Textkit Logo

abstraho + acc. + dat.? or abl.?

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

abstraho + acc. + dat.? or abl.?

Postby Junya » Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:45 pm

Hi.

L&S for abstraho :
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 3Dabstraho

navem remulco abstraxit
Germanicum suetis legionibus
abstrahere aliquem gremio

Are remulco and legionibus and gremio abl. or dat. ?
I think they are dat., but am not confident since other sample sentences have ex and ab.
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: abstraho + acc. + dat.? or abl.?

Postby Grochojad » Sat Oct 27, 2012 12:47 pm

I'd go with the ablative. It is the case that goes with separation and movement away, and is strongly suggested by the prefix "ab-".
Grochojad
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 3:13 am
Location: Vratislavia

Re: abstraho + acc. + dat.? or abl.?

Postby Junya » Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:18 pm

Hi, Grochojad. :)

But as I remember, verbs with a prefix like ab-, ex-, com-, pro-, etc. generally take dat..
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: abstraho + acc. + dat.? or abl.?

Postby Grochojad » Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:00 am

Junya wrote:Hi, Grochojad. :)

But as I remember, verbs with a prefix like ab-, ex-, com-, pro-, etc. generally take dat..


Hey Junya,

the lists in Allen&Greenough and in Bennett don't mention ab- nor pro-. There is "Dative of Separation" in the former but it really is just a "Dative of Reference", and all the examples of it concern people, so that is not it.
Grochojad
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 3:13 am
Location: Vratislavia

Re: abstraho + acc. + dat.? or abl.?

Postby adrianus » Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:10 am

Ablativo casu est omnis verborum istorum

“aliquem e gremio e sinuque patriae,” id. Cael. 24, 59; “for which, aliquem gremio,” Ov. M. 13, 658
"navem remulco abstraxit" "he/she/it hauled the ship with a rope"
Esp., to withdraw, alienate from a party: “copias a Lepido,” Cic. Fam. 10, 18, 3: “Germanicum [a] suetis legionibus,” Tac. A. 2, 5.

extinguere animum alicui // to extinguish the life to someone [/to extinguish someone's life]
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: abstraho + acc. + dat.? or abl.?

Postby Junya » Sun Oct 28, 2012 3:49 pm

I checked Gildersleeve, and found the compound verbs that take dat. were generally with
ad-, ante-, con-, in-, inter-, ob-, post-, prae-, sub-, super- (sec. 347,)

but it was written that occasionally compound transitive verbs with
de-, ex-, ab-
were found with dat. (and the dat. could be translated "from") (sec. 347. Remark 5.).
In the example sentence the dat. were persons, not things, as you say, Grochojad.


Adrianus, this question was again raised when I was reading the booklet of a medieval song CD.
This.
desponsationem viri sibi abstraxit


she kept away the engagement with any man from herself

I checked abstraho in L&S but I couldn't find a clear statement and sample sentence of the usage with dat..
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan

Re: abstraho + acc. + dat.? or abl.?

Postby adrianus » Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:33 pm

Cur non hoc:

desponsationem viri sibi
engagement/betrothal to her own man/husband [or to a man of her own]

"And indeed in order to be embraced by the Lamb
she withdrew from betrothal to a man of her own."***

vel dativum separationis secundum Groachad (A&G §381) ut resolutio melior.
or as Groachad suggests, dative of separation (A&G §381) is a better reading.

"Et etiam propter amplexionem Agni
desponsationem viri sibi
abstraxit.
"

"And indeed in order to be embraced by the Lamb
she withdrew betrothal to a man from herself. [//she distanced herself from betrothal to a man]"

***Post Scriptum

Modo animadverti. Erro. Non "suo" adjectivum sed "sibi" pronomen est.
Oh. Just noticed my mistake: it's sibi not suo. I was thinking suo.
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: abstraho + acc. + dat.? or abl.?

Postby Junya » Mon Oct 29, 2012 7:44 pm

Grochojad, Adrianus,

as I compared Allen & Greenough to Gildersleeve,
I thought this dative of separation seems to express "interest or harm" or other subjective feelings felt in the mind of the person in dat..
There was no section titled dative of separation in Gildersleeve, but there were instead ethical dative (351) and dative of reference (352) which seemed akin to dative of separation in A&G.


And now I found the Remark1 in 345. It says about the dat. with verbs of takingaway, that when you don't express the personal interest you have to use abl.. (By this it is known that some of the sample sentences given in L&S abstraho were abl., some were dat..)
Junya
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 2:26 am
Location: Japan


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 31 guests