Nemo crebris proeliis contendere sine aliquo periculo potest.
I’m asking for what’s in bold obviously. I know that sentence would translate to:
No one can contend in frequent battles without some danger.
But why does that sentence leave out in, but in this sentence it’s not left out:
In barbarorum aedificiis maior copia frumenti reperta est.
I’m certain that it probably has something to do with the fact that the second sentence is referring to a real physical place, so I’m guessing that that use of the ablative is the ablative of place. So what use of the ablative would be the first sentence?
Check A&G § 424.d. It may be a special construction of time or simply an ablative absolute (A&G § 419.a). As you say, the sense is clear, although I prefer to take creber as meaning “thick” rather “frequent” and so freely translate crebris proeliis as “in the thick of battle”; I don’t know the context of the statement, but it appears gnomic.
I (respectfully) disagree with Aetos’ explanation.
I’m not too interested in labelling this ablative since I have always thought this was rather confusing and leading the reader to see Latin through English glasses. I think it is much better to get a feel for what Latin does here by reading sentences like the following (gathered thanks to https://latin.packhum.org):
existimatio postulare videatur ut a te plurimis verbis contendam ac petam (Cic.) crebroque inter se equestribus proeliis contendebant (Caes.) parvulisque proeliis cum nostris contendebant (Caes.) dolis atque fallaciis contendit (Sall.) Armis contendendum erat (Quint.) Viri fortes de praemio armis contendant (Calp. Flac.) tutius est igitur fictis contendere verbis, quam pugnare manu (Ov.)
A nice pair too: Sane ita sit constituta lex ut in iudicio contendamus (Quint.) si plures erunt, iudicio contendant (Sen. Rh.)
Shenoute,
Thanks for looking at this. I’m probably mistaken about the ablative absolute; I was thinking of crebris proeliis as a circumstance for not being able to fight without some danger, but that’s probably overthinking it. Simply reading “in frequent battles” or perhaps “in dense fighting” gets the meaning across just as well as “when the fighting gets thick” If you follow Propertius’ posts, you’ll see that he’s very interested in the different uses of the ablative and likes to put a name on each kind of use. Like yourself and others on this forum, I don’t much use labels either (there are way too many of them!); I get by mostly with “from, in, at, with” or “by”. Usually the context of the sentence will indicate which one of those words is most appropriate. In your quotes by Quintilian and Seneca the Elder, I’d go with:
in iudicio=in court
iudicio= by trial
Indeed! Too many of them and some overlap. And in the end, understanding the Latin and sticking a label on an ablative are two different activities. I’m not sure how much the latter helps in the former.
But to each his own. As long as the result, that is the ability to use Latin with ease, is there…
Too many of them and some overlap. And in the end, understanding the Latin and sticking a label on an ablative are two different activities. I’m not sure how much the latter helps in the former.