The translation is indeed syntactically inexact, but in a very common and justifiable way.
The point is that Latin -- unlike e.g. Greek, from which this text is translated -- lacks a perfect active participle. This means that there's no direct way of saying "Having called his disciples together...". (The exception to this is using a deponent verb, since ...
You're right that it's a gerundive of obligation, and thus requires a form of esse. However, it doesn't have to be expressed. Tacitus Annals 1.29 contains two without esse, though they're in indirect statements:
certatum inde sententiis, cum alii opperiendos legatos atque interim comitate permulcendum militem censerent, alii fortioribus remediis agendum: ...
I am not aware of a possibility of passivizing such a structure.
Instead, I suggest two ways around this:
Use a different verb.
Depending on context, perhaps comitare, haerere, or insistere could replace sequi.
With a non-deponent verb you can form passives as usual.
Use a pronoun meaning "someone".
Although aliquis me sequitur might not be ...
I think it helps to look at two different commentaries on this verse. First we'll reproduce the Greek, and then the commentaries on the Greek.
εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ θεός Ἄφρων, ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτὶ τὴν ψυχήν σου αἰτοῦσιν ἀπὸ σοῦ· ἃ δὲ ἡτοίμασας, τίνι ἔσται;
Westcott and Hort 1881
The first commentator is A.T. Robertson.
Thou foolish one (aprwn). Fool, for lack of ...
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 ...
The "middle function" can also be claimed to occur in perfective tenses (of both non-deponent and deponent verbs). For example, it's one of the three readings an ambiguous sentence like Porta clausa est can have: please see the so-called anticausative reading (i.e., 'The door closed by itself') in this previous question .
Although it is not morphologically ...
That does indeed look like a passive infinitive:
…ara castis / vincta verbenis avet immolato / spargier agno.
…the altar decorated with fresh foliage wants to be sprinkled with [blood from] a sacrificed lamb.
And I'm not too surprised to see it, really; the -ier infinitive shows up plenty of times in poetry, as well as in older prose. I'm not sure why ...
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.
There are no passive forms of esse, for the reason you state -- it's not a transitive verb. Intransitive verbs cannot be passivized, with the minor exception of "impersonal passive" forms (in the 3sg. only), which are not used with esse. The crossed-out forms on that site don't exist. (Neither do some of the forms that aren't crossed out, like the gerundive ...
This list will have some false positives, but the Packard Humanities Institute Latin Texts website generates this collection of all instances of "iri" in its corpus (179 total instances):
As varro says, the question is debated. There are no r-forms in Latin, and we have no 2pl. passives attested in Sabellic, unfortunately. I think Sihler's account is rather farfetched; a much simpler account, going back to Franz Bopp in 1820, is given by Weiss (Outline 391) as follows:
The 2nd plural ending -minī most probably derives from a ...
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 ...
The verb in question (minor, -ari, -atus) is a deponent verb, which means that it has a passive form but an active meaning.
There are many such verbs in Latin. Consider the following cases:
Multa passus est.
He suffered many things.
We urge you...
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 ...
I don't have precise figures for frequency, but G&L §1301b say that it is very common in earlier prose, less common in later:
In the second Singular, passive, in all tenses of the Present stem, the ending -re is much more common in early Latin than -ris, and is regular in Cic. except in the Pr. Indic., where he prefers -ris on account of confusion ...
I'm not an expert in Latin of the age of the Vulgate, so somebody else may have a more enlightened view, but grammatically speaking you're exactly right; the phrase in question is an ablative absolute, meaning "his twelve disciples having been called together," and "And having called his twelve disciples together" seems to be a mistranslation, or at least a ...
(this is just a prelim. answer)
Pinkster 2015 writes that
“[t]he use of the perfect passive as a present state in in fact part of an entire paradigm of forms of the perfectum stem of sum with participles denoting a resulting state” (p. 446).
Bis deinde post Numae regnum clausus fuit … . (Liv. 1.19.3)
Itaque in iis scriptum litteris Punicis fuit regem ...
The first one I ever encountered was in Metellus' letter to Cicero (Fam. 5.1):
Existimaram pro mutuo inter nos animo et pro reconciliata gratia nec absentem umquam me abs te ludibrio laesum iri.
I had thought, on account of our mutual desire and reconciliation, that I while absent was not ever to be attacked with ridicule by you.
It's certainly rare. If we ...
According to Bennett's New Latin Grammar, #178, the recommended approach when making these constructions passive is to make the person the (nominative) subject and to retain the thing in the accusative. (See also this blog post)
Thus, in your example:
te rem doceo
rem a me doceris
Me sententiam rogavit
Sententiam rogatus ...
One could also read the entire motto as a description of the school:
maybe Hogwarts is "a sleeping dragon which should not be tickled".
I am not familiar enough with the school to tell if this is a sensible interpretation, but it strikes me as a reasonable option.
In this reading the motto is not an instruction for students but a description of the school.
My suggestion with complex sentences is always to try to identify the core and to rewrite it into a simpler independent sentence.
Here the core, as far as your question is concerned, has to do with ordering and loving.
Let us compare two descriptions of orders:
Te iubes amare.
You order yourself to love.
Te iubes amari.
You order yourself to be ...
In your phrase Dīvide et vincēs, the second verb is future rather than imperative, so if you're OK with that phrasing you could do the same here to avoid the ambiguity of form: Dīvide et vincēris.
For "Divide and rule" Wiki gives the Latin versions Dīvide et imperā and Dīvide ut regnēs. Passivizing the first (Dīvide et imperāre) doesn't avoid the ambiguity, ...
In linguistic parlance these verbs are usually called “stative”, not “passive”. From a Latin standpoint they differ from passive verbs in that they cannot (apparently) be construed with an agent (Latin ab + ablative).
Ancient Indo-European is believed to have had an active and a middle voice, but no passive. But it did have the facility to form stative ...
The agent here is not denoted by the bare accusative, but by per + accusative. This usage is classical. L/S s.v. “per” cites several examples from Cicero, e.g. “quod nefarium stuprum non per illum factum est,” “What nefarious crime has not been commited by him?” It survives with (for example) French “par”.
They come from the same source, in this case.
The noun benedictus is a substantive: that is, an adjective on its own, acting as a noun. This is very common in Latin, and also shows up sometimes in English, as in "the good, the bad, and the ugly".
The adjective benedictus, meanwhile, is a participle: a special form of a verb that acts like an adjective. ...
Sihler in his New Comparitive Grammar of Greek and Latin considers the problem "one the enigmas of classical scholarship", so I don't think there is any generally agreed-on answer. He does offer the following possibility (summarized):
1) Start with the PIE ending *-dhwo - but where does the nasal come from?
2) Perhaps *-dhwo-ne, with the same added ...
FWIW, Google attributes the quote to Calvin Coolidge rather than the Emperor Maurice.
Anyway I see a couple of issues with your translation: eius should be a form of the reflexive suus; obliviscor takes genitive; and gens is a hanging nominative (i.e. it isn't acting as subject of the main clause, since memoria is the subject). Fixing these would yield ...
In Proto-Indo-European, there were multiple complete sets of person-number markings, used for different tenses of the same verb. You can see the relics of this most clearly in Ancient Greek, where the present tense conjugates -ō -eis -ei, the aorist tense conjugates -a -as -en, and the imperfect tense conjugates -on -es -en.
In Latin, one ...
Thinking about your very interesting question ("That is, do we ever see non-deponent verbs with passive morphology, but able to take accusative direct objects and not able to take ablative agents?"), here is an example that could be argued (at least, claimed!) to satisfy your grammatical conditions:
flava caput nectentur oliva (Verg. Aen. 5, 309)