accusative or not? [split]

KingHarvest
Posts:4168
Joined:2008-03-21, 5:46
Gender:male
Location:New York
Country:USUnited States (United States)
accusative or not? [split]

Postby KingHarvest » 2008-07-19, 4:15

[la] Olim Jackfrostis timorum oblitus esse posse spero.

[en] I hope that some time in the future I'll be able to put Jackfrost's terror out my mind.


This isn't Greek, you have to make oblitus accusative :wink:
Most men are rather stupid, and most of those who are not stupid are, consequently, rather vain.
-A.E. Housman

User avatar
Jalethon
Posts:498
Joined:2007-08-17, 1:56
Real Name:Jalethon
Gender:male
Location:Roma?
Country:NLThe Netherlands (Nederland)

Postby Jalethon » 2008-07-19, 14:33

This isn't Greek, you have to make oblitus accusative


[la] Utendi casus genetivi memoro. Num casu accusativo uti oportet me?

HerrFraeulein
Posts:2743
Joined:2005-11-29, 10:57
Real Name:Michael van Veen
Gender:male
Location: Utrecht
Country:NLThe Netherlands (Nederland)

Postby HerrFraeulein » 2008-07-20, 18:44

Babelfish wrote:
Jalethon wrote:[la] Olim Jackfrostis timorum oblitus esse posse spero.

[la]
Nonne "timorem" necesse est, insuper "oblitum"?
Saltem, tuam ipsius picturam non vidimus :wink:


I believe they had this discussion just now, whether "oblivisci" should take a genitive or an accusative object. From what I remember, both are more or less equally valid in this context. I know certain grammars propose some sort of subtle distinction between the two, but it seems rather contrived. As for "oblitum", I should think not. I know what you're thinking: accusative with infinitive, implicit "me", hence "oblitum", but, well, since there isn't an actual AcI, "oblitus" is supposed to agree with the subject here ("spero"), so "oblitus" would be the correct choice, as in: Cicero would do it like that; that is, if Jalethon is indeed a little boy; if Jalethon is a little girl, "oblita", hehe. Spero ut rem tibi clariorem fecerim. Or something like that anyway. :mrgreen:
You will die, mortal! ~Shao Kahn, MKII

KingHarvest
Posts:4168
Joined:2008-03-21, 5:46
Gender:male
Location:New York
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re:

Postby KingHarvest » 2008-07-24, 23:32

HerrFraeulein wrote:
Babelfish wrote:
Jalethon wrote:[la] Olim Jackfrostis timorum oblitus esse posse spero.

[la]
Nonne "timorem" necesse est, insuper "oblitum"?
Saltem, tuam ipsius picturam non vidimus :wink:


I believe they had this discussion just now, whether "oblivisci" should take a genitive or an accusative object. From what I remember, both are more or less equally valid in this context. I know certain grammars propose some sort of subtle distinction between the two, but it seems rather contrived. As for "oblitum", I should think not. I know what you're thinking: accusative with infinitive, implicit "me", hence "oblitum", but, well, since there isn't an actual AcI, "oblitus" is supposed to agree with the subject here ("spero"), so "oblitus" would be the correct choice, as in: Cicero would do it like that; that is, if Jalethon is indeed a little boy; if Jalethon is a little girl, "oblita", hehe. Spero ut rem tibi clariorem fecerim. Or something like that anyway. :mrgreen:


I never intended to mean for oblitus to take a genitive, but for oblitus itself to be oblitum, accusative. And it is rather unlikely that spero would take an ut clause. Ut clauses after verbs of wishing are possible, but they are relatively rare and even more so when the subject doesn't change. It is possible for Jalethon to use an ut clause in this case, but given it's rarity and the lack of native speakers to tell us in what contexts they would be preferred, it's better for us latter day Latinists to use an acc + inf. And it needs to be oblitum because the potere clause is closer to the oblitum clause and the potere is governed by an implied me.
Most men are rather stupid, and most of those who are not stupid are, consequently, rather vain.
-A.E. Housman

HerrFraeulein
Posts:2743
Joined:2005-11-29, 10:57
Real Name:Michael van Veen
Gender:male
Location: Utrecht
Country:NLThe Netherlands (Nederland)

Re: Re:

Postby HerrFraeulein » 2008-07-25, 15:37

KingHarvest wrote:
I never intended to mean for oblitus to take a genitive, but for oblitus itself to be oblitum, accusative. And it is rather unlikely that spero would take an ut clause. Ut clauses after verbs of wishing are possible, but they are relatively rare and even more so when the subject doesn't change. It is possible for Jalethon to use an ut clause in this case, but given it's rarity and the lack of native speakers to tell us in what contexts they would be preferred, it's better for us latter day Latinists to use an acc + inf. And it needs to be oblitum because the potere clause is closer to the oblitum clause and the potere is governed by an implied me.


As for "spero" being, according to the standards of "golden Latin", constructed with an AcI: most certainly. Peccavi! 8)

However, your analysis as far as "oblitum" is concerned is quite mistaken, dear man. :wink: Semantically, certainly, "posse" relies on a latent "me" functioning as its (semantic) subject. However, since "posse" here is a so-called "actual" infinitive object (as opposed to "spurious" infinitive objects, where the subject of the finite verb is distinct from the implied subject of the infinitive, such as in "Metrodorus beatum esse describit his fere verbis", where the subject to "esse" is the general "you": when one is happy) to "spero", and "esse" is in turn an actual infinitive object to "posse" -as a result of which the implied subject of "(oblitus) esse" is still identical with the subject of "spero")- any predicate noun must agree with the subject, being in the nominative.

Don't take my word for it though, rather, I'll just refer to the authorative "Lehrbuch der lateinischen Syntax und Stilistik" by Thorsten Burkard and Markus Schauer, based exclusively on the works of Cicero and Caesar:

p. 672: Hat der Infinitiv von 'esse' oder eines kopulativen Verbums ein Prädikatsnomen oder ein Prädikativum bei sich, so steht dieses:

(1) [...]

(2) im Nominativ, wenn der Infinitiv eigentlicher Objektsinfinitiv ist:

Beati esse volumus (Tusc. 5, 67). Dionysius fortis esse didicit. (Tusc. 2,60).


Don't mind the German, it's about the examples anyway. Now, for A. "Beati esse volumus" you could obviously state B. "Beati (futuri) esse speramus", likewise C. "Beati esse possumus" which, when this sentence is made dependent on "sperare", gets you: D. "Beati esse posse speramus". It's not that the "implied" accusative 'nos', though present in both A, B, C and D, would only force accusative agreement in the last. :idea:
You will die, mortal! ~Shao Kahn, MKII

KingHarvest
Posts:4168
Joined:2008-03-21, 5:46
Gender:male
Location:New York
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: Re:

Postby KingHarvest » 2008-07-25, 20:32

HerrFraeulein wrote:
KingHarvest wrote:
I never intended to mean for oblitus to take a genitive, but for oblitus itself to be oblitum, accusative. And it is rather unlikely that spero would take an ut clause. Ut clauses after verbs of wishing are possible, but they are relatively rare and even more so when the subject doesn't change. It is possible for Jalethon to use an ut clause in this case, but given it's rarity and the lack of native speakers to tell us in what contexts they would be preferred, it's better for us latter day Latinists to use an acc + inf. And it needs to be oblitum because the potere clause is closer to the oblitum clause and the potere is governed by an implied me.


As for "spero" being, according to the standards of "golden Latin", constructed with an AcI: most certainly. Peccavi! 8)

However, your analysis as far as "oblitum" is concerned is quite mistaken, dear man. :wink: Semantically, certainly, "posse" relies on a latent "me" functioning as its (semantic) subject. However, since "posse" here is a so-called "actual" infinitive object (as opposed to "spurious" infinitive objects, where the subject of the finite verb is distinct from the implied subject of the infinitive, such as in "Metrodorus beatum esse describit his fere verbis", where the subject to "esse" is the general "you": when one is happy) to "spero", and "esse" is in turn an actual infinitive object to "posse" -as a result of which the implied subject of "(oblitus) esse" is still identical with the subject of "spero")- any predicate noun must agree with the subject, being in the nominative.

Don't take my word for it though, rather, I'll just refer to the authorative "Lehrbuch der lateinischen Syntax und Stilistik" by Thorsten Burkard and Markus Schauer, based exclusively on the works of Cicero and Caesar:

p. 672: Hat der Infinitiv von 'esse' oder eines kopulativen Verbums ein Prädikatsnomen oder ein Prädikativum bei sich, so steht dieses:

(1) [...]

(2) im Nominativ, wenn der Infinitiv eigentlicher Objektsinfinitiv ist:

Beati esse volumus (Tusc. 5, 67). Dionysius fortis esse didicit. (Tusc. 2,60).


Don't mind the German, it's about the examples anyway. Now, for A. "Beati esse volumus" you could obviously state B. "Beati (futuri) esse speramus", likewise C. "Beati esse possumus" which, when this sentence is made dependent on "sperare", gets you: D. "Beati esse posse speramus". It's not that the "implied" accusative 'nos', though present in both A, B, C and D, would only force accusative agreement in the last. :idea:


Those examples are not relevant as they are an entirely different situation. Possum is not a copulative verb and there are no predicate nouns and esse is not a copulative verb in this instance but part of the deponent perfect infinitive of the transitive verb obliscor. This is a very cut and dry acc + inf situation.

It also seems rather odd that your grammar would base itself solely upon Cicero and Caesar...
Most men are rather stupid, and most of those who are not stupid are, consequently, rather vain.
-A.E. Housman

HerrFraeulein
Posts:2743
Joined:2005-11-29, 10:57
Real Name:Michael van Veen
Gender:male
Location: Utrecht
Country:NLThe Netherlands (Nederland)

Re: Re:

Postby HerrFraeulein » 2008-07-25, 23:00

KingHarvest wrote:Those examples are not relevant as they are an entirely different situation. Possum is not a copulative verb and there are no predicate nouns and esse is not a copulative verb in this instance but part of the deponent perfect infinitive of the transitive verb obliscor. This is a very cut and dry acc + inf situation.

It also seems rather odd that your grammar would base itself solely upon Cicero and Caesar...


Not so odd when you think about it: Cicero and Caesar's style display remarkable uniformity as far as the syntax and semantics, i.e. the actual system of language, are concerned. Plautus essentially wrote a different Latin (would be like including Shakespeare in a description of modern English), while later writers -incorporating the odd stylistic and syntactical innovation for sure- did little more than imitate Cicero and Caesar's "golden" Latin. It is with these two gentlemen that Latin actually "died" and stopped changing, and the divergence of Vulgar Latin plus its eventual development into distinct Romance languages began.

But anyway, though you rightly correct me in my neglect to observe that "oblitus esse" is here but the perfect infinitive (yet I hardly contended "posse" to be a copula, however), the rules for agreement of the participle that's part of a perfect deponent infinitive (mind you: of the verb "obbliviscor", not "obliscor" ) are no different from those for the nominal predicate to copula verbs. Indeed, the rules seem perfectly identical: "oblitus/a sum, obliti sumus, credit hoc nos oblitos/as esse". Hence, if you actually have any authentic examples showing that these rules of agreement only apply when the participle+esse is not a perfect deponent infinitive, then by all means (I mean, I do hope you're basing your statements off something at least), but otherwise, I would see this is a cut and dry NcI situation, given the examples that illustrate this for copula+adjective/participle situations.
You will die, mortal! ~Shao Kahn, MKII

User avatar
Jalethon
Posts:498
Joined:2007-08-17, 1:56
Real Name:Jalethon
Gender:male
Location:Roma?
Country:NLThe Netherlands (Nederland)

Re: The Members' Pictures Thread 4

Postby Jalethon » 2008-07-27, 13:30

[la] Nonne "timorem" necesse est, insuper "oblitum"?
Saltem, tuam ipsius picturam non vidimus


[la] Ignoscite mihi absentiae causa. Puto non necesse esse, quia cum obliviscendo casu genetivo utimur. In opera vostra gaudeo!

Insuper, credidi oblito uti in casu accusativo me non deportuisse quoniam lingua mea indigena structura non similis est.

Autem, vae mihi, imperium Romanum photomachinas non habuit.

KingHarvest
Posts:4168
Joined:2008-03-21, 5:46
Gender:male
Location:New York
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: Re:

Postby KingHarvest » 2008-07-27, 23:04

HerrFraeulein wrote:
KingHarvest wrote:Those examples are not relevant as they are an entirely different situation. Possum is not a copulative verb and there are no predicate nouns and esse is not a copulative verb in this instance but part of the deponent perfect infinitive of the transitive verb obliscor. This is a very cut and dry acc + inf situation.

It also seems rather odd that your grammar would base itself solely upon Cicero and Caesar...


Not so odd when you think about it: Cicero and Caesar's style display remarkable uniformity as far as the syntax and semantics, i.e. the actual system of language, are concerned. Plautus essentially wrote a different Latin (would be like including Shakespeare in a description of modern English), while later writers -incorporating the odd stylistic and syntactical innovation for sure- did little more than imitate Cicero and Caesar's "golden" Latin. It is with these two gentlemen that Latin actually "died" and stopped changing, and the divergence of Vulgar Latin plus its eventual development into distinct Romance languages began.

But anyway, though you rightly correct me in my neglect to observe that "oblitus esse" is here but the perfect infinitive (yet I hardly contended "posse" to be a copula, however), the rules for agreement of the participle that's part of a perfect deponent infinitive (mind you: of the verb "obbliviscor", not "obliscor" ) are no different from those for the nominal predicate to copula verbs. Indeed, the rules seem perfectly identical: "oblitus/a sum, obliti sumus, credit hoc nos oblitos/as esse". Hence, if you actually have any authentic examples showing that these rules of agreement only apply when the participle+esse is not a perfect deponent infinitive, then by all means (I mean, I do hope you're basing your statements off something at least), but otherwise, I would see this is a cut and dry NcI situation, given the examples that illustrate this for copula+adjective/participle situations.


"iudicem me esse, non doctorem volo." Cicero's Orator 117. I want to be a judge, not a doctor. All of the examples where I can find verbs of wishing taking a predicate with a nominative are only when the infinitive is a copula and the predicate is an adjective, more complex sentences are built on the analogy of "I want/wish/hope that I..." which is expressed with an acc + inf.
Most men are rather stupid, and most of those who are not stupid are, consequently, rather vain.
-A.E. Housman

HerrFraeulein
Posts:2743
Joined:2005-11-29, 10:57
Real Name:Michael van Veen
Gender:male
Location: Utrecht
Country:NLThe Netherlands (Nederland)

Re: The Members' Pictures Thread 4

Postby HerrFraeulein » 2008-07-28, 18:20

@KingHarvest:

Your example is irrelevant since what you're most conspicuously overlooking here is that, in the sentence we've been discussing, the accusative pronoun is not expressed. So either you have to argue that said sentence (of Jalethon's) has to be turned into an actual AcI-construction altogether -such that it is ungrammatical to state either: "volo regem esse" or "volo rex esse" since in any case it needs to be "volo me regem esse" [which, let's face it, is just nonsense]- or simply, conceding that an AcI is not mandatory here -is, in fact, despite one quote from an early work of Cicero's, tendentially unclassical-, accept that, if an AcI is indeed not used but instead a bare infinitive, agreement is with the nominative subject, not the "implied" accusative subject, as my earlier examples have so lucidly demonstrated. :hug:

Nor do I see how that example of yours is somehow "more complex" merely because it contains a substantival, not an adjectival nominal predicate. But maybe I'm missing something. :mrgreen:
You will die, mortal! ~Shao Kahn, MKII

KingHarvest
Posts:4168
Joined:2008-03-21, 5:46
Gender:male
Location:New York
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: The Members' Pictures Thread 4

Postby KingHarvest » 2008-07-28, 19:06

Now you're just being ridiculous, early Cicero "tendentially unclassical?" I let the comment slide before about Caesar and Cicero de facto standardizing and ossifying Latin grammar, but this is absurd.

When verbs of wishing govern clauses with the same subject that are not simple copula + predicate adjective, they take an accusative + infinitive. My grammar, Greenough's (one of several considered standard in English), lists this as the normal way to express non-copula dependent clauses. In fact, it also gives an example of copula + predicate adjective in the accusative, but notes that for this type of clause it is less emphatic for the adjective to be nominative. My grammar also notes that volo dicere and volo me dicere have the same meaning. You will also take note of the fact that the way to express dependent clauses with a subject different from the subject of the main clause is normal indirect discourse. I don't know why you think that this would make no sense, it is a perfectly normal way of expressing a dependent clause in modern languages. "I hope that I can forget..." is completely analagous to "spero me posse oblitum..."

I have shown an example of a verb of wishing governing indirect discourse, and you've yet to show a counter example, you've only given examples with copulas. Jalethon's sentence is very clearly an instance where an accusative + infinitive is necessary (rearranging everything for convenience in English): [ego] spero [me] posse oblitum esse... The spero takes an accusative me + infinitive posse, which governs the oblitum esse and the oblitus has to be accusative because it needs to agree with its own subject, the implied me that is in the accusative, and not the subject of the main clause, the implied ego. And this has nothing to do with the subject being explicitly expressed, it is perfectly normal in indirect discourse for the subject of the dependent clause to go unexpressed, I shouldn't have to tell you that.
Most men are rather stupid, and most of those who are not stupid are, consequently, rather vain.
-A.E. Housman

HerrFraeulein
Posts:2743
Joined:2005-11-29, 10:57
Real Name:Michael van Veen
Gender:male
Location: Utrecht
Country:NLThe Netherlands (Nederland)

Re: The Members' Pictures Thread 4

Postby HerrFraeulein » 2008-07-28, 21:03

@KingHarvest:

There, there, little boy, no need to get upset. :hug: We have been, atfer all, only talking about such verbs as "esse/fieri/etc" governed by "velle/posse/etc.". The syntactical comportment of "esse" and its comcomitant complement does not depend on whether the wordgroup as a whole is purely copula+predicate or the perfect tense of a deponent verb. Ah, but I have Greenough myself as well, you'll be glad to know (it is one of two, if not I err, "standard" reference grammars in English still readily available, the other one being the Gildersleeve one, which I also have :D, both being -not trying to be petty here- quite inferior to the authorative German grammars,), so, which page would you be referring to?

Anyway, I concede that the AcI is a legimate alternative to a bare infinitive most of the time, but it remains that, when, with verbs such as "velle/posse/studere/etc." + a copula, you do not use the AcI, is it incorrect to reason that there is still an implicit accusative with which the adjective should agree. Another example would be:

"Fieri studebam eius prudentia doctior". (Lael. 1)

So, you'll agree that, here, it's false to reason: implicit "me", thus "doctiorem" (after all, Cicero wrote it like this). Similarly, if you accept, as I assume you would, the sentence: "studebam (sperabam) posse beatus esse" (even if, semantically, it's sort of a weird sentence, it's still perfectly understandable), then, when instead we're dealing with a deponent verb, its participle doesn't suddenly behave differently from the adjective. Hence: "studebam (sperabam) eius oblitus esse posse".

Tell ya what though: don't know if you still go to class or anything, but if so, ask your teacher. I'll buy ya a cherry pie if he says you're right. :mrgreen:

Ah, and just a last stab to conclude: "spero me posse oblitum" makes no sense at all. You can;t suppress "esse" here. But given your English version, you must've meant "spero me posse oblivisci". Remember now, not "oblisci"! 8)
You will die, mortal! ~Shao Kahn, MKII

KingHarvest
Posts:4168
Joined:2008-03-21, 5:46
Gender:male
Location:New York
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: The Members' Pictures Thread 4

Postby KingHarvest » 2008-07-28, 21:34

"spero nos ad haec perventuros"
"totius Galliae sese potiri posse sperant"
Both from Caesar

"sperabam ita notata me reliquisse genera"
from Lucretius

"qui istoc speras te modo potesse dissimulando infectum hoc reddere"
Plautus Mos. 1047

"mirifice sperabat se esse locutum" Catullus 84.3

And to quote from the OLD: "2 (w. acc. and inf.) To hope (that); (also, nom. and inf., in imitation of Gk. const.). b (w. ut + subj.l). c (w. pred. adj. or noun) to hope that (a person or thing) will be, hope to find (in such and such a condition). d (w. prolative inf.) to hope (to do something)."

To paraphrase, using the nominative is not normal Latin, it is an entirely literary construction that is meant to make sure the reader knows that the author knows Greek.

And, once again, all of your examples include copulative verbs, "to seem" and "to become."

And leaving out "esse" was perfectly acceptable Latin, I don't know where you're coming up with this.
Most men are rather stupid, and most of those who are not stupid are, consequently, rather vain.
-A.E. Housman

KingHarvest
Posts:4168
Joined:2008-03-21, 5:46
Gender:male
Location:New York
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: accusative or not? [split]

Postby KingHarvest » 2008-07-28, 22:24

Similarly, if you accept, as I assume you would, the sentence: "studebam (sperabam) posse beatus esse" (even if, semantically, it's sort of a weird sentence, it's still perfectly understandable)


I missed this before. I do not accept this sentence for the same reason I've rejected the original sentence.
Last edited by KingHarvest on 2008-07-29, 0:08, edited 1 time in total.
Most men are rather stupid, and most of those who are not stupid are, consequently, rather vain.
-A.E. Housman

Nero

Re: accusative or not? [split]

Postby Nero » 2008-07-28, 23:10

I have read this topic in full, and I have to agree with HerrFraeulein on this matter - though we can't find a completely perfect example in Golden Age Latin, his reasoning makes sense.

Beati esse volumus (Tusc. 5, 67). Dionysius fortis esse didicit


If putting the verb "volumus" - which can be used in either "volo + accusative" or "volo + infinitve" does not change Beati to Beatos, then I have a hard time believing that the addition of posse would. Possum + Esse itself gives nominative, as in Cicero's De provinciis consularibus oratio:

"An ego possum huic esse inimicus"

So if we have:

Volo (or spero) + Infinitive -> Nominative
Possum + infinitive -> Nominative

then why would they both together yield an accusative?

KingHarvest
Posts:4168
Joined:2008-03-21, 5:46
Gender:male
Location:New York
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: accusative or not? [split]

Postby KingHarvest » 2008-07-29, 0:04

If you were really paying attention, you would have noticed my quotation of Catullus: "mirifice sperabat se esse locutum." Hopefully for the last time: the only time in normal Latin that there will be a nominative in the dependent clause after a verb of wishing is when the verb in the dependent clause is a copulative verb and the predicate is a predicate adjective. Copulative verbs are intransitive verbs such as to be, to seem, to become, to appear to be, etc. Posse is a transitive verb and not copulative. The only verb that spero governs in this sentence is posse, so you need an acc + inf structure. Posse then governs the oblitus esse, and the oblitus needs to agree in case with its subject, which is the implied me governing the posse clause, so it needs to be oblitum esse.
Most men are rather stupid, and most of those who are not stupid are, consequently, rather vain.
-A.E. Housman

KingHarvest
Posts:4168
Joined:2008-03-21, 5:46
Gender:male
Location:New York
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: accusative or not? [split]

Postby KingHarvest » 2008-07-29, 0:41

And here from the entry of volo in the OLD:

To want (something to be done, to be the case, et.): a (w. acc. and inf.). b (w. pred. adj. or pple.; also w. noun). c (w. ut, ne). d (w. jussive subj.).

Now, as I said, the only time we can expect a nominative is when the main clause with a verb of wishing has a dependent clause with a copulative verb, which is not the case here.
Most men are rather stupid, and most of those who are not stupid are, consequently, rather vain.
-A.E. Housman

KingHarvest
Posts:4168
Joined:2008-03-21, 5:46
Gender:male
Location:New York
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: accusative or not? [split]

Postby KingHarvest » 2008-07-29, 1:51

Yes, Marcus, you're right: Latin will typically use the accusative (oblitum) here. Sometimes, in poetry, the Latin writer will effect Greek style and use the nominative (because in Greek, if the subject of both introductory and subordinate verbs is the same, the subject will stay in the nominative). So perhaps your writer is trying to be poetic...


I wrote an email to one of my professors and this was her response.
Most men are rather stupid, and most of those who are not stupid are, consequently, rather vain.
-A.E. Housman

Nero

Re: accusative or not? [split]

Postby Nero » 2008-07-29, 2:09

KingHarvest wrote:If you were really paying attention, you would have noticed my quotation of Catullus: "mirifice sperabat se esse locutum." Hopefully for the last time: the only time in normal Latin that there will be a nominative in the dependent clause after a verb of wishing is when the verb in the dependent clause is a copulative verb and the predicate is a predicate adjective. Copulative verbs are intransitive verbs such as to be, to seem, to become, to appear to be, etc. Posse is a transitive verb and not copulative. The only verb that spero governs in this sentence is posse, so you need an acc + inf structure. Posse then governs the oblitus esse, and the oblitus needs to agree in case with its subject, which is the implied me governing the posse clause, so it needs to be oblitum esse.


I did see that example, but I thought it to be non-applicable here (as did HerrFraeu). It throws an extra element into the sentence: the "se", an accusative pronoun which "locutum" has to agree with. Since Jalethon didn't concern himself with that part of grammar, neither should we.

KingHarvest
Posts:4168
Joined:2008-03-21, 5:46
Gender:male
Location:New York
Country:USUnited States (United States)

Re: accusative or not? [split]

Postby KingHarvest » 2008-07-29, 2:19

Once again: Latin often omits pronouns when they're not necessary to disambiguate.
Most men are rather stupid, and most of those who are not stupid are, consequently, rather vain.
-A.E. Housman


Return to “Latin (Latina)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests