Before we understand the gerundive of a deponent verb, we need to first understand the particples of deponent verbs.
Participles of Deponent Verbs
Deponent verbs are often described as verbs with "passive forms but active meanings." While this generally holds true, it ignores a crucial extra step: deponents have participles in both voices! (See ...
Certainly. Allen and Greenough sec. 500:
The gerundive is sometimes used, like the present and perfect participles, in simple agreement with a noun:—
fortem et cōnservandum virum (Mil. 104), a brave man, and worthy to be preserved.
gravis iniūria facta est et nōn ferenda (Flacc. 84), a grave and intolerable wrong has been done.
Nocendo is a gerund (noun) here, not a gerundive (adjective). Therefore, it's active in meaning. It's ablative to show the means by which Juno does good. Quae is f. nom. sing. and refers to Iunonem, who is the 'I' of the relative clause.
...I who alone do good by doing harm
(Note that sola couldn't be the object of nocendo (or the agent, because nocendo, ...
Weiss writes that
"The u-forms are characteristic of legal and archaizing style, e.g. pecuniae repetundae (the recovery of extorted money), and are found in the isolated forms secundus 'following' and rotundus 'round' (p. 444; emphasis mine - Alex B.).
Powell 2007/2011 adds that even though "the gerundive suffix in -undus, rather than -endus, has an old-...
Normally, when you passive a verb in Latin, the following happens:
Subject becomes a(b(s)) + ablative.
Direct object becomes subject.
All other constituents remain unchanged.
Note that a direct object is only that object which is directly governed by a verb (so without prepositions) and which is in the accusative.
Ciceroni parcitur a me.
The gerund is only used in the singular, so for that reason alone praestandis has to be a gerundive.
The gerund is a verbal noun (and as a subject or object is replaced by the infinitive).
The gerundive is a verbal adjective; it adapts its form to the gender, number, and case of whatever it modifies.
There is no good analogue for this distinction in English,...
Yes, there is. A couple of notes:
Faciendus (-a, -um) is attested. Perseus gives 21 results of the former. These include several forms of faciendus + [esse] (est, erat, esset)
There is also a number of instances of gerund faciendum, -i, -o
Ad satis faciendum (Cic. Clu. 4):
Etenim tibi si in praesentia non potuero, tamen multae mihi ad ...
I strongly incline to the view that bibendum is a gerundive, not only because it is paired with an unambiguous gerundive, but also because the context demands some kind of obligation, a notion not communicated by gerunds. I understand the gerund to have the same modal force as the infinitive (which explains its absence in the nominative), so I don't think a ...
This kind of metonymy is very common in Latin.
For a simple example, vir mortuus is literally "a dead man" but can also mean "the death of a man".
This is somewhat similar to how summus mons can be "the highest mountain" and "the peak (= the highest part of a mountain)".
The point is that reading very literally can ...
Here is one possible way to parse this kind of constructions.
(The instance you quote is not unique as the examples below indicate.)
Recall that there are two ways to indicate possession: domum habeo and mihi domus est are more or less equivalent.
The usual way to express obligation is mihi currendum est.
If one analyses this as a dative of possession, then ...
This is a synchronic answer, pertaining only to classical Latin, as I believe the use of gerunds and gerundives was subject to some change praeclassically; what is more, they may have once been the same thing, or one may have been born from the other. So it would not make sense for me, especially without enough information, to distinguish between them in ...
In my experience many languages confuse lack of desire and desire of the contrary.
For example, I would like to be able to say "I don't want coffee" as the negation of "I want coffee", meaning that I don't have a desire to have coffee.
To say that I am actively against drinking coffee, I would prefer to say "I want not to have coffee".
But, unfortunately, ...
In his Corso elementare di lingua latina ("Elementary Latin course", 1844), Vincenzo De Angelis deals with this in Volume 1, p. 191:
Se il verbo indica azione vi sarà il passivo, come amo ed amor... e perciò amans ed amatus-amaturus ed amandus. Ma ove indicasse uno stato intransitivo, nè il verbo vi sarà con questo doppio valore, e forma; nè ...
The following examples are of the negated gerundive clearly equivalent to a prohibition.
The pair faciendum / non faciendum is used to indicate positive and negative obligation, as evidenced by the parallelism with sequi / fugere.
Videsne ut quibus summa est in voluptate perspicuum sit quid iis faciendum sit aut non faciendum? ut nemo dubitet eorum ...
The main verb of the clause, datur is impersonal. In English the subject 'it' would be used (though, grammatically speaking, the real subject is the infinitive cognoscere).
→ '...it isn't given/granted/permitted...' or even '...it isn't possible....'
Remember that cognoscere really means 'know' or to 'be familiar with' only in the perfective tenses (perfect, ...
Just like your Quod erat demonstrandum example suggests, you definitely need a gerundive form here :
quod erat faciendum
Depending on the context, you might want to consider facienda (n. pl, "that which is to be made").
There are three or four impersonal verbs to express what is appropriate, or legal, or obligatory.
1 děcet, it is appropriate
2 dēděcet, it is inapproptiate, unseemly.
Ut nobis decet; As seems right to us.
Oratorem irasci minime decet, simulare non dēděcet. It is not professional for an orator to get angry, it is not unprofessional to pretend (to get ...
The gerundive should be neuter if you just want to say "I need to read".
Any other form than singular neuter should only be used when the gerundive modifies a noun.
The modified noun can in principle be left implicit; consider:
Ubi est ista scriptio? Mihi legenda est!
Where is that writing? I have to read it!
The fact that the gerundive is not neuter ...
To clarify a little more.
In Gramatica Latina (latin grammar) by Santiago Segura:
Participe of passive future:
It is also called verbal adjective in -NDUS and gerundive and is formed by adding to the present theme the suffix -ND-US, -ND-A, -ND-UM, sometimes by -e- (3rd and 4th conjugation): ama- ndus, -a, -um; dele-nd-us, -a, -um; leg-e-nd-us, -a, -um; cap-...
Your “translation exercise” is a famous (I thought) fragment from Nepos’ “Hannibal” (from De exellentibus ducibus, 2.1): “Nam ut omittam Philippum, quem absens hostem reddidit Romanis, omnium iis temporibus potentissimus rex Antiochus fuit. Hunc tanta cupiditate incendit bellandi, ut usque a rubro mari arma conatus sit inferre Italiae.”
[incendit = “he fired ...
Yes, the predicate of an ablative absolute can be a gerundive.
But the matter is complicated by the question what a real ablative absolute is and what separates it from other constructions. You have specified your own, somewhat formal criteria. Others draw a distinction between the various functions of the ablative, the absolute being distinct from the ...
@brianpck is right, but it's worth adding that in the example quoted, "Sentio, iudices, moderandum mihi esse iam orationi meae fugiendamque vestram satietatem", Cicero had no choice about making "moderandum" impersonal: it has to be impersonal because, in this sense, "moderari" does not take an accusative direct object but ...
Quite probably, your invented examples Infans lavandus clamabat and Urbs nobis capienda militiam novam paraverat would sound quite odd to a native speaker of Latin.
Note that the attributive use of verbal adjectives in -nd- was very restricted in Latin. As pointed out by Pinkster (2015: 998), "the attributive use of gerundives is almost entirely restricted ...
I don't think so. First, are you sure that pergit can be used in this sense? I would use pergo to indicate a sense of progression, and I would have an agent in mind as its subject, someone who continues to move in a certain direction. Perhaps permanet or perstat would fit?
As to the gerundive construction, i.e. a gerundive that is used dominantly, I believe ...
A basic problem here is that trust or belief works with dative in Latin.
I trust you.
One can express obligation with gerunds, putting the subject (implicit ego) into dative:
Mihi tibi credendum est.
I have to trust you.
But given the flexible word order, which one of mihi and tibi is supposed to be the subject and which ...
Allen and Greenough (504) say that a gerund in the genitive can take an accusative object, "especially a neuter pronoun or a neuter adjective used substantivally". Examples:
nulla causa iusta cuiquam esse potest contra patriam arma capiendi (Cic. Phil. 2 53)
artem vera ac falsa diiudicandi (Cic. Or. 2.157)
They say that such constructions are ...
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. [...
The verb veniunt doesn't work as directly with the gerundive (future passive participle) as you think.
Omnia consideranda is "everything that must be considered", so it should be more along the lines of:
[These] come before everything that must be considered.
You can argue that the meaning is practically the same, but I think there is a meaningful ...
I'd put it this way:
"[...] which value however cannot be known other than by approximation [I think this is the mathematical term]."
'Literally' (I don't like that term and don't really think it makes sense, but anyhow):
"[...] which value however other than by approximation ('by approaching', a gerund in the ablative) to know (it) is not ...
Just to add on to Alex B's answer, though I can't offer as authoritative of sources:
Would it be appropriate to occasionally make the replacement in any context?
In the late Republican period, the answer seems to be yes, but it sounds a bit archaic. I'd compare it to putting the object before the verb in English ("speaking with the object the verb ...