Return to Question

After having answered a question on "ipse" from a very different perspective (a philosophical one: [https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9521/does-ipse-truly-mean-change ), I return to linguistics: now I was wondering if ipse must be considered just a sort of emphatic "reinforcer" of the reflexive in the following change construction (Ricoeur again? No, don't worry!):

Valvae se ipsae aperuerunt (Cic. Div. 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’.

Would it be possible in Latin to say the following example without se?

Foris ipsa aperit ‘The door is opening by itself’.

Cf. the non-emphatic example Foris se aperit ‘The door is opening (by itself)’ and the also attested example without se: Foris aperit (Pl. Pers. 300) ‘The door is opening’.

For more context, please read my related question in How things change in Latin.

After having answered a question on "ipse" from a very different perspective (a philosophical one: [https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9521/does-ipse-truly-mean-change ), I return to linguistics: now I was wondering if ipse must be considered just a sort of emphatic "reinforcer" of the reflexive in the following change construction (Ricoeur again? No, don't worry!):

Valvae se ipsae aperuerunt (Cic. Div. 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’.

Would it be possible in Latin to say the following example without se? Ipse can of course be used in other non-change and non-reflexive contexts (Ipse dixit) but I'm not sure if the following example would be well-formed in Latin:

Foris ipsa aperit ‘The door is opening by itself’.

Cf. the non-emphatic example Foris se aperit ‘The door is opening (by itself)’ and the also attested example without se: Foris aperit (Pl. Pers. 300) ‘The door is opening’.

For more context, please read my related question in How things change in Latin.

After having answered a question on "ipse" from a very different perspective (a philosophical one: [https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9521/does-ipse-truly-mean-change ), I return to linguistics: now I was wondering if ipse must be considered just a sort of "reinforcer" of the reflexive in the following change construction (Ricoeur again? No, don't worry!):

Valvae se ipsae aperuerunt (Cic. Div. 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’.

Would it be possible in Latin to say the following example without se?

Foris ipsa aperit ‘The door is opening by itself’.

Which is the difference between the previous example and the following one?

Foris se aperit ‘The door is opening (by itself)’ (cf. the attested example without se: Foris aperit (Pl. Pers. 300) ‘The door is opening’).

For more context, please read my related question in How things change in Latin.

After having answered a question on "ipse" from a very different perspective (a philosophical one: [https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9521/does-ipse-truly-mean-change ), I return to linguistics: now I was wondering if ipse must be considered just a sort of emphatic "reinforcer" of the reflexive in the following change construction (Ricoeur again? No, don't worry!):

Valvae se ipsae aperuerunt (Cic. Div. 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’.

Would it be possible in Latin to say the following example without se?

Foris ipsa aperit ‘The door is opening by itself’.

Cf. the non-emphatic example Foris se aperit ‘The door is opening (by itself)’ and the also attested example without se: Foris aperit (Pl. Pers. 300) ‘The door is opening’.

For more context, please read my related question in How things change in Latin.

After having answered a question on "ipse" from a very different perspective (a philosophical one: [https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9521/does-ipse-truly-mean-change ), I turn to linguistics: now I was wondering if ipse must be considered just a sort of "reinforcer" of the reflexive in the following change construction (Ricoeur again? No, don't worry!):

Valvae se ipsae aperuerunt (Cic. Div. 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’.

Would it be possible in Latin to say the following example without se?

Foris ipsa aperit ‘The door is opening by itself’.

Which is the difference between the previous example and the following one?

Foris se aperit ‘The door is opening (by itself)’ (cf. the attested example: Foris aperit (Pl. Pers. 300) ‘The door is opening’).

For more context, please read my expanded question in How things change in Latin, which, unfortunately, remains unanswered...

After having answered a question on "ipse" from a very different perspective (a philosophical one: [https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/9521/does-ipse-truly-mean-change ), I return to linguistics: now I was wondering if ipse must be considered just a sort of "reinforcer" of the reflexive in the following change construction (Ricoeur again? No, don't worry!):

Valvae se ipsae aperuerunt (Cic. Div. 1, 74) ‘The doors opened by themselves’.

Would it be possible in Latin to say the following example without se?

Foris ipsa aperit ‘The door is opening by itself’.

Which is the difference between the previous example and the following one?

Foris se aperit ‘The door is opening (by itself)’ (cf. the attested example without se: Foris aperit (Pl. Pers. 300) ‘The door is opening’).

For more context, please read my related question in How things change in Latin.