Gerund with objects

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
Post Reply
bipesimplume
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:48 pm

Gerund with objects

Post by bipesimplume »

Can a gerund customarily take an indirect object (in whatever case that verb usually governs)? If I understand correctly, the gerund of a transitive verb (when not introduced by a preposition) may take a direct object (accusative), but the gerundive is preferred in this case. However, this construction is ruled out for intransitive verbs.
For the sake of pleasing our friends.
Amīcōs (acc.) iuvandī (gen.) causā. / Amīcīs (dat.) placēndī (gen.) causā (?)
For the sake of striking/taking the camp.
Castra (acc.) movēndī (gen.) causā. / Castrīs (abl.) potiendī (gen.) causā (?)

And what's with the accusative gerund, which always requires a preposition? E.g. the key suggests ad nocendum Gallīs ("in order to injure the Gauls"), but is this just as good as e.g. ad vulnerandōs Gallōs?

Are constructions of the following sort generally acceptable? prep./adj./adv. + gerund (dat./abl./gen.) + noun (dat./abl./gen.)

(Examples adapted from: North & Hillard's Latin Prose Composition, ex. 99)

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Gerund with objects

Post by seneca2008 »

Can a gerund customarily take an indirect object (in whatever case that verb usually governs)?
Yes. Whittaker p 333 says "As a verbal noun the gerund may take the construction required by its verb."

I think N&H is a bit misleading on gerundives of intransitive verbs. Gerundives of intransitive verbs cannot be used personally but they take an impersonal construction. see Gildersleeve 427 note 4 p 279.

Also see the very clear and helpful discussion in Woodcock 204 The gerundive used impersonally.
And what's with the accusative gerund, which always requires a preposition?
The nominative and accusative (without a preposition) of the gerund is supplied by the infinitive.

I am going to re-read Woodcock before writing anything more here and suggest that you do the same. (p 157-166). I seem to remember that it was the only thing that made gerunds and gerundives make sense to me, but its a while since I read it.
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.

bipesimplume
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:48 pm

Re: Gerund with objects

Post by bipesimplume »

seneca2008 wrote: Sun Mar 19, 2023 5:50 pmI think N&H is a bit misleading on gerundives of intransitive verbs.
Very. I assumed it was introducing an exception valid for transitive verbs, while in fact it was only warning about extra restrictions for these.
I am going to re-read Woodcock before writing anything more here and suggest that you do the same. (p 157-166). I seem to remember that it was the only thing that made gerunds and gerundives make sense to me, but its a while since I read it.
I've come to rely on Gildersleeve increasingly, but it takes me more time to understand the difference between "personal" and "impersonal" from context than to just learn the use cases. And the poorly OCRed file is a pain to search. If I understand correctly, the impersonal construction is akin to the one based on the indefinite pronouns on (French)/man (German), which have the function of nominative subjects.

As for Woodcock, I appreciate its thorough explanations on the background of syntactic forms, but I don't have the patience to assimilate ten pages everytime a specific question comes up. I'll schedule it for more casual reading at a later time. Happy reading!

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Gerund with objects

Post by seneca2008 »

bipesimplume wrote: If I understand correctly, the impersonal construction is akin to the one based on the indefinite pronouns on (French)/man (German), which have the function of nominative subjects.
Yes thats it. The gerundive is used impersonally in the neuter.

I find Woodcock because of the historical explanations. I have read this section on gerunds etc several times over the years. I thought it was time to have another go. The chapter in Whittaker looked useful too.

Gildersleeve is great!
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.

bipesimplume
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:48 pm

Re: Gerund with objects

Post by bipesimplume »

Could you check these alternatives to the proposed solutions for ex. 100?
3. By learning letters we are able to enjoy reading.
(In) litterās discendō/litterīs discendīs fruī possumus legendō.
7. The art of ruling others is not easily learnt.
Ars aliōs regendī non facilis est discī/ad discendum.

Thanks!

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Gerund with objects

Post by seneca2008 »

bipesimplume wrote:litterās discendō/litterīs discendīs fruī possumus legendō.
What exactly do you think "legendō" means here as opposed to lectione? I can see that you have to have a noun in the ablative as the object of fruī but I don't see why you want a gerund here, nor why you want to place it after "fruī possumus". I think your bracketed "in" is incorrect (unless it applies only "litterīs discendīs" ? perhaps its best to write alternatives out fully?)
Ars aliōs regendī non facilis est discī/ad discendum.
Again I don't see why "est discī" instead of "discitur". The English sentence is " is not easily learnt" not "is not to be easily learned".

The problem with complications like these is that because they are possible solutions it doesn't mean that they were ever used, or are idiomatic Latin. Perhaps someone with extensive experience might help us here? MWH or Hylander?

I am glad you are bringing alternatives up as it makes one think about the constructions, but I dont have a ready answer and cant immediately find precedents.
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Gerund with objects

Post by seneca2008 »

ad discendum.
"Ars aliōs regendī non facilis est ad discendum"

ad plus the gerund expresses purpose so I dont think this works.
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.

katalogon
Textkit Member
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2020 11:59 pm
Location: Medellín

Re: Gerund with objects

Post by katalogon »

litterās discendō/litterīs discendīs fruī possumus legendō.
I'm trying to come up with something which would rule out this usage of the ablative gerund, legendō, in the suggested solution.

I've found in Allen & Greenough in section 507, Note 1:

The ablative of the Gerund and Gerundive is also very rarely used with verbs and adjectives: as, -- nec continuandō abstitit magistrātū (Liv. ix. 34), he did not desist from continuing his magistracy.

So could we take the suggested solution using legendō as falling into the "very rarely" class or is there something else that would definitively rule it out?

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 2006
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: Gerund with objects

Post by seneca2008 »

Thanks katalogon.

Thats helpful. I think when I come across "very rarely" I would be inclined to avoid its use.
Persuade tibi hoc sic esse, ut scribo: quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quaedam effluunt. Turpissima tamen est iactura, quae per neglegentiam fit. Et si volueris attendere, maxima pars vitae elabitur male agentibus, magna nihil agentibus, tota vita aliud agentibus.

bipesimplume
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2023 7:48 pm

Re: Gerund with objects

Post by bipesimplume »

seneca2008 wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 11:56 am
bipesimplume wrote:litterās discendō/litterīs discendīs fruī possumus legendō.
What exactly do you think "legendō" means here as opposed to lectione? I can see that you have to have a noun in the ablative as the object of fruī but I don't see why you want a gerund here, nor why you want to place it after "fruī possumus".
It's an exercise about gerunds :) Other than that, no difference (also, I had overlooked the provided vocabulary so I didn't know the preferred choice was lēctiōne). The word's placement is meant to separate it from the first ablative gerund. Plus these Romans had a penchant for splitting adjective phrases. And it rhymes.
Ars aliōs regendī non facilis est discī/ad discendum.
Again I don't see why "est discī" instead of "discitur". The English sentence is " is not easily learnt" not "is not to be easily learned".
Not est discī, but rather facilis discī, i.e. "easy to learn" (literally, "easy to be learnt"), which corresponds more closely to the intended English meaning. The author tries to hint at the Latin constructions by using odd English constructions, but my interest lies in capturing and translating the meaning. (Whether the solution with discitur and the construction with discī mean the same to a Roman is an open question.) I had been looking for a confirmation for facilis discendī, but I ran into this instead:
Gildersleeve wrote: 421. The Infinitive, as a substantive, is used regularly in
two cases only Nominative and Accusative. In the other
cases its place is supplied by the Gerund and the Ablative
Supine.

NOTES. 1. Traces of the original Dat. (or Loc.) nature of the Infinitive are still
apparent in many constructions, which are, however, mostly poetical:
It is confined principally, however, to adjectives of capability, ability, necessity, etc., and adjectives like facilis (with act. as well as pass. Inf., first in PROP.), difficilis, and the like: Rōma capī facilis, LUCAN, n. 656.
seneca2008 wrote: I am glad you are bringing alternatives up as it makes one think about the constructions, but I dont have a ready answer and cant immediately find precedents.
Don't worry. I'll keep them coming. Easy questions are neither fun nor didactic.
"Ars aliōs regendī non facilis est ad discendum"

ad plus the gerund expresses purpose so I dont think this works.
Here it should say facile instead, as the adverb modifying discendum, e.g. ars aliōs regendī non ad facile discendum est. But really the problem is that ad discendum is active and would automatically take ars as its subject. Next.
katalogon wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 9:21 pm
litterās discendō/litterīs discendīs fruī possumus legendō.
I'm trying to come up with something which would rule out this usage of the ablative gerund, legendō, in the suggested solution.

I've found in Allen & Greenough in section 507, Note 1:

The ablative of the Gerund and Gerundive is also very rarely used with verbs and adjectives: as, -- nec continuandō abstitit magistrātū (Liv. ix. 34), he did not desist from continuing his magistracy.

So could we take the suggested solution using legendō as falling into the "very rarely" class or is there something else that would definitively rule it out?
Good point. But how else do you suggest rendering "enjoy + —ing" in general?

Post Reply