Re: Question about supines, gerunds, and the like

On Sunday, May 16, 2004, at 11:24 PM, Christophe Grandsire wrote:

> En réponse à Ray Brown :
[snip]
>> 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.
No one bothered to inform Cicero about that 'rule', e.g.
"Syracusis captis, Marcellus aedificiis omnibus sic pepercit quasi ad ea
defendenda, non oppugnanda uenisset."
'Having captured Syracus, Marcellus spared all the building thus giving
the appearance that *he had come to defend them, not to attack them*'

What's good enough for Cicero is good enough for me  ;)

Indeed, it seems it's good enough also for the authors of two books on
Latin prose composition; one gives as examples:
ad consultandum huc unenimus = we have come here to deliberate
ad pacem petendam missi sumus = we have been sent to ask for peace

And the other gives:
ad pugnandum uenimus = we have come to do battle
ad pacem petendam uenimus = we have come to ask for peace

Indeed, my recollection is that it is quite common with verbs of motion. I
can only think your grammar book is trying to 'tidy up' Latin a
prescriptive way: if the verb denote motion, use the supine to show
purpose, otherwise use ad+gerund(ive)

But as with many prescriptive rules, the actual language ignores them  :)

[snip]
>> 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,
{sigh} ..for a moment I thought French grammarians were being more
enlightened and descriptive, not prescriptive.  I should've known they'd
be no better than our prescriptive traditionalists, I guess. From a
descriptive point of view, it seems clear to me the Romans were not aware
of a distinction between 'gerundive' & 'gerund' or 'adjectif verbal' &
'gérondif' and the two uses are not kept apart as systematically as
prescriptivists suggest.

> 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.
The trouble is that Latin (and Classical Greek) did not formally
distinguish nouns (nomina substantiua) from adjectives (nomina adiectiua).

> You need a straight mind to invent a twisted conlang.
You need a straight mind to find your way through prescriptivist mazes.

Ray
===============================================
http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
ray.brown@freeuk.com    (home)
raymond.brown@kingston-college.ac.uk   (work)
===============================================
"A mind which thinks at its own expense will always
interfere with language."         J.G. Hamann, 1760