4

I want to translate the following as a passive periphrastic:

You must give your money to me!

My attempt so far is:

pecunia tua tibi danda est mihi

Because Latin rarely acknowledges word order, that is the same as:

pecunia tua mihi danda est tibi

Which could be misinterpreted as:

I must give your money to you!

Which has an entirely separate meaning, completely different from what I want to say. Is it possible to differentiate in this scenario the difference between the indirect object and the agent? Would syntax take over in this case? Or is it impossible to have such a structure?

Note: This is about the grammar, not the vocabulary. I am not interested in a solution that involves different vocabulary or uses anything other than the passive periphrastic. Other cases are allowed if they also involve conflicting datives in the passive periphrastic structure.

Improve this question
3
  • 4
    I can't be bothered to seek out a citation right now, but when this conundrum occurred the Romans would sometimes put the agent into the ablative + a(b).
    – Anonym
    Sep 4, 2017 at 22:54
  • @Anonym: Indeed, that is what I was taught as a rule. And I don't remember ever writing it off as a fiction when reading, so I suspect it's reasonably accurate. You can always find a citation later and turn it into an answer.
    – Cerberus ♦
    Sep 5, 2017 at 0:01
  • 1
    @Anonym Gildersleeve & Lodge 355: "To avoid ambiguity, especially when the verb itself take a the Dat., the Abl. with ab (a) is employed for the sake of clearness...When there is no ambiguity, there is no need of ab. [then he gives the example] Linguae moderandum est mihi, I must put bounds to my tongue.
    – cmw ♦
    Oct 8, 2017 at 20:41

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3

It is indeed possible: in such cases, one uses a/ab/abs with the person who is to act, to avoid ambiguity.

Weimer (above) provides a reference, Gildersleeve & Lodge 355:

To avoid ambiguity, especially when the verb itself takes the Dat., the Abl. with ab (a) is employed for the sake of clearness...When there is no ambiguity, there is no need of ab. [then he gives the example] Linguae moderandum est mihi, "I must put bounds to my tongue".

Improve this answer

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.