Dear Textkittens,
I hope you can help me with the distinction between these two sentences.
It is fish (or it is some fish).
It is a fish. (Id est pisces.)
Here English uses the indefinite article to distinguish the sense of a countable noun and a noncountable noun (material).
Thank you.
nov_ialiste
Well, I think context above all is the determining factor. In fact, I’d imagine the distinction is usually not very important in practice.
If, however, it is important to get across the idea that it is specifically a fish and not a bunch of fish, you could say “Ūnus piscis est.”
Quidam piscis est. It is [some sort of] fish.
Piscis est. It is a fish.
Paululum piscis [genetivo casu] est. It is some [a little] fish [genitive].
Thanks.
Finnish uses the nominative and partitive to make the distinction, which made me wonder how it works in Latin.
Finnish:
Se on kala. (Nom.) It is a fish.
Se on kalaa. (Part.) It is fish. It is some fish.
Also, Etiam
What is it? It is [some, a few] fish
Quid est? [Nonnulli] pisces sunt.
I gave four already, surely, Anthony.
Nonnè quattuor, Antoni, genera iam dedi?
I’d say that “It is fish” means (2) and (3) but that (1) is distinct and requires the indefinite article to convey its meaning in English.
Also, fifthly // Et quintùm
It is [emphatically and admiringly // emphaticè mirabundéque] a fish! = It is some fish! = what a fish it is! = Ut piscis est!
I’ve seen some beginner’s books use hic, haec, hoc for the definite article in paradigms, which in this case would yield: hic piscis , “the fish.”
Robiginosus Caementarius
Has unus ever been used in Classical Latin in the sense of an indefinite article? I suppose that at some stage in Vulgar Latin it came to be used as an indefinite article to provide those of the modern Romance languages.
Does anybody know anything about the history of the inception of the Romance indefinite article?
It is curious that the Germanic languages also introduced definite and indefinite articles independently, I presume. Also, I suppose they arose independently in Old English and in German; on the basis that early Old English did not have them much, but late Old English did. So I suppose it occurred in English independently of German.
It seems that this started developing quite early, at least in Vulgar (spoken) Latin. One example that is frequently cited is from Petronius, Satyrica 26.8: unus servus Agamemnonis interpellavit…, where the classical standard would be unus ex servis Agamemnonis… The dating of Petronius is controversial: most scholars place it in the 60’s CE (i.e. the reign of Nero), while others favor a date around 120.
But Petronius in the Satyricon also writes “unus ex pueris” and “unus ex conlibertis” and “unus de nobis” alongside (once) “unus servus”. Doesn’t he mean there “one man, a slave”, Damoetas?
Atquin ille Petronius ipse in hoc opere et “unus ex pueris” et “unus ex conlibertis” et “unus de nobis” unâ cum (semel) “unus servus” scribit. Nonnè illo in loco, Damoeta, “unus, servus” dicere vult?
That doesn’t seem very likely in the context. If the preceding discussion had been something like, “Various people were standing around, and one of them, a servant, did such and such…” that interpretation could have been possible. (Even though quidam would probably be more likely - or perhaps, ex quibus unus… etc.) Here, it seems to mean just, “One of Agamemnon’s slaves…” or “A slave of Agamemnon…” (Agamemnon is already a known participant in the story, he’s not being introduced for the first time.) The fact that Petronius uses the “unus ex + abl.” construction elsewhere doesn’t necessarily mean that he intended a distinction; he may have seen the two as equivalent.
At least that’s my impression; it might be worth looking into some scholarly discussions of it, because the conclusions are probably controversial.
My comma is just a device to help think about the phrase in English “one, [who is] a servant” When Cicero says “qui sicut unus pater familias his de rebus loquor” (De Oratore, 1.132) it’s obviously classical, and means “as one who is head of a household”. Of course you can say “as a head of a household” but the “unus” underlines the individuality, “one”. “Quidam”, “unus ex”? I think not there.
Virgula mea dolus est “unus qui” indicans. Cicero, hoc in dicendo, classicè loquitur: “qui sicut unus pater familias his de rebus loquor”. Usus “unus” vocabuli emphasin individualitati nominis conjugati dat. Non apta illo loco “quidam”, “unus ex”.
Post scriptum
I just noticed this nice interpretation in OLD: “an ordinary…”!
Hanc interpretationem quae placet modò in OLD animadverti: “an ordinary…”!