Timeline for "gerund + genitive" vs "gerund+accusative" ("scribendo epistulas" vs "scribendo epistularum")
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 23, 2021 at 14:42 | history | edited | Mitomino | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clarification added
|
| Apr 23, 2021 at 14:20 | history | edited | Mitomino | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clarification added
|
| Apr 23, 2021 at 14:12 | history | edited | Mitomino | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clarification & qualification added
|
| Apr 23, 2021 at 1:29 | history | edited | Mitomino | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
correction added due to a commentator
|
| Apr 23, 2021 at 1:26 | comment | added | Mitomino | @cnread Oh, you're right! I was misled by the existing alternative version, the one I consulted: in agendo plus quam in scribendo operam poneremus, where operam would occupy the direct internal argument slot of the verb (this argumental slot could also be occupied by an expression like quantifier+ partitive object operae). But, as you point out correctly, there's no need for this alternative analysis/corrected version. | |
| Apr 23, 2021 at 1:04 | comment | added | cnread | I'm confused. Plus isn't omitted at all; it appears 4 words earlier in the sentence. Plus + partitive genitive is so unexceptional – and even the word separation in this example isn't so uncommon, really (though perhaps the arrangement is a bit forced) – that it seems bizarre to try to construe operae as an 'argument of the verb poneremus' or to emend the text to operam. It's perfectly clear to me that the sentence is just to be construed as in agendo plus operae quam in scribendo poneremus. If I ran across this sentence while reading, I wouldn't think twice about it. | |
| Apr 23, 2021 at 0:26 | history | answered | Mitomino | CC BY-SA 4.0 |