Ablative use

[Propertius]

What use of the ablative is in the bold? My best guess would be ablative of means. Is that correct?

Imperator autem, vir clarus, fortuna adversa numquam commotus consilium novum cepit.

[seneca2008]

I am not very fond of sticking labels on the use of cases. What do you think in the context of the sentence “fortuna adversa numquam commotus” means? In what sense could Fortuna provide the means to do something? I wonder in what sense you understand commotus?

See here http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-means for examples of the ablative of means. Note that Greenough says at the outset that:

" Means, instrument, manner, and accompaniment are denoted by the instrumental ablative (see § 398), but some of these uses more commonly require a preposition. As they all come from one source (the old instrumental case) no sharp line can be drawn between them, and indeed the Romans themselves can hardly have thought of any distinction. Thus, in Omnibus precibus ōrābant, (They entreated with every [kind of] prayer) the ablative, properly that of means, cannot be distinguished from that of manner."

So often its not possible to say definitely what ablative we are talking about nor is it always necessary.

Anyway it can’t be the ablative of means here.

If you have to label it perhaps the “ablative of cause”? http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-cause.

Frankly I would just read your text and translate “by adverse fortune” and not worry too much about taxonomy. But I know people get excited by this kind of thing.

If anyone thinks this is grossly misleading perhaps they will be kind enough to comment.

[Propertius]

I am not very fond of sticking labels on the use of cases. What do you think in the context of the sentence “fortuna adversa numquam commotus” means? In what sense could Fortuna provide the means to do something? I wonder in what sense you understand commotus?

See here http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-means for examples of the ablative of means. Note that Greenough says at the outset that:

" Means, instrument, manner, and accompaniment are denoted by the instrumental ablative (see § 398), but some of these uses more commonly require a preposition. As they all come from one source (the old instrumental case) no sharp line can be drawn between them, and indeed the Romans themselves can hardly have thought of any distinction. Thus, in Omnibus precibus ōrābant, (They entreated with every [kind of] prayer) the ablative, properly that of means, cannot be distinguished from that of manner."

So often its not possible to say definitely what ablative we are talking about nor is it always necessary.

Anyway it can’t be the ablative of means here.

If you have to label it perhaps the “ablative of cause”? http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/ablative-cause.

Frankly I would just read your text and translate “by adverse fortune” and not worry too much about taxonomy. But I know people get excited by this kind of thing.

If anyone thinks this is grossly misleading perhaps they will be kind enough to comment.

Thanks, seneca2008

And the reason I wanted to know is because I was translating it from English to Latin (I’m working on my composition), and as not all ablative uses require a preposition, I wanted to know which use it was. And since neither the ablative of cause or means requires a prepostion, I got it correct. Thanks for that reference though. It makes sense now.

[seneca2008]

@Propertius

And the reason I wanted to know is because I was translating it from English to Latin (I’m working on my composition), and as not all ablative uses require a preposition, I wanted to know which use it was.

I thought I had replied to this post but it seems to have disappeared. I probably pressed the wrong button.

If you are asking for help on English to latin translation then the original sentence will give some clue as to the sort of ablative it is. It would have been helpful for you to have posted the original English sentence.

If you want further practice on the use of the ablative I suggest North and Hillard p. 36-37 and 70-3. Doing examples is a good way to consolidate what you you learn from a grammar.

[Propertius]

@Propertius

And the reason I wanted to know is because I was translating it from English to Latin (I’m working on my composition), and as not all ablative uses require a preposition, I wanted to know which use it was.

I thought I had replied to this post but it seems to have disappeared. I probably pressed the wrong button.

If you are asking for help on English to latin translation then the original sentence will give some clue as to the sort of ablative it is. It would have been helpful for you to have posted the original English sentence.

If you want further practice on the use of the ablative I suggest North and Hillard p. 36-37 and 70-3. Doing examples is a good way to consolidate what you you learn from a grammar.

Sorry about that, seneca2008. I didn’t think you veteran Latinists would need for me to post it in the original. Here it is in case you still want to take a look at it:

The general, however, a famous man, (who was) never moved by adverse fortune, made a new plan.

It makes sense that it’s an ablative of cause now. All I had to was ask, he’s never moved because of what? The answer to which would be adverse fortune.

And I do plan on getting a copy of North and Hillard’s Latin Compostion, but after I finish with D’Ooge’s book. Thanks for the tip.