Re: Question about supines, gerunds, and the like

En réponse à Ray Brown :


>>According to my Latin grammar, the ablative form of the supine ended in
>>"u" (just get rid of the m :) ) and was uncommon, exiting only for a few
>>verbs and used only as complement of some adjectives. The example it
>>gives is: res jucunda auditu: something nice to hear. "Auditu" completes
>>"jucunda": agreeable, nice.
>
>100% correct
Hehe, even if I wasn't it would have been only the fault of the ones who 
put the Latin grammar I have together :)) .


>The 'adverbial goal' was more commomly expressed by 'ad + gerund' (or
>gerundive) or by a clause beginning 'ut' (if positive)/'ne' (if negative)
>with the verb in the subjunctive mood, therefore:
>I am going so that I may play/ I am going in order to play =
>ad ludendum eo _or_ ut ludam eo
According to my grammar though, the "ad + gerund" construction was 
specifically *not* used with movement verbs.


>>It seems the term "supine" just means "some invariable verbal derivative
>>form that we can't really classify as anything else". In each language
>>where it's used, it seems to have a different meaning. Don't try to find
>>a common meaning...
>
>I think that just about sums it up   :)
Hehe :) .


>>  Problem: in the masculine and neuter non-nominative forms, it was
>>identical to the gerund, and my book even shows examples where the
>>gerundive replaced the gerund, when the gerund received an accusative
>>complement.
>
>The so-called "gerundive of attraction".
My grammar book didn't give it a special name (indeed, it mentions it in 
small letters,, i.e. as less important).


>It's pretty obvious, actually, that the Romans _didn't_ distinguish
>between the two - mainly because the so-called 'gerund' _is only the
>neuter of the gerundive!
>
>If French does indeed call what we in English call the 'gerund' and
>'gerundive' by the single name "gérondif" then the French show a better
>understanding than Anglosaxons on this matter. The distinction between the
>two is an artificial invention of latter-day grammarians.
Actually, the term "gérondif" only applies to the gerund, i.e. the forms 
used to supply a full declension to the infinitive. The gerundive is called 
"adjectif verbal" and is said to be formally identical but semantically 
very different from the gerund, and *not* confused, except in the case of 
the "gerundive of attraction" as you call it. The "gérondif" is a noun and 
the "adjectif verbal" is an adjective.


>[Anglophone traditionalists refer to the above as examples of the
>"geundive of attrctive", i.e. in their minds the naughty Romans ought to
>have used a gerund with a direct object, but got confused and "put the
>objct into the case the grund should be and then made the gerundive agree
>with it" - oh, the perverseness of prescriptivists!!]
Exact same explanation in my grammar book.

Christophe Grandsire.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang. 

Reply