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.
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.
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.
Imber Ranae wrote:I think §500 4 is more apposite
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.
Users browsing this forum: Alexa [Bot], Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Jandar and 74 guests