Timeline for On the interpretation of "ipse" in anticausative constructions
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 27, 2019 at 10:05 | comment | added | tony | Mitomino: Yes, reflexive pronoun is compulsory. In your second comment: "...is ill-informed unless we provide the door with some agency." Such as, if the door is opening itself? How would that affect the Latin? Are you writing a book about a haunted house? Sadly, my Spanish is not up to the rest of it. | |
| Apr 26, 2019 at 19:58 | comment | added | Mitomino | It is perhaps worth pointing out that foris ipsam se aperit is ill-formed unless we provide the door with some agency. A similar contrast is found in Spanish: La puerta se abrió vs. ?? La puerta se abrió a sí misma. This said, it seems to me that Foris aperit is not identical to Sp. La puerta abre. In my Spanish, the latter typically has a sort of generic reading, i.e., it lacks the eventive reading shown in the example above from Plautus (Foris aperit 'The door is opening'). Cf. Sp. ??/*La puerta está abriendo vs. OK La puerta se está abriendo. | |
| Apr 26, 2019 at 16:00 | comment | added | Mitomino | From your answer ("The strengthening agent (ipsa) needs something to strengthen--the reflexive pronoun"), I understand that the reflexive pronoun se is (expected to be) compulsory in a sentence like Foris ipsa aperit. Is that correct? By the way, by using the English translation "by itself" I did not intend to interpret ipsa as ablative (of course, it is not ablative). In any case, thanks for pointing out that 'by itself' is not a good translation of ipsa. | |
| Apr 26, 2019 at 10:49 | history | edited | tony | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 174 characters in body
|
| Apr 26, 2019 at 10:25 | history | answered | tony | CC BY-SA 4.0 |