4

My question is whether constructions similar to the following English one, which is drawn from Jespersen (1909-1949, vol. V: 138), can exist in Latin, i.e., constructions where (i) the subject is formed by a plural noun plus an obligatory/"dominant" predicative participle but (ii) the verb is in singular form. Notice that it is not the two old men themselves that are funny, but the fact that they are dealing with an inappropriate theme. Hence singular agreement (seems) is justified.

[Two old men dealing with such a young theme] seems funny to me.

Next consider the two following examples of so-called "dominant" participle and gerundive constructions, taken from Sallust and Livy, respectively:

(Dixit) se missum a M. Crasso qui Catilinae nuntiaret ne eum Lentulus et Cethegus aliique ex coniuratione deprehensi terrerent. (Sall. Cat. 48,4)

&

Bello Graeci persequendi Publilio evenerunt. (Livy 8, 22, 9)

Although the subject is plural, I was wondering whether the verb could also be singular in these two examples (i.e., terreret and evenit). My intuition is that it couldn’t but perhaps I’m wrong (NB: as for the first Latin example above, it is not a plurality of individuals but the event/fact that these individuals were arrested what would frighten Catilina. Furthermore, note that Lentulus and Cethegus were accomplices/friends of Catilina: so it is clear that what could frighten Catilina was not them (as individuals), of course, but their arrest (i.e., a situation). As for the second example with a dominant gerundive, again it is not the Greeks but rather their having to be persecuted through a war (considered as as a future event to be accomplished, e.g., as a duty) what fell/"came" to the consul Publilius). Anyway, I would like to know whether examples like the English one above could also exist in Classical Latin.

Rethinking on this question, an invented Latin example similar to the attested English one above with the verb "seems" could be the following one:

Cum legati occisi aliis pessimum, aliis pulcherrimum facinus videretur.

(cf. the attested example in Tacitus, who, as is well-known, uses many dominant participle constructions: Cum occisus dictator Caesar aliis pessimum, aliis pulcherrimum facinus videretur (Tac. Ann. 1.8). Note that, semantically speaking, the nominal predicate facinus ‘crime’ requires its subject to be a situation ('the murder of Caesar'), rather than an individual ('dictator Caesar')).

My intuition is that viderentur (3rd plural) would be the expected form in my invented example above but I don't know if videretur (3rd singular) would also be possible (perhaps, in this case, due to a possible attraction by facinus).

For a similar construction in Romance, cf. the Italian pseudorelative construction, drawn from Casalicchio (2016): I bambini che giocano agli anziani mi {fanno/fa} ridere; lit. 'The children that play at the elder {make/makes} me laugh'. According to this Italian linguist, both verbal forms fanno 'make.3pl' and fa 'make.3sg" are possible here.

Mitomino
  • 8,791
  • 1
  • 16
  • 29
  • 1
    FWIW, my intuition agrees with yours -- singular seems impossible here. – TKR Jan 08 '19 at 22:18
  • To talk about 'the fact that' some plural noun does something, and to have that fact be the subject of a singular verb, you'd have to, e.g., use a finite verb instead of a participle, and then use quod or ut at the beginning of the clause to render it a noun clause; or use an infinitive instead a participle, putting the subject into the accusative. In short, you can have either the participle or the singular verb, but not both. – cnread Jan 09 '19 at 22:22
  • 2
    In fact, it seems to me that, properly speaking, your English example with the singular verb doesn't involve a participle at all but a gerund. That is, it should really say 'Two old men's dealing with such a young theme....' However, colloquial English uses a participle instead of a gerund. In that case, the correct Latin equivalent would follow the 'more proper' English version and would likely use an accusative+infinitive instead of a participle. – cnread Jan 09 '19 at 22:29
  • The English example (without 's) is taken from Jespersen (1909-1949). I found it in https://books.google.es/books?id=VYQiAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=%22Two+old+men+dealing+with+such+a+young+theme%22&source=bl&ots=0SsrlK82Eh&sig=QTRuleJL7LyeKgmCwc9NNmUtL5I&hl=ca&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFyqST6eHfAhWMzIUKHadTC64Q6AEwCHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Two%20old%20men%20dealing%20with%20such%20a%20young%20theme%22&f=false – Mitomino Jan 09 '19 at 23:21
  • I used an English example but the same phenomenon can be exemplified, perhaps even more intriguingly, with the so-called "pseudo-relative" construction in Italian. According to Jan Casalicchio, an Italian linguist (see his work below), in an It. example like I bambini che giocano agli anziani mi {fanno/fa} ridere (lit. 'The children that play at the elder {make/makes} me laugh'), the verb can be plural (fanno) or singular (fa). Why is Latin different in the dominant participle constructions above? Cf. http://www.academia.edu/34840592/The_Pseudo-relative_construction_in_Romance – Mitomino Jan 10 '19 at 00:22
  • I have never seen such a constructio ad sensum as you suggest, but it can't be ruled out without examining literally every single relevant instance. – Kingshorsey Jan 10 '19 at 21:28
  • Stumbled upon interesting passage from Carmina (Venantius Fortunatus): Quintiano demum sancto erudiente magistro
    pulchrius est auro corde probatus homo.     . I believe it fits as why pulchrius and not pulchrior? can pulchrius be an adverb?     – d_e Jan 28 '24 at 16:43
  • @d_e I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of your example from Late Latin here. What is your interpretation of it? In any case, please note that I'm interested in examples from Classical Latin (see my question above). Interestingly, the use of dominant participle constructions gradually declined in Late Latin but this is another issue (probably related to the decline of gerundive constructions and syntactically similar constructions in this period). – Mitomino Jan 29 '24 at 13:41
  • @Mitomino, oh, the way I parse this as such: corde probatus homo should be taken as a unit (I guessed that a dominant participle probatus). I would expect pulchrior as an adjective modifying homo, but here they use pulchrius in neutral - so I interpreted as violation of subject -"verb" agreement because of the dominant participle. – d_e Jan 30 '24 at 22:12
  • @d_e On the dominant participle reading, homo probatus is interpreted as hominis probatio (cf. ab urbe condita with ab urbis conditione). However, it is not clear if this is the interpretation here. In any case, the existence of a neuter adjective (pulchrius) does not necessarily lead one to interpret the participle probatus as a dominant one. It could just be the case that pulchrius is a neuter predicate ('something more beautiful') that applies to a non-neuter subject (cf. Varium et mutabile sempre femina est, where a neuter predicate applies to a feminine subject). – Mitomino Jan 31 '24 at 16:01

1 Answers1

2

It seems to me that the subject here is more the participle than anything, which could indeed take a singular verb.

Bryan Lockett
  • 21
  • 2
  • 2
    I agree with you in the first part of your answer ("It seems to me that the subject here is more the participle than anything"). Yes, that's why the construction at issue is often referred to in many textbooks of Latin syntax as "dominant participle construction". However, what you say in the second part of your answer ("which could indeed take a singular verb") is controversial, I think. One could expect it (given that the subject is a participial clause) but my intuition is that the main verb cannot be singular if the nominal within the dominant participle clause is plural. – Mitomino Jan 09 '19 at 23:43
  • I suppose you are right there... – Bryan Lockett Jan 12 '19 at 20:22
  • @Mitomino: The first example: (he said) "he was sent by Marcus Crassus to assure Cataline that the apprehension of Lentulus, Cethegus & the others, from the conspiracy, ought not to alarm him....". This translation treats "arrest" as singular requiring singular verb "alarm" (terreret). Therefore the arrestees would have to be treated as one group (of individuals) requiring "deprehensum". This means changing the original version, how else could it work? The second ex., Graeci (plural) demands "evenerunt". How to get around this--Graecia--Greece (singular); – tony Feb 07 '20 at 13:12
  • @Mitomino: Continuing: but the country will not come out to Publius. Interesting theory; but, the strict demands of Latin grammar appear to undermine it. – tony Feb 07 '20 at 13:13
  • Consider the (simplified) example: occisus dictator Caesar pessimum facinus videbatur. Crucially, if you eliminate the participle occisus, the sentence becomes ill-formed. That's why occisus can be considered a "dominant" participle: i.e., it is obligatory. Now even if the "semantic subject" of facinus is an event, i.e., a murder/killing, and not an individual (dictator Caesar), the agreement is always consistent with this individual and not with the event. So Latin seems to lack examples like the English one above taken from Jespersen. I'm wondering why... – Mitomino Feb 11 '20 at 20:56