In his answer to Q: Can Gerundives be predicates of Ablative Absolutes?, Seb offered a number of examples, the second of which:
"quo senatus consulto recitato cum [populus] more hoc insulso et novo plausum meo nomine recitando dedisset, habui contionem." (Cic. Att. 4.1.6) =
"With the recommendation of the Senate having been read out, when the people had applauded in this tasteless and new manner, with my name read out I spoke to the assembly."
Apart from the clumsy repetition of "recitato", why deploy a gerundive, in an ablative-absolute construction, ("meo nomine recitando"), as opposed to a conventional AA-construction, "meo nomine recitato" = "with my name (having been) read out"?
This is incorrect: "meo nomine recitato...habui contionem" has "my" (from "meo"), included in the AA, and "I" (in "habui") in the subsequent clause. This violates the grammatical rule that a species, in an AA, cannot be referred to again in the following clause.
Seb continued: "Hofman & Szantyr accept these examples only grudgingly as AAs, while gerundives are often and freely used in late Latin taking on the role of future-passive participles."
Is this example an AA, at all; or, simply an agreement of case-endings as directed by the grammatical rule governing gerundive constructions (noun/ pronoun must agree in case, number & gender with the gerundive)?
This would give: "meo nomine recitando" = "with my name (reading-out) calling....I spoke to the assembly.".
In his answer to Q: What is the difference in meaning/usage between "nasciturus" and "nascendus"?, Mitomino offered an example of Cicero's use of the gerundive, in this way, which also demonstrates how the ablative case negates the gerundive's passive and deontic qualities:
"placet contra gaudere nosmet omittendis doloribus" (Cic. Fin. 1.56) =
"but on the other hand one is to rejoice by releasing pains".