Textkit Logo

Aeneid 4.212

Here's where you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get translation help and more!

Moderator: thesaurus

Aeneid 4.212

Postby vir litterarum » Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:39 am

"... cui litus arandum/ cuique loci leges dedimus," (4.212) is the usage of arandum here a gerundive? If it is, would it be translated "for whom the shore had to be plowed."? It seems like a passive periphrastic, but there is no being verb present.
vir litterarum
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 721
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:04 am
Location: Oberlin, Ohio

Re: Aeneid 4.212

Postby fierywrath » Thu Dec 22, 2005 3:27 am

vir litterarum wrote:"... cui litus arandum/ cuique loci leges dedimus," (4.212) is the usage of arandum here a gerundive? If it is, would it be translated "for whom the shore had to be plowed."? It seems like a passive periphrastic, but there is no being verb present.

stop depending on sum! you dont need it! get it out of your head! sum es est sumus estis sunt what? who needs it??? :?:
phpbb
User avatar
fierywrath
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:55 am

Re: Aeneid 4.212

Postby galen697 » Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:17 pm

I taught this section to my AP class about two weeks ago.

The line literally translates as "to whom a shore for plowing, and to whom laws of the place we gave". Arandum is not a periphrastic, but a gerundive of purpose with an elided "ad".

The context is that Iarbas is complaining to Jupiter about how Dido has rebuffed his efforts at winning her hand in favor of Aeneas and his "half-man comrades" (semiviro comitatu). Specifically he references the episode of Carthage's creation. Iarbas sold Dido "as much land as she could enclose with a bull's hide" (Book 1)- but she outwitted him by soaking the skin in water to make it extremely stretchy, then cut it into tiny strips and thus enclosed the entire space of the city.
galen697
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:13 pm

Re: Aeneid 4.212

Postby adrianus » Wed Mar 18, 2009 6:50 pm

Salvete vir litterarum, fierywrath, galen697

Not gerundive of purpose, I think. See A&G, §500.
Actionis gerundivum non est, meâ sententiâ. Videte A&G.
= "suitable for ploughing/arable shoreline"
Allen & Greenough, §500, wrote:The Gerundive when used as a Participle or an Adjective is always passive, denoting necessity, obligation, or propriety.
In this use of the Gerundive the following points are to be observed:—
1. The gerundive is sometimes used, like the present and perfect participles, in simple agreement with a noun:—
fortem et conservandum virum (Mil. 104), a brave man, and worthy to be preserved.
gravis iniuria facta est et non ferenda (Flacc. 84), a grave and intolerable wrong has been done.
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Aeneid 4.212

Postby Imber Ranae » Wed Mar 18, 2009 11:27 pm

Actually, I think §500 4 is more apposite:

Allen & Greenough, §500 wrote:4. After verbs signifying to give, deliver, agree for, have, receive, undertake, demand, a gerundive in agreement with the object is used to express purpose:—
redemptor qui columnam illam conduxerat faciendam (Div. ii. 47), the contractor who had undertaken to make that column. [the regular construction with this class of verbs.]
aedem Castoris habuit tuendam (Verr. ii. 50), he had the temple of Castor to take care of.
naves atque onera diligenter adservanda curabat (id. vi. 56), he took care that the ships and cargoes should be kept.


So dedimus goes with both relative clauses: "To whom [we gave] the shore to be cultivated, [and] to whom we gave the laws of the district."

It's a bit like the Greek circumstantial future participle of purpose, except it's only used with the accusative direct object of certain verbs, and it's always passive.
Ex mala malo
bono malo uesci
quam ex bona malo
malo malo malo.
Imber Ranae
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:06 am

Re: Aeneid 4.212

Postby adrianus » Thu Mar 19, 2009 9:42 am

Imber Ranae wrote:I think §500 4 is more apposite

Ah! Hoisted with my own petard!
Ehem! Me suspensum per funem meum proprium!
I'm writing in Latin hoping for correction, and not because I'm confident in how I express myself. Latinè scribo ut ab omnibus corrigar, non quod confidenter me exprimam.
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: Aeneid 4.212

Postby galen697 » Thu Mar 19, 2009 4:17 pm

Imber Ranae wrote:Actually, I think §500 4 is more apposite:
It's a bit like the Greek circumstantial future participle of purpose, except it's only used with the accusative direct object of certain verbs, and it's always passive.


Reading that makes my head spin, and makes me glad to only be teaching Latin...
galen697
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:13 pm

Re: Aeneid 4.212

Postby galen697 » Fri Mar 20, 2009 2:40 pm

fierywrath wrote:stop depending on sum! you dont need it! get it out of your head! sum es est sumus estis sunt what? who needs it??? :?:


Vergil certainly didn't. :lol:
galen697
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 4:13 pm


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aochagavia, Google [Bot] and 40 guests