Aeneid 4.212

[vir litterarum]

"... 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.

[fierywrath]

"... 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???

[galen697]

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.

[adrianus]

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"

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.

[Imber Ranae]

Actually, I think §500 4 is more apposite:

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.

[adrianus]

I think §500 4 is more apposite

Ah! Hoisted with my own petard!
Ehem! Me suspensum per funem meum proprium!

[galen697]

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]

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.