How one can say "The door opened" in Latin?

Question

I'm interested in knowing all the possible grammatical (i.e. morphosyntactic) ways to express the perfect construction "The door opened" in Latin. It seems to me that, in this case, a natural expression is Porta se aperuit but what about the English-like variant without the reflexive pronoun (Porta aperuit) and the "mediopassive" variant (Porta aperta est)? Are these alternative perfective forms possible as well to express "The door opened"? If there are also additional analytic variants to express it (e.g. "The door became open", "The door went open" (cf. Germ. "Die Tür ging auf")), please let me know as well. Thanks!

NB I: here I'm specifically interested in "The door opened" (not in the verbal passive construction "The door {has been/was} opened" nor in the adjectival one "The door was open"). Typically, passive constructions are said to behave differently from mediopassive/anticausative ones. Passives do involve an agent/external cause even when this is not present: "The door was opened (sc. by someone/something)"; "The door was opened deliberately"; "The door was opened in order to..."), i.a. In contrast, mediopassives/anticausatives do not involve such an external argument (hence the term "anticausative"). Hence the strong ungrammaticality of "*The door opened by Peter", "*The door opened deliberately", "*The door opened in order to...", etc. One of the typical modifiers that is used in the linguistic literature to identify anticausatives is "by itself" (see examples of it from various languages in this paper).

NB II: here I'm interested in getting examples of the perfective form ("The door opened"), not of its imperfective counterparts: examples like Porta se aperit, Porta aperit or the mediopassive Porta aperitur are all attested (e.g. see How things change in Latin). According to some authors, a mediopassive/anticausative construction with a verb like aperire is possible in the infectum (Porta aperitur 'The door opens') but not in the perfectum (see pages 5 & 6 of this downloadable work). I do NOT understand why they exclude the perfective form of the mediopassive: for me, Porta aperta est, on one of its 3 possible readings, can also express "The door opened" but perhaps I'm wrong. Hence my question. (NB: the first author of that downloadable paper, Michela Cennamo, is regarded as a worldwide expert on this topic).

NB III: this question is related to the following ones: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 (i.a.?).

---

d_e has provided two very interesting examples in his answer that, in my opinion, show that mediopassives in the perfective form can indeed be considered as another anticausativization strategy (pace Cennamo et al. 2015: 5-6):

Ianus geminus sua sponte apertus est, et Anubis simulacrum marmoreum moveri visum est. (HA Comm. 16.4) 'The twin gates of the temple of Janus opened of their own accord, and a marble image of Anubis was seen to move.' (Loeb).

neque ieiuno neque cenato uomendum est, neque mouenda aluus; atque etiam, si per se mota est, conprimenda est. (Cels. 1, 10) 'Neither on an empty stomach nor after a meal should he provoke a vomit, or set up a motion; indeed if the bowels tend to be loose, they are to be restrained.' (Transl. by W. G. Spencer, 1971, Perseus)

Answer 1

I believe I've found one example from Ovid(correct me if I'm wrong) where se movet and movetur are attested in the perfect to mean "changed/moved"

“sunt, o fortissime, quorum
forma semel mota est et in hoc renovamine mansit;

“Some there are, bravest of heroes, whose form has been once changed and remained in its new state. (Loeb)

perque novem luces expers undaeque cibique
rore mero lacrimisque suis ieiunia pavit
nec se movit humo;

For nine whole days she sat, tasting neither drink nor food, her hunger fed by naught save pure dew and tears, and moved not from the ground (Loeb)

---

I believe that semel alone is a strong argument for mota est to be verbal (rather than adj.), but this counter-example where somehow bis is attached to an adjectival(?) p.p.p can be raised against this assertion:

Bis deinde post Numae regnum clausus fuit (Liv.AUC.1.19.3.1)

though I see this Livy example is somewhat different and also in Ovid it is followed by masit so I can't really see how mota est can be adjectival.

---

Given the discussion in comments on the ambiguity between a verbal passive reading and, a verbal mediopassive reading. The only way I see to resolve the ambiguity in favor of the mediopassive is to find (sua) sponte adverb. Not even per se would suffice. (c.f.: si per se mota est, conprimenda est)

Miraculously, given all the constrains, an example was able to be found where the reading is verbal and medio-passive. The draw-back that this from Historia Augusta:

Ianus geminus sua sponte apertus est, et Anubis simulacrum marmoreum moveri visum est

The twin gates of the temple of Janus opened of their own accord, and a marble image of Anubis was seen to move. (Loeb)

("Janus gemius" is a shrine.)

---

Now, as for the the third way, this seems to be much easier:

Utraque classis postero die luce prima, tamquam eo die pugnatura, e portu movit, (Liv.AUC.37.23.6.2)

At daybreak next day both fleets moved out of port as if to fight that day; (Loeb).

Note that it must be that the fleet themselves moved (not by any other agent) since utraque classis must be nominative singular.

Answer 2

Perhaps Ov. Am. 3.8.7 would count as an example:

Cum bene laudavit, laudato ianua clausa est.
Even though she praises my text, the door has/is closed for the praised one.
(my quick translation)

There is no grammatical agent, although context makes it clear that she closes the door. To me laudato seems to be a dativus incommodi. The verse does not appear to connect syntactically to neighboring ones.

The adjectival reading of the participle clausa can't be excluded here. I am not sure in what context a distinction between a verbal and an adjectival reading of a past participle could possibly be clear enough, and I am frankly not yet convinced that the distinction is practically meaningful.

Answer 3

The perfect tense can be used in the active voice or the passive voice. It can also be used in ablative absolute constructions. We can express the idea "the door opened" in the following ways:

1. Porta (se) aperuit. The door opened. (Perfect active indicative.)
2. Porta aperta est / Porta est aperta. The door was opened. (Perfect passive indicative.)
3. Porta aperta, gavisus est. When the door (had been) opened, he rejoiced. (Ablative absolute.)

I think one of the main questions here is whether "Porta aperuit" is idiomatic in Latin, the way "The door opened" is idiomatic in English.

We can argue by analogy that the phrase "Porta aperuit" is no different in construction than the phrase "The door opened" — both consist of a noun followed by a verb in the active voice. [1] [2] [3]

But it would also help to find data on this subject. Is the phrase "Porta aperuit" attested in any ancient or modern texts? And how about the phrase "Porta se aperuit" (which includes the reflexive pronoun)?

---

[1] We find parallels in phrases like "He dressed" or "He showered" — the reflexive pronoun is omitted in these phrases just like it's omitted in the phrase "The door opened".

[2] Since there are examples in English where the reflexive pronoun is omitted (e.g. "The door opened" and "He dressed") there may also be examples of this in Latin.

[3] Phrases like "The door opened" and "He dressed" are suggestive of a middle voice. The middle voice is commonly used in Ancient Greek and has its own pattern of inflections. Perhaps English and Latin also have a middle voice. The question we are addressing might be equivalent to the following: How do we form middle voice constructions in Latin?

Answer 4

Why not just Porta hiavit? Seems perfectly classical to me.