Just to clarify, oportet and debeo are indeed far better to use than the subjunctive here.
Salvete.
If I were to add the pronoun me, how would the sentence look?
Oportetne me pecuniam ad iudicium mittere pro dono ?
Me oportetne pecuniam ad iudicium mittere pro dono ?
Look forward to any comments,
David
Depends on your emphasis. Is it important that YOU ought to send it, in contrast to someone else, or is it important that you OUGHT TO SEND IT, in contrast to not having to send anything?
The part of your sentence that you want to put emphasis on is placed first.
I think, David, that in Classical Latin the enclitic -ne attaches most often to the emphatic word --usually the first in the sentence but not absolutely always the first. So maybe both the versions you have are fine. What do you reckon, Timeodanaos/Chris et al.? If you really want to emphasize the “Me” at the start of the sentence then you will end up with “Mene” (written also “Men”), which I know from Morris “The sentence-question in Plautus and Terence” (1890), who says it carries a sense of “What, me? I don’t think so!” (at least in Terence and Plautus).
Salvete.
We missed an important point.
The accusative of iudex is iudicem.
Now for a a final question…
Where does the accent fall on oportetne and iudicem ?
oportétne or opórtetne ?
iudÃcem or iúdicem ?
Look forward to hearing from you.
David
When a particle is added, the accent falls on the syllable that precedes it. So oportétne. I believe the general rule is that nouns like iudicem retain the stress that comes from the nominative, and thus iúdicem, but don’t take my word for that.
I don’t remember the rules of accent when particles are added (I’ll have to look into that very soon!), but I do remember the general rules:
Accent is always on the antepenultimate (that is, third-last syllable) UNLESS the penultimate (second last) syllable be long (and I’m talking about the length of the vocalis)
There are some words, however, that for etymological reasons have the stress on the last syllable, for example ‘illÃc’ (nominative masculine plural of ille with the demonstrative -ce added ‘illÃce’ and the -e gone with sound changes)
‘dicere’ thus has the accent on the antepenultimate, while ‘habere’ has it on the penultimate.
Lengths (quantities) can be found in the dictionary.
My understanding about accenting before enclitics is the same as MiguelM’s: accent the final syllable of the prefixed word, and you’ll be consistent with the majority of the post-classical grammarians. However, if you think that’s far too simple, you’ll find a lot of debate about this issue. For a good summary of how words were accented otherwise at different periods, there is this article : “Accentuation before Enclitics in Latin”
R. Whitney Tucker Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, Vol. 96. (1965), pp. 449-461. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0065-9711(1965)96<449%3AABEIL>2.0.CO%3B2-V
The link looks interesting but I can only see one page.
If you have access, would appreciate readin the article.
Gratias ago.
David
Adler introduces mittere on pg 138
Lots of examples to follow, as
mitto alicui aliquid
mitto aliquid ad aliquem
As in: (hopefully not too many typo’s in this)
Quis vult mihi mittere libros bonos? Nemo tibi ullos mittere vult!
Quando vis mihi pileum mittere? Ego tibi eum mittere volo hodie (pg 145)
Quo mittis servulum tuum? Mitto eum ad patrem in urbem.
Litteras ad aliquem mittere.
Nolo mittere litteras ad te.
Visne mihi mittere epistolam meam? Volo tibi eam mittere.
Visne mittere aliquid sutori? Vero, ei caligas meas mittere volo.
Num vis ei togas tuas mittere? Immo vero eas ad sartorem meum mittere volo.
Potestne mihi sartor togam meam mittere? Mittere eam non potest!
Quantum pecuniae mittere mihi potes? Ego tibi triginta thaleros mittere possum.
http://latinum.mypodcast.com
Adler’s textbook is on google books.