Timeline for Why is "ad eum" and not a dative pronoun used in this sentence?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 22, 2023 at 13:05 | comment | added | Mitomino | @tony Yes, a prefix like /in-/ in irrideo typically (but not always) appears when the meaning of the verb is not directional. As for the alternation (i) ad+acc. and (ii) dat. with epistulas scribere in classical authors like Cicero, the direction argument ad + acc. is the favorite one, the dative being rather associated to a beneficiary reading (cf. Baños's interpretation in the link above). However, this explanation can be said to hold for Cicero but not necessarily so for later authors like Pliny or Seneca, who use dative in cases where Cicero used ad +acc (cf. Pinkster's remark). | |
| Oct 21, 2023 at 9:06 | comment | added | tony | @Mitomino: When a letter is sent it is being directed to the receiver; therefore, should the verb have a directional prefix c/f "rideo"/ "irrideo" in latin.stackexchange.com/a/12993/1982? When the letter arrives there is "transfer of ownership". Then "direction " & "transfer of ownership" occur together. Therefore can "ad eum" & "sibi" be used interchangeably? In contemporary English law, the copyright, on a letter, remains with the sender; strictly speaking, the sender remains the owner--he could demand its return and take legal action to secure this. | |
| Oct 15, 2023 at 18:00 | history | edited | Mitomino | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
minor changes added
|
| Oct 15, 2023 at 17:18 | history | edited | Mitomino | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
minor changes added
|
| Oct 15, 2023 at 16:59 | history | edited | Mitomino | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
relevant example added plus commentary
|
| Oct 15, 2023 at 10:04 | vote | accept | Charo | ||
| Oct 15, 2023 at 3:08 | comment | added | Mitomino | @cmw Thanks for your comment. Here is a paper on the specific collocation dare litteras: academia.edu/35148051/… I've not been able to read it yet but I've seen it contains interesting examples where a dative and an ad+acc. PP coappear, which shows they have a different function: scripsi et dedi litteras ad te Philogono, liberto tuo (Cic. Q.fr. 1.3.4). Note that ad te expresses what I've called "the final destination of the path", whereas the dative Philogono expresses the circumstantial (but not final!) recipient of the letter. | |
| Oct 15, 2023 at 1:57 | comment | added | cmw♦ | I think the action with litterae is what is causing this. For example, do dare also switches to ad aliquem when the direct object is litteras: see Lewis and Short on that. (I haven't done a study or looked at Pinkster on this, so I don't know if it was modeled on something else, served as a model for other things, or was fit to a particular paradigm.) | |
| Oct 15, 2023 at 1:11 | history | edited | Mitomino | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
very minor changes added
|
| Oct 15, 2023 at 0:56 | history | answered | Mitomino | CC BY-SA 4.0 |