Timeline for On the alleged ambiguity of the Ablative Absolute "Mutatis mutandis"
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 30, 2023 at 23:04 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Apr 1, 2023 at 23:04 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Mar 2, 2023 at 21:28 | answer | added | Ivan Simundic | timeline score: 1 | |
| Mar 1, 2021 at 14:23 | comment | added | tony | @Mitomino: In Q: latin.stackexchange.com/q/15229/1982 we discussed the gerundive, in the oblique cases, losing its deontic & passive qualities, effectively becoming a gerund; but, still dictating agreement in case, number & gender. Here, "mutatis mutandis" = "with the things which ought-to-be-changed (having been) changed", is an example of a gerundive in an AA-construction which retains its passive & deontic qualities. Did Pinkster contrast this with "omittendis doloribus" & "patriam ipsam inflammandam"? | |
| Mar 1, 2021 at 12:05 | comment | added | Batavulus | With all due respect, let's put it this way: mutatis mutandis means what it means as long as Latin is a language (has been for well over 2000 years, and it doesn't look like it's going away any time soon). I think the question relates to some hypothetical (but very popular) look at Latin as a kind of mathematics. I readily confess that that does not interest me. | |
| Feb 28, 2021 at 6:02 | comment | added | Mitomino | @MPW I'm not sure if I understand your comment. The issue here has to do with whether the Ablative Absolute mutatis mutandis can in principle have two readings: 1) the conventional one where mutatis is the predicate and 2) a controversial one where mutandis is the predicate. Joonas contends that "both readings are reasonable" but I disagree (gerundives are not expected to be found as predicates of Ablative Absolutes, at least in Classical Latin: latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12724/… ). | |
| Feb 27, 2021 at 22:31 | history | edited | Mitomino | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
some clarifiying changes & qualification added
|
| Feb 27, 2021 at 21:55 | history | edited | Mitomino | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
changes & qualification based on comments
|
| Feb 27, 2021 at 21:53 | comment | added | Mitomino | @TKR Thanks! I'll revise it. I misanalyzed the sentence "with things changed that should be changed" as it were said in my native Romance language. Nice syntactic difference here between English and Catalan! | |
| Feb 27, 2021 at 21:42 | comment | added | TKR | I don't think I agree with your interpretation of the English phrase 'with things changed that should be changed': I take it as a less clunky way of saying 'with things that should be changed, changed', i.e. 'with those things that should be changed having been changed'. In that case the implied syntax of the Latin is the same as in the other two translations. | |
| Feb 27, 2021 at 21:42 | comment | added | Mitomino | @Batavulus Let me frame it differently. What I discuss here is whether the two readings of the AA mutatis mutandis discussed by Joonas in the third paragraph of his answer in latin.stackexchange.com/questions/5750/… are both possible in Classical Latin. It is not obvious whether mutandis (or any gerundive) can be the predicate of an AA: latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12724/… . The conventional reading of mutatis mutandis is not at issue here. | |
| Feb 27, 2021 at 21:09 | comment | added | Batavulus | It seems to me that the meaning of mutatis mutandis is so obvious and generally accepted that it's not very helpful to debate it. | |
| Feb 27, 2021 at 20:57 | comment | added | MPW | You’re choosing a completely different construction if you’re translating mutatis as a perfect active participle, so I would say any detailed analysis is pretty meaningless | |
| Feb 27, 2021 at 20:22 | history | asked | Mitomino | CC BY-SA 4.0 |