![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seadowns ( talk) 14:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Prepositions preceding nouns -- The page as it stands fails to take into account monosyllabic prepositions following their noun in phrases like "silva lupus in Sabina" (Horace Odes 1.22.9) or "thalamoque relictus in uno" (Ovid Heroides 6.95). However, I lack the knowledge to formulate the rule for such phrases, and hope somebody else will be able to do it. Seadowns ( talk) 11:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but isn't there a bit more to it?
The problem is with monosyllabic prepositions (mps) also, and I think an example would be helpful. I believe that, in verse, there is no constraint against putting them after their noun or pronoun provided there is a following adjective, as in the examples I gave from canonical poets, but my questions would be
I have temporarily no access to sources that might answer these questions. I have been composing Latin verse for many years on the assumption that the answer to the first question is "yes", and nobody has ever pulled me up! It is an important point for composers. Seadowns ( talk) 14:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Later -- There is a very strong but false statement about mps, to which Note 7 is appended. This needs to be changed.(signed) Seadowns (computer is playing up and won't type tilde) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadowns ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
"Almost always" may be true of prose, but it is untrue of verse, and therefore untrue if applied to the language without qualification. Nor do I know what the basis is for the remark about postponement being more common with dissyllabic prepositions, which I doubt is true. If, as you say, the grammars quoted do not mention this trope at all, they cannot be the source. Also, I think "occasionally" gives a false impression. I can't see the objection to inserting the words "in prose" at the beginning, and later saying "In verse they usually precede their noun, but quite commonly follow it, with an accompanying adjective." There seems to be no source for this, unless one can be found in an English grammar, since verse writing was very important in England (though not so in Scotland, as I believe Nisbet and Watt both said), and this is essential information for verse writers. Instead of a source one could provide examples from canonical poets. Brevity could be gained by omitting the suspect remark about dissyllabic prepositions. Seadowns ( talk) 00:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
To me it still gives the impression that postponement is something rare, like hiatus in verse. It seems to be commoner in some poets than others. It occurs quite often in Lucretius. Kenney has a note to Lucretius 3.141 "The preposition, here placed after its noun, as not infrequently in poetry." There are four examples before line 141. At line 375 he has the note "L. not infrequently postpones prepositions (anastrophe) for metrical convenience." "Not infrequently" is better than "ocasionally". Also, I notice that Ovid has "vada tendis ad Hebri" (Heroides 2.15" -- a genitive, not an adjective. If necessary, I would write, say, "gramina per campi" in a composition, and be beyond all criticism for having done so.
Another point altogether is that prepositions, whether or not postponed, in verse at least, not infrequently occur at some distance from their nouns. E.g.
This trope should also be mentioned, I think.
Also, in to help with shortening the article, I suggest that the remark about the scarcity of female students of Latin syntax should be omitted. It tells us nothing about syntax. Seadowns (regret can't sign with tildes because my computer intermittently refuses to type them).
I think the sentence about women should definitely go. Why such a remark about Latin syntax alone? Also, all the preceding sentences except the very first. They are not going to interest the people you say the article is aimed for. Also, the "theories" section should go. These so-called theories, in my view, are a form of pseudo-science, in that there is no way in which they can be either verified or falsified. They would certainly be of no interest to the target audience, who are at about where I was when thirteen (reading Aeneid II and the Anabasis). Indeed, I would be very surprised if my close friend of 65 years, Robin Nisbet, would have had any time for them. He used to say that that sort of thing was "a sure sign of the second-rate". Further suggestions to come.
Something has happened to take all my attention elsewhere, and I cannot give time to this for the foreseeable future. My only real concern is that the differences between verse and prose, especially in word order, should be brought out. This is basically because I think many people will find Latin poetry more rewarding than Latin prose -- not all, of course, but many. 11:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Espoo: I owe you an apology, since I stated that Cascae in Caesar brāchium Cascae graphiō trāiēcit 'he stabbed Casca's arm with his stylus' was definitely a dative, on the basis of such parallels as huic geminum oblīquā trāiēcit harundine tempus 'he pierced both his temples with an arrow from the side' or puer gladiō tibi colla recīdit, Magne, tuō 'the boy cut your throat with your own sword, Magnus', or frangam tōnsōrī crūra 'I'll break the barber's legs' in which the person disadvantaged (huic, tibi, tōnsōrī) is in the dative. However, we also find sentences such as gladiō vomicam eius aperuit 'he opened his boil with a sword' and servus noster lanceā collum eius trāiēcit 'our slave pierced his neck with a lance' in which the pronoun eius ('his') is in the genitive. This leaves the case of Cascae ambiguous, so perhaps a better example is needed since it isn't vital for the point made. Kanjuzi ( talk) 06:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Another example with the genitive: haec dīcentis latus hastā trānsfīxit (Curtius) lit. 'he pierced the side of the man saying this with a spear'. Kanjuzi ( talk) 09:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seadowns ( talk) 14:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)Prepositions preceding nouns -- The page as it stands fails to take into account monosyllabic prepositions following their noun in phrases like "silva lupus in Sabina" (Horace Odes 1.22.9) or "thalamoque relictus in uno" (Ovid Heroides 6.95). However, I lack the knowledge to formulate the rule for such phrases, and hope somebody else will be able to do it. Seadowns ( talk) 11:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but isn't there a bit more to it?
The problem is with monosyllabic prepositions (mps) also, and I think an example would be helpful. I believe that, in verse, there is no constraint against putting them after their noun or pronoun provided there is a following adjective, as in the examples I gave from canonical poets, but my questions would be
I have temporarily no access to sources that might answer these questions. I have been composing Latin verse for many years on the assumption that the answer to the first question is "yes", and nobody has ever pulled me up! It is an important point for composers. Seadowns ( talk) 14:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Later -- There is a very strong but false statement about mps, to which Note 7 is appended. This needs to be changed.(signed) Seadowns (computer is playing up and won't type tilde) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seadowns ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
"Almost always" may be true of prose, but it is untrue of verse, and therefore untrue if applied to the language without qualification. Nor do I know what the basis is for the remark about postponement being more common with dissyllabic prepositions, which I doubt is true. If, as you say, the grammars quoted do not mention this trope at all, they cannot be the source. Also, I think "occasionally" gives a false impression. I can't see the objection to inserting the words "in prose" at the beginning, and later saying "In verse they usually precede their noun, but quite commonly follow it, with an accompanying adjective." There seems to be no source for this, unless one can be found in an English grammar, since verse writing was very important in England (though not so in Scotland, as I believe Nisbet and Watt both said), and this is essential information for verse writers. Instead of a source one could provide examples from canonical poets. Brevity could be gained by omitting the suspect remark about dissyllabic prepositions. Seadowns ( talk) 00:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
To me it still gives the impression that postponement is something rare, like hiatus in verse. It seems to be commoner in some poets than others. It occurs quite often in Lucretius. Kenney has a note to Lucretius 3.141 "The preposition, here placed after its noun, as not infrequently in poetry." There are four examples before line 141. At line 375 he has the note "L. not infrequently postpones prepositions (anastrophe) for metrical convenience." "Not infrequently" is better than "ocasionally". Also, I notice that Ovid has "vada tendis ad Hebri" (Heroides 2.15" -- a genitive, not an adjective. If necessary, I would write, say, "gramina per campi" in a composition, and be beyond all criticism for having done so.
Another point altogether is that prepositions, whether or not postponed, in verse at least, not infrequently occur at some distance from their nouns. E.g.
This trope should also be mentioned, I think.
Also, in to help with shortening the article, I suggest that the remark about the scarcity of female students of Latin syntax should be omitted. It tells us nothing about syntax. Seadowns (regret can't sign with tildes because my computer intermittently refuses to type them).
I think the sentence about women should definitely go. Why such a remark about Latin syntax alone? Also, all the preceding sentences except the very first. They are not going to interest the people you say the article is aimed for. Also, the "theories" section should go. These so-called theories, in my view, are a form of pseudo-science, in that there is no way in which they can be either verified or falsified. They would certainly be of no interest to the target audience, who are at about where I was when thirteen (reading Aeneid II and the Anabasis). Indeed, I would be very surprised if my close friend of 65 years, Robin Nisbet, would have had any time for them. He used to say that that sort of thing was "a sure sign of the second-rate". Further suggestions to come.
Something has happened to take all my attention elsewhere, and I cannot give time to this for the foreseeable future. My only real concern is that the differences between verse and prose, especially in word order, should be brought out. This is basically because I think many people will find Latin poetry more rewarding than Latin prose -- not all, of course, but many. 11:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Espoo: I owe you an apology, since I stated that Cascae in Caesar brāchium Cascae graphiō trāiēcit 'he stabbed Casca's arm with his stylus' was definitely a dative, on the basis of such parallels as huic geminum oblīquā trāiēcit harundine tempus 'he pierced both his temples with an arrow from the side' or puer gladiō tibi colla recīdit, Magne, tuō 'the boy cut your throat with your own sword, Magnus', or frangam tōnsōrī crūra 'I'll break the barber's legs' in which the person disadvantaged (huic, tibi, tōnsōrī) is in the dative. However, we also find sentences such as gladiō vomicam eius aperuit 'he opened his boil with a sword' and servus noster lanceā collum eius trāiēcit 'our slave pierced his neck with a lance' in which the pronoun eius ('his') is in the genitive. This leaves the case of Cascae ambiguous, so perhaps a better example is needed since it isn't vital for the point made. Kanjuzi ( talk) 06:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Another example with the genitive: haec dīcentis latus hastā trānsfīxit (Curtius) lit. 'he pierced the side of the man saying this with a spear'. Kanjuzi ( talk) 09:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)