Timeline for Cethegus (...) recitatis litteris debilitatus atque abiectus conscientia repente conticuit. (Cic. Catil. 3, 10)
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 5 at 3:37 | comment | added | Mitomino | @d_e The ex. Ceteris enim semper bene gesta, mihi uni conservata re publica gratulationem decrevistis does not involve an AA but rather a lower (!) dominant participle construction in the ablative case: i.e. unlike AAs, the causal participal adjuncts here (bene gesta re publica & conservata re publica) do not modify the entire main clause. This ex. is also syntactically interesting since the datives are not, despite appearances, "datives of agent". Cf. latin.stackexchange.com/questions/12844/… | |
| Apr 5 at 2:53 | comment | added | Mitomino | @d_e I'm not sure if I interpret you correctly. If what you say is that Ablative Absolute constructions can in principle be associated not only with a temporal interpretation but also with a causal one, you're correct. This said (I), I think that the preferred interpretation of the (alleged) AA at issue here would be temporal rather than causal (see Pinkster's and MacDonald's translations above). This said (II), as noted, I don't think that the AA reading is the relevant one here. | |
| Apr 4 at 20:28 | comment | added | d_e | @Mitomino, I sense that in the example from the other post of Ceteris enim semper bene gesta, mihi uni conservata re publica gratulationem decrevistis. there is something different I can't put the finger on. | |
| Apr 4 at 20:25 | comment | added | d_e | @Mitomino, Thanks for your patient explanations. I say in the "typical" AA reading, a valid translation can be with "by": just have the first part [recitatis litteris] [debilitatus (est)] as typical AA, weakened by/ on account of the letter being read; In other words, recitatis litteris does not have to be dependent on debilitatus est any more than acceptīs litterīs is dependent on Caesar nuntium mittit. At least for now I can't see how. So I say the two readings cannot be distinguished here. One can argue that "by" is less literal for AA but ultimately this a valid translation. | |
| Apr 4 at 19:33 | comment | added | Mitomino | @d_e As for your final question in your last comment, I'm VERY happy to see that you share my concern about what a proper/accurate definition of AA could be: please note that there is a previous question on this issue: latin.stackexchange.com/questions/21221/… As you can see, I advanced what I think is a relevant "hint" for a proper (but still informal) definition of AA: i.e. the {alleged/fake/apparent} examples of AA are LOW adjuncts that are not as "peripheric"/"syntactically HIGH" as the typical AAs. | |
| Apr 4 at 19:14 | comment | added | Mitomino | @d_e You're absolutely right when saying "AA is perhaps actually used more vaguely than one could expect or hope". Even Pinkster (1990: 117-118) provided an imprecise definition of AA ("I assume that the ablative absolute construction is in reality nothing else than a Dominant participle construction functioning as a satellite <i.e. adjunct: Mitomino> with regard to the remainder of the predication"). I say "imprecise" since, as it stands, his definition of AA also holds for the 2) option above. | |
| Apr 4 at 19:00 | comment | added | d_e | @Mitomino, G&H defintion of AA is basically what I was saying in my comments above. Indeed many times AA can be rendered in English by "given", "on account of" and "following" (e.g. A&G first example of AA I quoted above). AA is perhaps actually used more vaguely than one could expect or hope. How would you define AA? | |
| Apr 4 at 18:41 | comment | added | Mitomino | Here is their definition of AA on page 322: "An ablative absolute is a phrase consisting of a noun or pronoun in the ablative, and a participle, an adjective, or another noun in agreement with it. An ablative absolute may express time, cause, condition, concession, manner, means, situation". In my opinion, this definition is too vague, because, as it stands, it can be said to hold for both options above, 1) and 2). | |
| Apr 4 at 18:28 | comment | added | Mitomino | Thanks, Tyler, for the answer! I was wondering how the translation "By the reading of the letters" could be made coherent here with the Ablative Absolute (AA) analysis of the 1) option above. Note that, as it stands, the imprecise definition of AA provided by Gunnison & Harley (1912: page 322) could also be said to hold for the 2) option above. It's a pity that these authors did not provide a full translation of the sentence above to make their analysis clear (cf. the Loeb translation above, where it is indisputable that the translator opted for the 1st option above, i.e. the AA reading). | |
| Apr 4 at 8:47 | history | answered | Tyler Durden | CC BY-SA 4.0 |