used "amandi" as a
> gerundive, then the the Latin version of the prayer (by Merry del Val in
> Spanish) is correct for "Jesus, free me from the desire of (wanting) to
> be loved." Patruus' link to the grammar book doesn't have enough
> examples to settle the question for me. Gildersleeve and Lodge 427 Note
> 3 and 428 Remark 1 seem to allow the gerundive construction with with
> transitive verbs and pronouns.
>
> Eduardus
>
The point I was trying to make is that I instinctively take both of them
as passive in meaning. When you consider others that I instinctively
take as active (eg. his giving, her receiving, their doing) you have to
admit that there are factors at play other than purely grammatical ones.
Pace some kind of Chomskyan universal grammar wrapped up in our genes,
it looks as though mere conventional usage is at play.
There ain't no reason for it.
Does the double negative cancel out and leave us with an affirmation
that there is a reason? No.
Ed
David Rodez
Mar 30, 2012, 8:10:46 PM3/30/12
to
On 3/28/2012 5:17 PM, B. T. Raven wrote:
> Die Wed Mar 28 2012 14:44:33 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) Ed Cryer
> <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> scripsit:
>
> Die Wed Mar 28 2012 14:44:33 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) Ed Cryer
> <e...@somewhere.in.the.uk> scripsit:
>
>> B. T. Raven wrote:
>>> Desiderium amandi
>>> Desiderium mei amandi
>>> Desiderium me amandi
>>>
>>> Can the second phrase above be construed with a gerundive? (desire of me
>>> being loved)
>>> Could it ever have been used thus since it is phonetically almost
>>> indistinguishable from the third, which must mean something else?
>>
>> I have no trouble with 1& 3. I give them both approval in classical Latin.
>>> Desiderium amandi
>>> Desiderium mei amandi
>>> Desiderium me amandi
>>>
>>> Can the second phrase above be construed with a gerundive? (desire of me
>>> being loved)
>>> Could it ever have been used thus since it is phonetically almost
>>> indistinguishable from the third, which must mean something else?
>>
>>
>> The natural interpretation of 2 is "longing for my loving". But your
>> other possibility renders it ambiguous and to be avoided.
>
>> The natural interpretation of 2 is "longing for my loving". But your
>> other possibility renders it ambiguous and to be avoided.
>
> But if 2 is a gerundive then "amandi" means "of being loved," not
> "loving." A back translation of your translation yields "desiderans
> amorem meum, or desiderium amoris mei." Here is an example from from a
> more fluent writer (Bartholomeo Ricci (c. 1560):
>
> Cui solatio id quoque accedit, quod hunc video aequissimis passibus
> magistrum suum brevi assecuturum ut quod damni in illo factum sit, iste
> non multo post sit optime praestiturus: in quo neque ego separatim mei
> amandi totum desiderium omisero, quando in hoc meo Bartholomaeo illud
> sim optime renovaturus, ad quod mecum mutuo faciendum hoc modo visus sum
> benigne illum invitare, ut, quemadmodum ego illum ex ejus scriptis amare
> coepi, ita ille quoque, si prius non fecit, nunc me ex meis diligere
> incipiat.
>
> Doesn't "mei amandi" mean "of me being loved" in that context?
>
I don't know. My hunch is that if Ricci meant 'of me being (or wanting
> "loving." A back translation of your translation yields "desiderans
> amorem meum, or desiderium amoris mei." Here is an example from from a
> more fluent writer (Bartholomeo Ricci (c. 1560):
>
> Cui solatio id quoque accedit, quod hunc video aequissimis passibus
> magistrum suum brevi assecuturum ut quod damni in illo factum sit, iste
> non multo post sit optime praestiturus: in quo neque ego separatim mei
> amandi totum desiderium omisero, quando in hoc meo Bartholomaeo illud
> sim optime renovaturus, ad quod mecum mutuo faciendum hoc modo visus sum
> benigne illum invitare, ut, quemadmodum ego illum ex ejus scriptis amare
> coepi, ita ille quoque, si prius non fecit, nunc me ex meis diligere
> incipiat.
>
> Doesn't "mei amandi" mean "of me being loved" in that context?
>
to be) loved', he would have used a different construction, viz:
"desiderium ut amer". As I think of them, despite the grammar,
semantically gerundives are gerunds with benefits (viz, the right to
modify other nouns/pronouns), so they never lose their active force.
Rod.
Message has been deleted
Johannes Patruus
Apr 1, 2012, 3:33:41 AM4/1/12
to
On 31/03/2012 22:04, B. T. Raven wrote:
> Die Fri Mar 30 2012 19:10:46 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) David
> Rodez<use...@davidrodez.com> scripsit:
> But the question remains whether the above passage (in quo neque ego
> separatim mei amandi totum desiderium omisero) if it doesn't contain a
> gerundive, can be rendered sensibly. Can you translate it into English?
> While it is true that gerunds and gerundives are closely related and
> sometimes indistinguishable out of context, it is also the case that
> gerunds are noun-like and gerundives more adjectival. Nouns don't modify
> nouns except by proximity in hendiadys or via oblique cases (e. g. amor
> matris (maternus), ars amandi (amatoria), etc.). Both of these latter
> examples can be interpreted objectively or subjectively: the love felt
> by the mother or by the child; the art of loving or of being loved. The
> answer to the question may hinge on whether "mei" is the genitive of ego
> or of meus, -a, -um. I suspect that this particular form is so rare
> precisely because "mē amandi" and "mĕi amandi" sound so similar and are
> probably avoided for that reason.
>
> Eduardus
FWIW, the following strings are known to Google -
mei tenendi causa
mei salutandi et visendi causa
mei describendi causa
mei exercendi causa
mei reficiendi causa
mei jactandi causa
mei purgandi causa
mei decipiendi gratia
mei videndi causa
mei muniendi causa
mei criminandi causa
mei inuisendi gratia
mei defendendi causa
mei terrendi gratia
mei testificandi gratia
In the first of these, which is from Cicero's phrase "instituti mei
tenendi causa", "mei" appears to be a possessive adjective qualifying
"instituti", but in at least some of the others there is no noun being
qualified so I would take "mei" to be the genitive of "ego".
If, as I think you suggested, the original is in Merry del Val's Spanish,
then perhaps the answer is to be found there.
Patruus
> Die Fri Mar 30 2012 19:10:46 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) David
> Rodez<use...@davidrodez.com> scripsit:
> separatim mei amandi totum desiderium omisero) if it doesn't contain a
> gerundive, can be rendered sensibly. Can you translate it into English?
> While it is true that gerunds and gerundives are closely related and
> sometimes indistinguishable out of context, it is also the case that
> gerunds are noun-like and gerundives more adjectival. Nouns don't modify
> nouns except by proximity in hendiadys or via oblique cases (e. g. amor
> matris (maternus), ars amandi (amatoria), etc.). Both of these latter
> examples can be interpreted objectively or subjectively: the love felt
> by the mother or by the child; the art of loving or of being loved. The
> answer to the question may hinge on whether "mei" is the genitive of ego
> or of meus, -a, -um. I suspect that this particular form is so rare
> precisely because "mē amandi" and "mĕi amandi" sound so similar and are
> probably avoided for that reason.
>
> Eduardus
FWIW, the following strings are known to Google -
mei tenendi causa
mei salutandi et visendi causa
mei describendi causa
mei exercendi causa
mei reficiendi causa
mei jactandi causa
mei purgandi causa
mei decipiendi gratia
mei videndi causa
mei muniendi causa
mei criminandi causa
mei inuisendi gratia
mei defendendi causa
mei terrendi gratia
mei testificandi gratia
In the first of these, which is from Cicero's phrase "instituti mei
tenendi causa", "mei" appears to be a possessive adjective qualifying
"instituti", but in at least some of the others there is no noun being
qualified so I would take "mei" to be the genitive of "ego".
If, as I think you suggested, the original is in Merry del Val's Spanish,
then perhaps the answer is to be found there.
Patruus
Ed Cryer
Apr 1, 2012, 8:52:39 AM4/1/12
to
"ille restituendi mei quam retinendi studiosior".
That is most definitely passive in the context, and ergo a gerundive.
Ed
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Johannes Patruus
Apr 2, 2012, 2:13:33 PM4/2/12
to
On 02/04/2012 18:08, B. T. Raven wrote:
> Die Mon Apr 02 2012 11:41:59 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) B. T.
> Raven<ni...@nihilo.net> scripsit:
>
> [...]
>
>
>> http://www.eddiedonovan.com/notablepolyglots.htm
>>
>> but not in the same league as
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Caspar_Mezzofanti
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Williams_%28linguist%29
>>
>> who certainly belongs up there with Mezzofanti.
>
> Quidnam gentium fuit illa explosio in cerebro quam expertus est noster
> puerulus Neozelandianus septem annos natus?
Presumably a change in brain physiology. I'd be surprised if it were not a
phenomenon identifiable by those who study such things, failing which, it
is easily accounted for by the dictum: Stuff happens.
> Mortuus est anno
> quinquagesimo aetatis suae; Merry del Val anno sexagesimo quinto aetatis
> suae.
> Haroldi causam mortis reperire non potui.
Cannot tell as his bio at you-know-where is "snippet view" only.
Patruus
> Die Mon Apr 02 2012 11:41:59 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) B. T.
> Raven<ni...@nihilo.net> scripsit:
>
> [...]
>
>
>> http://www.eddiedonovan.com/notablepolyglots.htm
>>
>> but not in the same league as
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Caspar_Mezzofanti
>>
>> or
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Williams_%28linguist%29
>>
>> who certainly belongs up there with Mezzofanti.
>
> Quidnam gentium fuit illa explosio in cerebro quam expertus est noster
> puerulus Neozelandianus septem annos natus?
Presumably a change in brain physiology. I'd be surprised if it were not a
phenomenon identifiable by those who study such things, failing which, it
is easily accounted for by the dictum: Stuff happens.
> Mortuus est anno
> quinquagesimo aetatis suae; Merry del Val anno sexagesimo quinto aetatis
> suae.
> Haroldi causam mortis reperire non potui.
Cannot tell as his bio at you-know-where is "snippet view" only.
Patruus
Message has been deleted
0 new messages