More questions from Romae Viri

[phil]

In a story about Horatius Cocles:
Porsena, rēx Etruscōrum, ad restituendōs in rēgnum Tarquiniōs īnfestō exercitū Rōmam vēnit.

Porsena, the king of the Etruscans, to restore the Tarquins to power, came to Rome ... It can't be just with his aggressive army, or it would be cum īnfestō exercitū, wouldn't it? It can't be by means of. So what does the ablative there mean?.

In a story about Pyrrhus, Rēx Ēpīrī, the king Pyrrhus sends his elephants against the Romans:
Rōmānōs vāstōrum corporum mōlēs terribilisque superadstantium armātōrum speciēs turbāvit.

The size of the vast bodies, and the terrible appearance of the armed standing-over-them somethings threw the Romans into confusion. I can't work out what superadstantium and armātōrum are modifying. Can it be mōlēs too?

Later, in the same story, Pyrrhus was burying the dead Roman soldiers:
Quōs cum adversō vulnere et trucī vultū etiam mortuōs iacentēs vīdisset...

Whom, when he saw their something wound and fierce expression, even lying dead... I'm assuming the cum matches the vidisset, and adverso vulnere is ablative of quality or specification, why just one wound, and why adversus. That means opposite, or in front of, doesn't it?

[vastor]

In a story about Horatius Cocles:
Porsena, rēx Etruscōrum, ad restituendōs in rēgnum Tarquiniōs īnfestō exercitū Rōmam vēnit.

Porsena, the king of the Etruscans, to restore the Tarquins to power, came to Rome ... It can't be just with his aggressive army, or it would be cum īnfestō exercitū, wouldn't it? It can't be by means of. So what does the ablative there mean?.

It looks like the ablative of means (the means by which he restored the tarquins to the throne), and does not require cum because it has an adjectival modifier. And you are correct, the ablative of accompaniment would require the preposition cum.
Porsena, the king of the Etruscans, came to rome to restore the Tarquins to the throne with a hostile army.

I have a question myself. Is restituendos a gerundive of purpose?

[adrianus]

"with [his] hostile/dangerous/harrassed/damaged/weakened army"

ablative of accompaniment without cum for military matters (L&S 413a)
rebus bellicis ablativus deductionis sine "cum"

"The mass of huge bodies and the terrible sight of armed men standing on top..."

adverso vulnere et truci vultu // "with evil wound and grim face" = dreadfully wounded and grim-faced

[modus.irrealis]

Later, in the same story, Pyrrhus was burying the dead Roman soldiers:
Quōs cum adversō vulnere et trucī vultū etiam mortuōs iacentēs vīdisset...

Whom, when he saw their something wound and fierce expression, even lying dead...

Quos here is the object of vidisset. You often get "cum" coming second, and it might be especially common with "qui" when it means "et is" like it seems to do here. About the singular vulnere, I think this is related to the fact that in many languages the equivalent of "they took their hats off" will have "hat" in the singular. It's just something you get used to.

--

I have a question myself. Is restituendos a gerundive of purpose?

Yes, with the "ad".

[vastor]

ablative of accompaniment without cum for military matters (L&S 413a)

From what I can discern from de bello gallico, use of the preposition is much more common even with military expressions. Which explains why I never encountered it. I did find an interesting note on its frequency though; It appears to follow a rule similar to that of the ablative of manner, by which it omits the preposition if an adjectival modifier is present, as is the case here.

[adrianus]

I was just proposing it as a possibility. Maybe it's not correct, vastor.

Id nihilo proposui secùs quàm possibile. Fortassè, vastor, falsum est.

Livy II,9,4-5: Porsinna, cum regem esse Romae tum Etruscae gentis regem amplum Tuscis ratus, Romam infesto exercitu venit.

[Elsewhere // Alibi (Livy, 2.16.6) Consules exercitu infesto in agrum Sabinum profecti cum ita uastatione, dein proelio adflixissent opes hostium, ut diu nihil inde rebellionis timeri posset.]

[vastor]

I was just proposing it as a possibility. Maybe it's not correct, vastor.

Id nihilo proposui secùs quàm possibile. Fortassè, vastor, falsum est.

Livy II,9,4-5: Porsinna, cum regem esse Romae tum Etruscae gentis regem amplum Tuscis ratus, Romam infesto exercitu venit.

You misunderstand me. I wasn't suggesting you were incorrect, quite the opposite in fact, for you have demonstrated the validity of your argument well. I was merely explaining that I hadn't encountered the construction before, and that from my own investigation of it, its occurrence seems to follow similar rules to the ablative of manner which I found interesting enough to merit mentioning.

Me non intellegis. Tua verba non dicebam quae falsa essent, adversa enim sunt, nam veritatem argumenti bene demonstravisti. Ante hoc tempus eum grammaticae genus non videram, et cum haec res reperta esset, forma grammaticae eadem dictata quae ablativo modi imperant subsequi videtur. Hic rebus cognitis, te certiorem facere quaesivi.

[adrianus]

I get you. // Nunc te teneo.

I did find an interesting note on its frequency though

Where was the note on frequency, by the way?
Ubi obiter erat commentarium de frequentatione?

[adrianus]

I translated this second "exercitu infesto" Livy sentence to compare with translations by others.
Hanc sententiam et "exercitu infesto" continentem in sermones anglicos verti ut ea traductionibus aliorum comparetur.

Consules exercitu infesto in agrum Sabinum profecti cum ita uastatione, dein proelio adflixissent opes hostium, ut diu nihil inde rebellionis timeri posset.

A Roman force under the command of the consuls invaded Sabine territory, which it proceeded to devastate; by that means, and by means of a successful engagement which followed, the Romans broke the Sabine' power of resistance so completely that there was no fear of further hostilities for a long time to come.

The consuls entered the territories of the Sabines with a hostile army, and when, both by laying waste their country, and afterwards by defeating them in battle, they had so weakened the power of the enemy, that for a long time there was no reason to dread the renewal of the war in that quarter, returned to Rome in triumph.

The consuls proceeded into Sabine land with an offensive army, whereupon, by laying it waste and then in battle, they crushed the enemy's power to the extent that for a long time no rebellion could be feared.

[vastor]

Where was the note on frequency, by the way?
Ubi obiter erat commentarium de frequentatione?

The classical weekly vol 9, no 6, pp 45-47. Review of books I and II of caesar's de bello gallico.

There are 68 military expressions of accompaniment that have cum and six that do not. In all six the noun is copiis.

I'm not sure of the accuracy of that, but it was the only information I could find on the frequency of such a construction. That and the fact that it occurs more often when an adjectival modifier is present, which can be found in a few latin grammars.

[vastor]

Consules exercitu infesto in agrum Sabinum profecti cum ita uastatione, dein proelio adflixissent opes hostium, ut diu nihil inde rebellionis timeri posset.

After the consules had set out into the sabine field with (their) hostile army, and since having weakened the resources of the enemy thus by ravaging (it) [uastatione == vastatione?], and afterwards by battle, that (subjunctive of result?) thenceforth for a long time no semblance of rebellion was able to be feared.

The ablative of accompaniment seems straightforward here, after all, it's unlikely an army would be needed as a means to merely set out into the territory of the sabines, whereas the latin as we discussed above, could be viewed with a degree of ambiguity given the desire of the tarquins to return to the throne. I guess we just have to infer the most appropriate semantics by context.

[adrianus]

That's interesting. That reviewer argues after Gildersleeve-Lodge that, without "cum", it's neither ablative of means nor or accompaniment but of manner.

Id curae est quod clamat qui recenset secundum Gildersleeve-Lodge ablativum sine "cum" nec instrumentalem nec sociativum sed modi esse.

I. 28.-"cum <omnibus> copiis: in military expressions, accompaniment. is commonly expressed by the ablative without a preposition". This is really inexcusable, for careful statements in regard to the usage have long been available. cum is always found with verbs of contention, with definite numbers, and when no adjective is used with the ablative noun. In B. G. i-6 there are 68 military expressions of accompaniment that have cum and six that do not. In all six the noun is copiis; in four of the six copiis refers to the same persons as the subject, thus making impossible the literal notion of accompaniment. All such cases where cum is omitted are classified by Gildersleeve-Lodge as ablatives of manner. In Nepos the count gives 80 instances with cum and none without.

Does it matter in English? I think not.// Quid refert anglicé? Non refert, ut opinor.

[vastor]

I. 28.-"cum <omnibus> copiis: in military expressions, accompaniment. is commonly expressed by the ablative without a preposition". This is really inexcusable, for careful statements in regard to the usage have long been available. cum is always found with verbs of contention, with definite numbers, and when no adjective is used with the ablative noun. In B. G. i-6 there are 68 military expressions of accompaniment that have cum and six that do not. In all six the noun is copiis; in four of the six copiis refers to the same persons as the subject, thus making impossible the literal notion of accompaniment. All such cases where cum is omitted are classified by Gildersleeve-Lodge as ablatives of manner. In Nepos the count gives 80 instances with cum and none without.

Ah, that makes sense now. The behaviour did seem remarkably similar to the ablative of manner.

Does it matter in English? I think not.

I agree. The sense of it is mostly lost in english. Even in latin the meanings are bordering on the indistinguishable.
Mentes nostrae congruunt. Intellectus verborum anglice mortuus est. Ne latina quidem intellectus est clarior.

[adrianus]

Would you ever say in English though // Dicabisne unquam haec
"The consuls proceeded by means of offensive army" (of means/instrumentalis) or "The consuls proceeded as an offensive force" (of manner/modi)
rather than // ante hoc "The consuls proceeded with an offensive army" (of accompaniment / sociativus)?

[vastor]

Would you ever say in English though // Dicabisne unquam haec
"The consuls proceeded by means of offensive army" (of means/instrumentalis) or "The consuls proceeded as an offensive force" (of manner/modi)
rather than // ante hoc "The consuls proceeded with an offensive army" (of accompaniment / sociativus)?

I think the two idea's of manner and accompaniment can be conflated in english without much loss of meaning. After all the end result is the same in the context given, id est, they combine as an offensive force. However one could make the distinction between the idea of travelling alongside something, and travelling as something, provided the two things were on an equal level. In both cases of this context the consuls are leading the offensive force, so a distinction isn't a necessity.

[adrianus]

I made a silly mistake in saying "dicabisne" (will you offer) for "dicasne" (would you say) above.
Suprà malè scripsi "dicabisne" pro "dicasne". Me ineptum!