[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
[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.
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
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
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.
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.
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!
However, your analysis as far as "oblitum" is concerned is quite mistaken, dear man. 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.
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...
[la] Nonne "timorem" necesse est, insuper "oblitum"?
Saltem, tuam ipsius picturam non vidimus
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.
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)
Beati esse volumus (Tusc. 5, 67). Dionysius fortis esse didicit
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...
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests