I am just learning about gerunds and gerundives. The gerund seemed pretty simple. Now I am working with gerundives used with a form of sum to show obligation. I have a sentence like this: "Omnia ad proficiscendum paranda sunt." I understand the translation given, which is "It is necessary to prepare everything for setting out". (more literally, would it be "Everything must be prepared for setting out"?) My question, though, is how to tell whether "proficiscendum" is a gerund or a gerundive. Or doesn't it matter? By the ending, it could be either. And I think I've read that both the gerund and the gerundive can take ad + accusative...so which is it? It seems like there should be a definite answer, even if in this case the same ending would be used whether gerund or gerundive. Thank you for explaining!
gerund vs gerundive
- Thread starter Donna F
- Start date
Yes.
Proficiscendum is a gerund.
Maybe part 1. "Gerund and gerundive" of this post could enlighten you. If it doesn't, please come back here to ask your questions.
Thank you--that's a great reference to come back to! But, for this particular question, I think I'm still confused. In part 1 of that post, it says "the accusative gerund is used only with some prepositions (e.g. ad faciendum — literally "towards doing", i.e. "(in order) to do" or "for doing")."
It looks to me like that's what's going on in the sentence I'm asking about-- "Omnia ad proficiscendum paranda sunt." Wouldn't "ad proficiscendum" be a similar construction to the ones above, with proficiscendum being a gerund?
AGGH! I've so confused myself--yes, you were saying that "proficiscendum" IS a gerund. Okay. But when I read in my grammar book that "the gerundive construction after ad or causa is a common way of expressing purpose--Ex. Ad ducem videndum venerunt", how is that different from using the gerund after ad to express purpose and how do I know whether the word after ad is a gerund or gerundive (if it has an ending which could be either)? Does that make sense? I'm ready to throw my book out the window
Gerundives are adjectives that agree with a noun (ducem videndum, where those agree), whereas gerunds are nouns that are found on their own (ad proficiscendum). Sometimes gerunds take a direct object, but not after prepositions.AGGH! I've so confused myself--yes, you were saying that "proficiscendum" IS a gerund. Okay. But when I read in my grammar book that "the gerundive construction after ad or causa is a common way of expressing purpose--Ex. Ad ducem videndum venerunt", how is that different from using the gerund after ad to express purpose and how do I know whether the word after ad is a gerund or gerundive (if it has an ending which could be either)? Does that make sense? I'm ready to throw my book out the window
"Ad ducem videndum" suggests a gerundive is being used (to the to-be-seen leader), "ad videndum ducem" a gerund (for the purpose of seeing the leader). The meaning is identical.
I'd disagree with this. Gerunds after prepositions almost never have direct objects. Both of those would be interpreted as gerundives.
How about "venit ad legendum libros"? Isn't libros the direct object of the gerund (legendum)?
There are examples of that kind of construction, though they're scarce.
Examples with singular objects can be found too, e.g. Suetonius, Claud. 26: ad ducendum eam uxorem. The temptation among copyists to gerundivize gerunds by writing -am for -um in these cases is potentially a factor in their scarcity. The problem with examples that have masculine singular objects is how do we know which construction was intended?
I don't think word order is at all decisive.