Another problem with Bradley's Arnold
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:10 pm
Another problem with Bradley's Arnold
Ex. 48, B, 6. It is now evident that the enemy intended[5] to attack our camp at the first possible opening, but that at the same time they would wait for a favourable opportunity.
Footnote 5: 14, c. "The participle -rus is always active, and has various meanings. Hoc facturus est. He is going to, likely to, intending to, ready to, destined to, do this."
The Key: Jam satis apparebat (46, c.) hostes primo quoque tempore castra nostra aggressuros fore, eosdem occasionem idoneam expectaturos.
My problem is with "aggressuros fore". Shouldn't it be "aggressuros esse"?
Footnote 5: 14, c. "The participle -rus is always active, and has various meanings. Hoc facturus est. He is going to, likely to, intending to, ready to, destined to, do this."
The Key: Jam satis apparebat (46, c.) hostes primo quoque tempore castra nostra aggressuros fore, eosdem occasionem idoneam expectaturos.
My problem is with "aggressuros fore". Shouldn't it be "aggressuros esse"?
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm
Re: Another problem with Bradley's Arnold
If it's any help §36 in the 1908 edition seems to say that Se iturum esse dicit/dixit and Se iturum fore dicit/dixit are equivalent. Also, the Key "by various authors" and published in 1940(?) has aggressuros esse.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:10 pm
Re: Another problem with Bradley's Arnold
That's odd. I am unable to corroborate this after consulting Bennett and A&G.in the 1908 edition seems to say that Se iturum esse dicit/dixit and Se iturum fore dicit/dixit are equivalent.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:10 pm
Re: Another problem with Bradley's Arnold
It looks like Bradley was relying a bit too much on Kennedy's Primer instead of a real classical grammar.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm
Re: Another problem with Bradley's Arnold
Maybe but still, it seems strange to me that they (or at least one of them) would present such a construction if it were not to be found in any Classical author. I'll keep looking for examples.
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm
Re: Another problem with Bradley's Arnold
Turns out it was just a question of finding the right verb for a Google search.
Some examples of -urus fore in the works of Classical authors are presented here. What I also find interesting is the comment about the fact that Lorenzo Valla thought that this construction wasn't possible (or at least not "elegant"?) : "Qua re cum nomine debet iungi fore, non cum participio" (see here).
Some examples of -urus fore in the works of Classical authors are presented here. What I also find interesting is the comment about the fact that Lorenzo Valla thought that this construction wasn't possible (or at least not "elegant"?) : "Qua re cum nomine debet iungi fore, non cum participio" (see here).
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:10 pm
Re: Another problem with Bradley's Arnold
We'll let Bradley off the hook, but it's good that the later edition chose the more common construction.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2504
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm
Re: Another problem with Bradley's Arnold
See top of p. 121:
"infinitive futurum fore instead of futurum esse found only rarely and almost exclusively in later authors", with questionable examples from Cicero and Livy. Someone might check those examples against a modern critical edition--I don't have either at hand.
https://archive.org/stream/ausfhrlicheg ... 8/mode/2up
Kühner's Ausführliche Grammatik der Lateinischen Sprache (Comprehensive Grammar of the Latin Language)
der Infinitiv futurum fore statt futurum esse begegnet nur selten und fast nur bei Spâteren,
"infinitive futurum fore instead of futurum esse found only rarely and almost exclusively in later authors", with questionable examples from Cicero and Livy. Someone might check those examples against a modern critical edition--I don't have either at hand.
https://archive.org/stream/ausfhrlicheg ... 8/mode/2up
Kühner's Ausführliche Grammatik der Lateinischen Sprache (Comprehensive Grammar of the Latin Language)
Bill Walderman
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:23 pm
Re: Another problem with Bradley's Arnold
Thanks Hylander for this salutary reminder!
I checked these two sentences in the Budé, Oxford and Teubner editions (many thanks to the well furnished university library!) and fore does seem to stand on shaky ground.
In the case of Cic. Att. 5, 21.4, none of these editions retains it in their text (it is mentioned in the apparatus of course, as the lesson given by manuscript Δ).
In the case of Liv. 6, 42.12, here is a (poor) scan of Budé and Oxford (I didn't make one of the Teubner, the edition was from the 1930's and without apparatus). I am not sure how to interpret the apparatus here.
I checked these two sentences in the Budé, Oxford and Teubner editions (many thanks to the well furnished university library!) and fore does seem to stand on shaky ground.
In the case of Cic. Att. 5, 21.4, none of these editions retains it in their text (it is mentioned in the apparatus of course, as the lesson given by manuscript Δ).
In the case of Liv. 6, 42.12, here is a (poor) scan of Budé and Oxford (I didn't make one of the Teubner, the edition was from the 1930's and without apparatus). I am not sure how to interpret the apparatus here.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 2504
- Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:16 pm
Re: Another problem with Bradley's Arnold
The Budé apparatus indicates that Madvig proposed deleting causa libenter facturos on the grounds that it was an error caused by the scribe's eye jumping to the same words in the following section 13. The Oxford edition indicates that two ms. have deos . . . facturos marked in red ink, or some other mark.
Actually in 13 the mss. have acturos; facturos is a proposal that the modern editions accept.
Unfortunately there are no citations in the French text you linked to, so it would be very difficult to check these examples, but I think we've more or less exhausted the subject: fore with future participle is primarily post-classical, and probably should be avoided if you are trying to model your Latin writing on classical authors.
Actually in 13 the mss. have acturos; facturos is a proposal that the modern editions accept.
Unfortunately there are no citations in the French text you linked to, so it would be very difficult to check these examples, but I think we've more or less exhausted the subject: fore with future participle is primarily post-classical, and probably should be avoided if you are trying to model your Latin writing on classical authors.
Bill Walderman
-
- Textkit Enthusiast
- Posts: 584
- Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2010 11:46 am
- Contact:
Re: Another problem with Bradley's Arnold
Salvete,
on the whole, the "Key" prefers "*ur* esse" (64 instances) to "*ur* fore" (2 instances). The two instances of this fore-construction:
Carolus Raeticus
on the whole, the "Key" prefers "*ur* esse" (64 instances) to "*ur* fore" (2 instances). The two instances of this fore-construction:
- Ex 48 B, S. 6: "Jam satis apparebat (#46#, /c./) hostes primo quoque tempore castra nostra aggressuros fore, eosdem occasionem idoneam expectaturos."
- Ex. 67, S. 3: "Abhinc sex menses pollicitus es te ex a. d. III. Nonas Apriles ad a. d. XI. Kal. Maias domi meae (/or/ apud me) fore. Spero te, quantum in te erit, fidem praestaturum fore; decimum hunc diem expectaris."
What do you think?Obs. [...] A third division might be introduced by taking as the standard of comparison a point in future time:--
- (Simultaneous) scribam, "I shall be writing."
- (Past) scripsero, "I shall have written."
- (Future) scripturus ero, "I shall be going to write."
Carolus Raeticus
Sperate miseri, cavete felices.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:10 pm
Re: Another problem with Bradley's Arnold
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the observation at § 177.
I don't think the use of fore with the future participle in those two examples is an oversight, considering § 36. The problem is that it's unclassical. Since it was intentional, I don't think this is something that should be corrected in your key. But a transcriber's footnote wouldn't hurt.
I don't think the use of fore with the future participle in those two examples is an oversight, considering § 36. The problem is that it's unclassical. Since it was intentional, I don't think this is something that should be corrected in your key. But a transcriber's footnote wouldn't hurt.