est naturale homlnl (it is natural to man)
hi again
this phrase comes from the summa of st thomas (treatise on sacred doctrine, article 9).When i run the word naturale through l&s it gives the analysis as adj sing’ nom/vov/acc neut.
When i do the same with the pocket oxford latin analyser it gives in addition adj sing abl mas/fem/neut.
Which analysis is more correct or are they both so?
thanks
little flower.
As far as I know adjectives like “naturalis” are i-stems so the ablative sing. can only be “naturali”. See A&G: “Adjectives of two and three terminations are true i-stems and hence retain in the ablative singular -ī”. Perhaps there’s variation, but I suspect the oxford analyser is overgeneralizing since some third declension adjectives do have an ablative ending in -e.
Yeah 'twould appear Oxford’s wrong in this instance. “naturale” is nom/acc/voc neuter sing.
You should totally consider using Latin WORDS … from this site:
http://users.erols.com/whitaker/words.htm
Here’s the output from it for “naturale.” I totally find it useful when reading when I forget the dictionary headword form of a verb or something since it’ll parse any Latin for you as it looks it up, so you can just type whatever you see in the text if the dictionary form doesn’t come to you immediately.
=>naturale
natural.e ADJ 3 2 NOM S N POS
natural.e ADJ 3 2 VOC S N POS
natural.e ADJ 3 2 ABL S X POS
natural.e ADJ 3 2 ACC S N POS
naturalis, naturalis, naturale ADJ [XXXAO]
natural, normal, typical, characteristic; innate, inherent; physical (science);
natural; (not adoptive, parents); (parts of body/genitals, excretory outlets);
natural.e N 3 3 LOC S M
natural.e N 3 3 DAT S M Early
natural.e N 3 3 ABL S M
naturalis, naturalis N (3rd) M [ESXDX] Later lesser
physical/natural scientist; physicist; natural philosopher;
Despite the many omissions and small mistakes in Whitaker, his Words program is really handy, and he includes many rare or exceptional forms, even “naturale” in the ablative.
Quamvis multitudinem detractionum vitiorumque contineat, programma Words nomine de Whitaker perutile est, quod perraras quidem formas includit, sicut “naturale” pro ablativo casu.
“Naturale” then can be used as an ablative? Are there any attestations (of it or a similar word), because I couldn’t find anything when I looked it up and I would say that Words overgeneralizes in terms of what forms are possible – it recognizes -e as a possible ablative form for every third declension adjective I tried. The Perseus parser though seems to be too restrictive because it doesn’t even recognize certain of the alternate forms listed in A&G, e.g. it parses “veteri” only as a dative. I use through Diogenes so it’s funny too because in the L&S entry for “vetus” right under it, you read “abl. regularly, vetere; but veteri,” followed by a bunch of references.
I was reading the A&G online and missed the footnotes 
. The most in-depth treatment I could find online was in German: http://books.google.ca/books?id=ym0PAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ausführliche+Grammatik+der+lateinischen+Sprache&lr=&as_brr=3#v=onepage&q=&f=false