necesse esse v. debere
Robert
Si vales bene est valeo.
Quomodo sunt «necesse esse» et «debere» diversa? Suntne eadem?
e.g.
«Necesse est mihi legere illum librum.»
«Debeo legere illum librum.»
Gratias vobis qui respondebunt nunc ago.
Bene valete.
--
Robertus PISCATOR
Ignosce erroribus meis.
Commentarios de Latina mea invito.
Inscriptio electronica mea est mala. Me paenitet.
Johannes Patruus
"Robert" <rob...@ibooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92C793EF2B4A...@127.0.0.1...
> Quomodo sunt «necesse esse» et «debere» diversa? Suntne eadem?
>
> e.g.
>
> «Necesse est mihi legere illum librum.»
> «Debeo legere illum librum.»
I don't suppose it's this simple, but prima facie the former translates
"must" and the latter "ought".
Johannes
Matthew Montchalin
Yes, and as the latter term is found more often in a financial sense
of owing, or being in a state of debt. And isn't 'necesse' somehow
connected with 'ne cette' - go not (without doing something or other).'
Isn't the letter 'c' in necesse connected with the verb cedo?
Evertjan.
> Isn't the letter 'c' in necesse connected with the verb cedo?
Yes,
Probably from ne- "not" + cedere "withdraw."
--
Evertjan.
The Netherlands.
(Please change the x'es to dots in my emailaddress)
Evertjan.
> - necesse est: there is no other choice, it is logically necessary
>
> - debere: you have to do it because it is your debt, you are obliged by
> your morality
>
necesse esse -> absolute necessity
debere -> moral necessity
debere -> necessity under the law ?
Hartmut Gastens
> Quomodo sunt «necesse esse» et «debere» diversa? Suntne eadem?
In "Classic" (Ciceronian) Latin there seem to be differences (taken from
H. Menge, Repititorium der lateinischen Syntax und Stilistik, 428. He
also dicusses oportet, opus est, meum + Gen., decet, cogi, iuberi,
facere non possum and the gerundive):
- necesse est: there is no other choice, it is logically necessary
- debere: you have to do it because it is your debt, you are obliged by
your morality
greetinx
Hartmut
Evertjan.
>|Probably from ne- "not" + cedere "withdraw."
> connection between the English 'get' and the Latin root 'ced?'
Yes it is.
=============================
"get" is from indoeuropeic "gietan" = to take, to remember, to understand.
(Dutch vergeten = forget)
Has latin connections in "praeda" =booty, "prehendere" =to take
And Greek "chandanein" =to hold
==============================
cedere =cede, give up, possibly connected with cadere =to fall or caedere
to fell, to kill
Matthew Montchalin
|> Isn't the letter 'c' in necesse connected with the verb cedo?
|
|Yes,
Ah!
|Probably from ne- "not" + cedere "withdraw."
Could be. And, um, is it just a little bit too tempting to draw a
Matthew Montchalin
|cedere =cede, give up, possibly connected with cadere =to fall or
|caedere to fell, to kill
Yes. Trying to connect that with gietan becomes difficult.
What is the Greek cognate to cedere?
If there were a Germanic version, what would its probable form be?
Matthew Montchalin
|"get" is from indoeuropeic "gietan" = to take, to remember, to understand.
|
|(Dutch vergeten = forget)
|
|Has latin connections in "praeda" =booty, "prehendere" =to take
Yes, I see how 'gietan' connects with "prehendere" - because there
ought to be a parallel between indo-european 'g' and the Italic 'h.'
but does the Latin "praeda" (booty) descend from "prehendere?" Does
the 'n' disappear? And is there a connection between "praeda" and
"pransum?"
|And Greek "chandanein" =to hold
Okay, the Greek 'ch' would be in parallel to the 'g' in 'gietan?'
Lukas Pietsch
understand.
wait a moment, something has gone wrong here. "gietan" sounds much more like
a Germanic than like a Proto-IE form. Germanic /g/ should be from IE */gh/,
and Germanic /t/ should be from IE */d/. My etymological dictionary (Kluge,
Etym. Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache) gives a hypothetical IE root *ghed,
*ghend. The nasalized *ghend variant would be the link between Germanic
"(be-)gin", Latin "(pre-)hendere" and Greek "chandanein". The non-nasalized
variant *ghed would be the root for the Germanic *get- verbs, but apparently
has no direct cognates in non-Germanic languages.
As for "gietan", I sounds like it could very well be a cognate of "get" etc.
in some older Germanic language, but I can't figure out in which. Where
would the /ie/ diphthong come from?
Lukas
Evertjan.
> As for "gietan", I sounds like it could very well be a cognate of
> "get" etc. in some older Germanic language, but I can't figure out in
> which.
> hypothetical IE root *ghed,
I should have said that.
Where would the /ie/ diphthong come from?
It is just a way of writing a longer "i", I do not see a problem between
get, ghet, giet.
Mathew:
> does the Latin "praeda" (booty) descend from "prehendere?"
I think they have a common root. the "prE-" is not the common pre- in this
case then(!). cf French "prendre", "comprendre"
Javi
I'd say it is Gothic.
--
Javi
Lukas Pietsch
> It is just a way of writing a longer "i", I do not see a problem between
>
> get, ghet, giet.
Oh, but I do. Sorry, Evertjan, I don't want to sound fussy, but when talking
historical linguistics, I'm just accustomed to a bit more necessary
precision. If we lump together sounds just because they sound somehow
similar to our ears, it's no use doing etymology. In the context of
Indoeuropean etymologies, */g/ and */gh/ are definitely two very different
things. So are */d/ and */t/. And so are short */e/ and long */i:/. And as
for using <ie> as "a way of writing a longer i", that may be a common
orthographical convention in modern German or modern Dutch, but it's not
very useful (and certainly not common) for Indoeuropean.
I don't think we need to discuss this particular etymology much further -
but just out of curiosity, could you perhaps check where you found that
"gietan" form, and what language it was ascribed to?
Best regards,
Lukas
Evertjan.
> but just out of curiosity, could you perhaps check where you found that
> "gietan" form, and what language it was ascribed to?
ODEE 1966 page 396 "get":
Old English *gietan
["except in Scand. the Germ. vb. appears almost exclusively in comps."]
Hartmut Gastens
>
> debere -> necessity under the law ?
dont know. havent found examples yet. "necessity under the law" should
also work with gerundive
greetinx
Hartmut
Lukas Pietsch
Ouch, that was close to home. Eternal shame on me for not recognizing this
at once. Especially after lecturing you like I did in my last post.... :-)
Lukas
Matthew Montchalin
I rather like it when Old English is the same thing as PIE.
Martin ~ Malaysia
> Could be. And, um, is it just a little bit too tempting to draw a
> connection between the English 'get' and the Latin root 'ced?'
Simplistically, I think
a Latin root 'ced' would give a theoretical Germanic root 'het',
a Germanic root 'get' would rather give a theoretical Latin root
'hed'.
Instead, construct from this a theoretical Latin verb 'hedere' and
check what similar words we can find. Oh, now I discovered that other
posters have already suggested 'prehendere'. Well that fits in terms
of meaning as well.
Robert
Multas gratias iterum ago vobis qui respondit. Disputatio etymologica
mihi placet. Vere grex mihi semper placet.
Hartmut Gastens <gas...@addcom.de> scripsit:
>
> In "Classic" (Ciceronian) Latin there seem to be differences (taken
> from H. Menge, Repititorium der lateinischen Syntax und Stilistik,
> 428. He also dicusses oportet, opus est, meum + Gen., decet, cogi,
> iuberi, facere non possum and the gerundive):
>
Extra gerundivum, illa non cogito.
De gerundivum: Allen & Greenough scripserunt «The Gerundive [...] is
always passive, denoting necessity, obligation, or propriety.» Potestne
ita substitueri pro «necesse», «debere», & «oportet»?
Haec in glossa inveni...
oportet: It is right/proper. (A social rather than moral obligation? Is
there a difference?)
opus est: It is useful/beneficial.
decet: It is fitting/right/seemly/proper. (The same as "oportet"?)
iuberi: To be ordered/commanded/decreed/appointed.
Estne «cogi», «coegi»? To be compelled? (The same as "iuberi"?)
De his propriis loquendi rationibus* nihil inveni: meum + gen. aut facere
non possum.
Bene valete.
*secundum Cassell: propria loquendi ratio = idiom
Hartmut Gastens
> De gerundivum: Allen & Greenough scripserunt «The Gerundive [...] is
^^^
> always passive, denoting necessity, obligation, or propriety.» Potestne
> ita substitueri pro «necesse», «debere», & «oportet»?
>
Maybe yes, maybe no; it depends on the thing, you want to say.
> oportet: It is right/proper. (A social rather than moral obligation? Is
> there a difference?)
= its rational to do so, you can not think different
>
> opus est: It is useful/beneficial.
right
>
> decet: It is fitting/right/seemly/proper. (The same as "oportet"?)
its a matter of decency
>
> iuberi: To be ordered/commanded/decreed/appointed.
you have to, because you are ordered
>
> Estne «cogi», «coegi»? To be compelled? (The same as "iuberi"?)
coegi is first sing. perf. indicative active from cogere
cogi is infinitive passive
cogi is same as iuberi
>
> De his propriis loquendi rationibus* nihil inveni: meum + gen. aut facere
> non possum.
facere non possum, quin
fieri non potest, quin
-> it is inevitable
"meum + gen." was my fault, (faster writing than thinking). it has to
be:
meum est -> I have to do, its my duty
tuum est -> You have to do, its your duty
Gen. + est -> someone has to do, its someones duty
greetinx
Hartmut
Matthew Montchalin
|> oportet: It is right/proper. (A social rather than moral obligation? Is
|> there a difference?)
|
|= its rational to do so, you can not think different
Say, what is the etymological history behind 'oportet?' (Scrunching up
my eyes.... Um, hmmmmm, is it connected with orior? Surely not porto...
Is there anything in Greek that looks suspiciously like it?)
Hartmut Gastens
> Say, what is the etymological history behind 'oportet?' (Scrunching up
> my eyes.... Um, hmmmmm, is it connected with orior? Surely not porto...
> Is there anything in Greek that looks suspiciously like it?)
Walde-Hoffmann, Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch II, s.v. oportet:
op (ob) + vortere (vertere) "sich wohin wenden"; oportet also "es wendet
sich zu, kommt zu, steht als Pflicht vor einem" ...
-> ob + vortere = to turn to a direction
-> oportet = it turns to someone, it belongs to someone, its like a duty
in front of you
if you understand German, ignore my tries of translation
greetinx
Hartmut
Robert
Matthew Montchalin
|Matthew Montchalin schrieb:
|> Say, what is the etymological history behind 'oportet?' (Scrunching
|> up my eyes.... Um, hmmmmm, is it connected with orior? Surely not
|> porto... Is there anything in Greek that looks suspiciously like it?)
|
|Walde-Hoffmann, Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch II, s.v. oportet:
|op (ob) + vortere (vertere) "sich wohin wenden"; oportet also "es wendet
|sich zu, kommt zu, steht als Pflicht vor einem" ...
Aha!!!
|-> ob + vortere = to turn to a direction
|-> oportet = it turns to someone, it belongs to someone, its like a duty
|in front of you
I should have guessed that ob + uortere gives rise to oportet! The
letter 'v' often disappears - as in deorsum, rursum, and sursum.
|if you understand German, ignore my tries of translation
Yes, the German made perfect sense, but the translations are always good
for helping everybody else out, too. :)
Edward Casey
"Hartmut Gastens" <gas...@addcom.de> wrote in message
news:3DDB998D...@addcom.de...
This sounds about right but I still like Matthew's guess that "orior" lies
somewhere in the background, as if it were short for "opus ortum est." I
have heard that Walde is just a compilation of conjectures from Varro,
Isidore, and the Indogermanisten. Does Ernout confirm Walde's etymology? How
did "obvortere" become second conjugation? Was future "obvortet" construed
as present? Etymologies that make sense in German might not make sense in
other vernaculars or even in Latin.
Eduardus