4

The possessive dative construction involves a subject possessee, a dative possessor, and a form of esse:

  1. Mihi soror est.
  2. Dicit sibi sororem esse.

In this construction, is esse ever elided? That is, can you say e.g. Dicit sibi sororem? I don't think I've seen such cases, and the fact that esse in this construction has an existential force may mean it's obligatorily expressed. But I don't recall seeing any discussion of this in grammars. Can anyone point to either a case of such elision, or a grammatical reference on this topic?

TKR
  • 31,292
  • 2
  • 66
  • 120
  • FWIW, same feeling like yours: Dicit sibi sororem without esse sounds really bad, compared to, for example, Dicit sororem sibi occidendam (esse), which is ok. I think that the "problem" is not that the former construction is "existential" and the latter isn't (in my opinion, a modal construction like Nunc est bibendum is also a type of "existential" construction. Why not?). In any case, existential or not, what about if the "problem" in Latin has to do with the fact that there is a lexical predicate (e.g., occidendam) in the latter, which is missing in the former? – Mitomino Jul 26 '20 at 08:39
  • We can assume that esse is a lexical predicate in the possessive dative construction, but a functional predicate in the modal construction, which makes sense in the grammaticalization process involved (from the former to the latter). However, note that this lexical/functional distinction preserves the following relevant parallelisms between them: e.g., cf. Mihi est liber and Mihi currendum est & Habeo librum and Habeo currendum. For further discussion, see https://latin.stackexchange.com/questions/11169/null-expletive-objects-in-latin-cariotae-cum-ficis-certandum-habent-plin-ep – Mitomino Jul 26 '20 at 08:51
  • 1
    @Mitomino I suspect we're getting at the same thing with "existential" and "lexical predicate" (namely that this use of esse has more semantic content than a copula). – TKR Jul 26 '20 at 17:50

1 Answers1

1

I don't know any specific rule, but since the dative of possession can also occur without esse (in the guise of a dative of reference), you don't want to elide esse when it will sound like an incomplete sentence (or, what is much the same thing, when it won't be clear that we don't have the verbless form of a dative of possession, also known as a dative of reference). Dicit sibi sororem could be the start of Dicit sibi sororem te amare, for example, whereas Dicit sibi sororem occidendam doesn't leave you expecting more words. But even then, for example, Dicit sibi sororem occasam might sound like a complete sentence...or not...it could go on Dicit sibi sororem occasam te amavisse. (Of course, in the last example, the ambiguity isn't around the use of sibi but around whether occasam is attributive or predicative.)

C Monsour
  • 1,646
  • 1
  • 6
  • 13
  • 1
    I'm not sure that "the dative of possession can also occur without esse". Dicit sibi sororem te amare sounds wrong to me -- wouldn't it be suam? – TKR Jul 26 '20 at 17:49
  • It would more usually be suam, but I think sibi is possible. – C Monsour Jul 26 '20 at 18:09
  • @TKR There is a difference in flavor of meaning between the two: see http://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/dative-reference – C Monsour Jul 26 '20 at 18:34
  • The dative of reference can't freely replace a possessive adjective, though -- its use is more restricted (though I'm not sure how the restrictions are to be defined). I think Dicit sibi sororem te amare would have to mean "He says his sister loves you for himself", or "for herself", whatever that might mean. – TKR Jul 30 '20 at 20:37
  • @TKR It definitely means something more like the first, though i would still translate it as "He says his sister loves you". You can't always translate the shades of meaning--in this case that the speaker's sister's love for "you" may have been on account of the spsaker (e.g., maybe "you" and he are old pals). – C Monsour Jul 30 '20 at 23:55
  • I still have grave doubts that this is a good Latin sentence, but if sibi means "on account of the speaker" then it's not a dative of possession, since it doesn't imply it's the speaker's sister (it could equally well mean "someone else's sister loves you on account of me"). – TKR Jul 31 '20 at 00:14
  • @TKR Dative of reference also implies possession. At any rate, this probably isn't the place to debate the semantics of English grammatical terms. – C Monsour Jul 31 '20 at 00:56
  • @TKR: If she is someone-else's sister, not the speaker's, wouldn't "eius" have to be used? Otherwise, how would anybody know this? – tony Jul 31 '20 at 11:32
  • @Tony eius or ei or illius or illi, definitely not suam or sibi – C Monsour Jul 31 '20 at 15:42
  • @tony If a possessive form is used it would be either suam or eius / illius. I disagree that a dative of reference would naturally be used in this sentence, but if it were it would not indicate whose sister it is but only "with reference to whom" she loves you, whatever that means. Dative of reference and dative of possession aren't the same thing. – TKR Jul 31 '20 at 17:40
  • @tony In any event, you couldn't really manage this with Dicit eius sororem te amare if she were someone else's sister. The implicit subject and eius each refer to a person, and we know they aren't the same person, but in most cases it's unlikely you can tell from context which is which. If you literally wanted to refer to someone else's sister (unspecified someone else) , that would work, but you'd need alicuius or alicui rather than eius or ei. – C Monsour Jul 31 '20 at 19:23
  • A dative cannot express adnominal possession, replacing the genitive, like it can't in English: "food for the cat" is not a possessive construction and doesn't mean "the cat's food". In Latin it must be the dative of experiencer or of benefit: cf. sibi placēre "to care for pleasing oneself". There are languages like Bulgarian where both constructions are synonmous: knigata mu (book-DEF. he-DAT.), njegovata kniga (he-GEN.-DEF. book). This a Balkan Sprachbund feature, in whose other languages the Gen. and Dat. have merged (eg. Greek). – Unbrutal_Russian May 13 '21 at 19:36
  • @unbrutal_russian It doesn't indicate precisely the same thing as possession, but something close enough to possession that possession is often the closest translation into English, which is why English speakers sometimes call it "dative of possession". Anyway, given Roman Law concepts, it was probably more accurate to use the dative in many cases as someone might merely be the bonitary owner rather than the "real" owner. – C Monsour May 14 '21 at 12:32
  • @unbrutal_russian Dative is probably also a safer way to describe a usufruct (pomarium mihi) or a tenancy (casa mihi). In English it would just be "my orchard" or "my house". – C Monsour May 14 '21 at 12:40
  • @CMonsour I understand what you're saying. You're coming up with examples to illustrate your understanding: I'm saying that both the examples you came up with and your understanding are entirely incorrect - Latin has no such expressions and they can't be translated in any way, being ungrammatical. The closest thing that exists is the vocative Mārce mī and they would be equated with it. What you need to do is to find authentic, extant examples and show why an interpretation in line with your understanding is preferrable; preferrably with a scholarly reference discussing them. – Unbrutal_Russian May 14 '21 at 15:52