Timeline for The verb 'utor' in gerundive constructions
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 8, 2021 at 15:24 | comment | added | Mitomino | @tony As for the contrast betweeen the impersonal Hac re utendum est and the (non-im)personal one Haec res utenda est, I'd say that only the latter involves a more "affected" argument (compling.hss.ntu.edu.sg/events/2014-ws-affectedness/slides/…). Transitivity has been said to be a syntactic property that can be associated to the gradual semantic property of affectedness. Typically, utor selects a non-affected ablative argument and, less typically, selects a more affected accusative one. Only in the latter case a personal passive is expected to be possible. | |
| May 8, 2021 at 9:04 | comment | added | tony | The intransitive use of the verb shows that the ablative, here, is nothing to do with "utor" selecting the ablative in its direct objects. The forbidden and the allowed are different "this thing" & "with this thing" and/ or Woodcock did not like independent clauses, do you agree? | |
| May 8, 2021 at 8:58 | comment | added | tony | In the forbidden, "haec res (nominative) utenda est" = "this thing it-ought-to-be-used" there is a form of "esse" ("est") indicating that it is a gerundive-of-obligation: "...it-must-be-used". That there is no person upon whom the obligation falls (given in the dative case) means that this is an independent clause e.g. "Carthago (nominative) delenda est" = "Carthage must be destroyed!". Woodcock's alternative: "hac re (ablative) utendum est" = "with this thing it-ought-to-be-used "; looks like an impersonal construction, and is not quite the same meaning because of the ablative. | |
| May 6, 2021 at 0:21 | history | edited | Mitomino | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
clarification added
|
| May 6, 2021 at 0:14 | history | edited | Mitomino | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
minor changes & qualification added
|
| May 5, 2021 at 15:29 | history | answered | Mitomino | CC BY-SA 4.0 |