Silvia Vestalis...

[pmda]

I thought I understood this but as I look at it I can't quite untangle the grammatical relation between the words: I parse each word and offer a translation below. My real problem is the words 'partu' and 'ediderat' both of which can mean 'give birth'.

[Ovidius: Fasti. Ex libro II]
Silvia [FNS] Vestalis [FNS] caelestia [Adj. NAP] semina [NAP] partu [SUP]
Vestal Silvia had borene divine children

ediderat [Plp3S], patruo [MabS.] regna [NAP] tenente [MAb.S (participium)] suo [MAb.S].

her uncle keeping holding the kingdom

I'm relying on 'ediderat' to tell me what she had done. What's the supine 'partu' doing here?

[bedwere]

What's the ablative of partus?

[pmda]

The ablative of 'partus' is partu - but the ablative supine of pario is also partu.

I know that supine of pario may be unheard of or rare and I hadn't considered the noun. It means 'the bearing' or 'the birth'? If it's a straightforward noun meaning 'birth' then it would seem to be mean something like 'by the birth' or 'by the bearing'...mind you it could still be an ablative supine and mean the same thing, right?

Silvia Vestalis caelestia semina partu
Vestal Silvia by her labour brought forth divine children...

Could a supine ablative partu mean 'with respect to' or 'by her ..labour'....just the same as an ablative noun 'labour'? Is there a definite reason why it would not be a supine?

[adrianus]

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yPUDE65WEMoC&pg=PA287&lpg=PA287&dq=Silvia+Vestalis+caelestia+semina+partu&source=bl&ots=jmDVrexcnQ&sig=2u_TQ18MhcyHPsJwlmvVMyRz11w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nr9qUvTpIcbR0QWdoYDABA&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Silvia%20Vestalis%20caelestia%20semina%20partu&f=false

Secundum A&G §510 n4: "The supine in -u with a verb is extremely rare." [but there you have it in Ovid, I too think // ibi apud Ovidium est, ut et ego imaginor.]

Could a supine ablative partu mean 'with respect to' or 'by her ..labour'....just the same as an ablative noun 'labour'?

Fieri potest! Sicut ablativum specificationis, secundum A&G §510, n1.

Maybe Bedwere is right, though. Honestly, I'm not sure. A&G says "it is never followed by an object case" but I don't think that applies here in this idiomatic use with the verb and the object is with "ediderat" not "partu".
Forsit rectè dicit Bedwere. Incertus sum. Scribit A&G, "nunquam objectum vel casus accusativus supinum sequitur." at forsitan id aliter est cum usu huius idiomatis apud Ovidium ubi "ediderat" verbum non "partu" objectum spectat.

[mwh]

It's surely the noun. OLD quotes i.a. Cic. Polydorum Hecuba partu postremo parit, Virg. partu Terra nefando Coeum ... creat, Tac. Agrippina novissimo partu Iuliam edidit. Useful things, dictionaries, wouldn't you say?

[adrianus]

What you say is true, mwh. OLD is useful here because it give authority to Bedwere's pointer that "partu" is the ablative of the noun with the verb "edo". That's good. How do you answer pmda's question "Is there a definite reason why it would not be a supine?"

Rectè dicis, mwh, dictionarium hîc utile esse quod auctoraliter ait partu ablativo casu esse cum edo verbo, ut dixit bedwere. Licet. Quodmodo quaestioni de pmda repondere: "Quâ certâ ratione illud vocabulum partu enim supinum esse non potest?"

[mwh]

Just that it would be very strange Latin. I'm not saying it would be ungrammatical exactly, just that no latin speaker would take it as supine. You yourself quoted A&G "extremely rare." I quoted the OLD examples to resolve any question about it.

[adrianus]

I'm not saying it would be ungrammatical exactly, just that no latin speaker would take it as supine.

How do you know that, mvh? That begs the question, pmda's question.
Quomodo id scis, mvh? Sic est petitio principii.

[mwh]

Two possible answers to that, neither of which I expect to satisfy you:
1. I know because I've read a lot of latin, including all of Ovid. I can tell good latin from bad.
2. I know on the strength of the parallels I adduced, where partu in very similar constructions is unequivocally the noun.

I answered your previous question, and now I've answered this one. I'm not answering any more. I cannot believe that your questions are asked in good faith.
If you can't see that the OLD citations are definitive, I can't help you.