Textkit Logo

De usu ablativi absoluti...?

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

De usu ablativi absoluti...?

Postby Swth\r » Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:56 pm

Dives qui sapiens est...
Swth\r
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:51 pm
Location: Greece

Postby adrianus » Tue Oct 14, 2008 12:56 am

Salve Swth\r

Hope for an answer from someone more able, but, in the meantime, I would say both are grammatically correct, but the first is stylistically nicer and preferable (unless you mean they did the destroying many years after the Romans were defeated, or you don't wish to link the events).

Alii qui callidior est responsum exspectes, at, intereâ, utrum rectum esse dicam, etsi primum bellius atque praeferendum ut ratio scribendi vel dicendi (nisi velis dicere Germanos urbes Romanorum delevisse multos annos post, aut te eventus separatos tenere quaeras).
adrianus
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 3270
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm

Re: De usu ablativi absoluti...?

Postby benissimus » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:25 am

User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Re: De usu ablativi absoluti...?

Postby Swth\r » Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:21 am

Dives qui sapiens est...
Swth\r
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:51 pm
Location: Greece

Postby adrianus » Tue Oct 14, 2008 2:18 pm

Salve Swth\r

Well, I did say I thought that both answers are correct and that I prefer the first. I agree with benissimus, though, that the "eorum" seems awkward because of the Ablative Absolute rule (although I understand that the rule is not hard and fast, especially when it comes to pronouns), —so I'll take benissimus's good advice.
Meâ sententiâ utrumque responsorum rectum esse dixi, et me primum praeferre. Cum Benissimo concurro, propter regulam ablativo absoluto de usu verbum "eorum" ineleganter illîc sonat (quamvis exceptiones exstare, non minùs casibus pronominum). Quarè bonum Benissimi consilium accipiam.

This example from Adler (LXXIII) is close but no coconut: "Pompeius, captis Hierosolymis, victor ex illo fano nihil tetigit, Pompey, having taken Jerusalem (lit. Jerusalem having been taken), did not touch anything out of that temple." Here "illo" does (sort of) tie the temple to the Ablative Absolute location, but it more significantly may draw attention to its special nature as THE (renowned) Temple of Jerusalem.
Illud exemplum apud Alder ("Pensum Septuagesimum Tertium") ad rem ferè pertinet, sed verò scopum non attinget, maximè cum "illo" singularem templi naturam Hierosolymae significet.
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

Postby adrianus » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:03 pm

What I just read in Gavin Bett's Latin (1986, p.81) suggests that your first sentence is misleading because it suggests that the cities may belong to someone other than the Romans. Ah! I've learned something.
Quod apud Gavin Betts modò legi, sententiam primam falsam esse denotat, quià "eorum" alios quàm Romanos demonstret. Disco!

Meliùs est sic scribere: "Romanis victis, Germani urbes captas deleverunt." vel, ut dixisti, "Germani urbes Romanorum victorum deleverunt."

So, then, first sentence WRONG, second sentence RIGHT. Fessus sum!
Last edited by adrianus on Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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

Postby calvinist » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:15 pm

adrianus wrote:What I just read in Gavin Bett's Latin (1986, p.81) suggests that your first sentence is misleading because it suggests that the cities may belong to someone other than the Romans. Ah! I've learned something.
Quod apud Gavin Betts modò legi, sententiam primam falsam esse denotat, quià "eorum" alios quàm Romanos demonstret. Disco!

makes sense, since the ablative absolute is not supposed to be referred to in the main clause, without a larger context it could be misleading... good find!
User avatar
calvinist
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Postby calvinist » Tue Oct 14, 2008 4:41 pm

I think what Benissimus suggested is best:

Romanis victis, Germani urbes deleverunt.

By leaving out eorum you eliminate the possibility of the cities belonging to anyone else, and by the context of the sentence it is clear it must be the Romans. I think eorum would be used if the idea was that the Romans were protecting some cities other than their own and when they were defeated the cities were then destroyed. So then eorum would refer back to another group mentioned in the previous sentence. (?) maybe?

Romani Graecos defendebant. Romanis victis, Germani urbes eorum deleverunt.
User avatar
calvinist
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 272
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: San Diego, CA

Postby bedwere » Tue Oct 14, 2008 6:49 pm

Potest dici etiam:

Cum Romani victi essent, Germani urbes eorum deleverunt.
User avatar
bedwere
Textkit Enthusiast
 
Posts: 509
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: Didacopoli in California

Postby Swth\r » Tue Oct 14, 2008 9:58 pm

bedwere wrote:Potest dici etiam:
Cum Romani victi essent, Germani urbes eorum deleverunt.

For sure, but this is quite understood by me.
adrianus wrote:What I just read in Gavin Bett's Latin (1986, p.81) suggests that your first sentence is misleading because it suggests that the cities may belong to someone other than the Romans. Ah! I've learned something.
Melius est sic scribere: "Romanis victis, Germani urbes captas deleverunt." vel, ut dixisti, "Germani urbes Romanorum victorum deleverunt."
So, then, first sentence WRONG, second sentence RIGHT. Fessus sum!


calvinist wrote:I think what Benissimus suggested is best:
Romanis victis, Germani urbes deleverunt.

By leaving out eorum you eliminate the possibility of the cities belonging to anyone else, and by the context of the sentence it is clear it must be the Romans. I think eorum would be used if the idea was that the Romans were protecting some cities other than their own and when they were defeated the cities were then destroyed. So then eorum would refer back to another group mentioned in the previous sentence. (?) maybe?

Romani Graecos defendebant. Romanis victis, Germani urbes eorum deleverunt.


Thank you all for your replies! I have got the point! I feel much more confident now... :)
Dives qui sapiens est...
Swth\r
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:51 pm
Location: Greece


Return to Learning Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Shenoute, Yahoo [Bot] and 80 guests