Timeline for On the absence of impersonal passives of deponent verbs
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 15, 2020 at 22:10 | comment | added | Mitomino | @tony Yes, my surmise is that moriendum est nobis is not passive. Otherwise, given what I've said in my post (see also the 3rd link above), I'm afraid that one cannot give an explanation of why the truly passive construction mortuum est beate is ill-formed. Regards from Barcelona. | |
| Apr 14, 2020 at 10:24 | comment | added | tony | @Mitomino: Yourself is most insistent that "moriendum est nobis" is not passive. When rendered into English, "we must die", this is correct; but, in Latin, to the Romans, it would always be "for us it-ought-to-be-dead (dying; death)--the passive-- wouldn't it? How are things in Barcelona? | |
| Apr 3, 2019 at 17:22 | comment | added | Mitomino | Ok. Thanks for your clarification. | |
| Apr 3, 2019 at 17:19 | comment | added | Stallmp | Wasn't referring to that question, but to 'I was wondering why there are not impersonal passives of deponant verbs'. And I have seen it before, I will be able to quote it once I find it, which I've seen a few years ago at school I'm afraid. | |
| Apr 3, 2019 at 17:01 | comment | added | Mitomino | Ok, so we disagree. I don't think that the question of why the impersonal passive of a deponent verb like mori (mortuum est beate) is ill-formed (compared to the well-formedness of an impersonal passive of a non-deponent verb like pugnare: pugnatum est) is like the question of why this or that word is masculine. This said, if your potentially interesting example conatum est used as passive ('it has been tried/attempted') is actually found in (Classical?) Latin texts, I'll be happy to take a look at them. Thanks! | |
| Apr 3, 2019 at 16:36 | comment | added | Stallmp | To be fair, I think the answer to your question would be the same as the answer to the question: 'Why is 'this word' masculine?'. There is no real explanation for this, this is just purely induction and you aren't even sure yet whether this is the case or not. Even if it is, like I said, there might not even be an explanation for it. | |
| Apr 3, 2019 at 16:32 | comment | added | Mitomino | That is to say, (Hoc bellum) pugnatum est is the same as (Haec pugna) pugnata est. These passive constructions are not impersonal but passive constructions with an elided nominative subject: hoc bellum and haec pugna, respectively. | |
| Apr 3, 2019 at 16:21 | comment | added | Mitomino | My objection to your final paragraph is essentially the same raised by sumelic above. Regarding conatum est, are you sure it can be considered an example of an impersonal passive construction or ... rather an example of a passive construction with an elided nominative Hoc? In any case notice it is not the same as impersonal pugnatum est It is well-known that unergative verbs like "to fight" do enter into the impersonal passive construction: see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impersonal_passive_voice. Note that (Hoc (bellum)) pugnatum est is a different (not impersonal!) construction. | |
| Apr 3, 2019 at 16:02 | comment | added | Stallmp | Well, have you read the next paragraph? | |
| Apr 3, 2019 at 15:55 | comment | added | Mitomino | Stallmp, I'm afraid that there is a confusion here. Of course, I'm not saying that Mortuum est is impossible when its (elliptical) subject is a neuter nominative (an animal, a plant or whatever). I'm referring to the IMPERSONAL construction (see the wikipedia link above). Besides this, I'm wondering why impersonal Moriendum est nobis is well-formed, compared to Mortuum est beate, which is ill-formed. | |
| Mar 31, 2019 at 8:25 | comment | added | Asteroides | Do you know of any quotes that could be used as an example of impersonal "conatum est"? | |
| Mar 31, 2019 at 8:01 | history | answered | Stallmp | CC BY-SA 4.0 |