“You’re wrong, and here’s why.”

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus
Ecce rationem = Here is the reason...

Tu is just meant as an intensifier...
 

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Ecce can take the accusative case in some contexts.
I think it's more a question of period/style than context. In early Latin, it rather took the accusative - it always does so in Plautus, for example. In classical, it was rather the nominative - always so in Cicero, I think.
 

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus
Why not?
In what contexts?
Well, here's one, for starters...
quid me quaeris? ... ecce me,here I am, Plaut. Epid. 5, 2, 15
these are rhetorical questions, Ignis Umbra.
I don't see what you're trying to accomplish...
I think it's more a question of period/style than context. In early Latin, it rather took the accusative - it always does so in Plautus, for example. In classical, it was rather the nominative - always so in Cicero, I think.
Since both seem to be equally valid, let us leave this up to the OP. Ecce rationem, or ecce ratio.
 

LCF

a.k.a. Lucifer
I don't see what you're trying to accomplish...

Simply for you to correct the grammar, Ignis.


If however you want to make claims on ecce + acc. vs ecce + nom. Please do more than linking to a dictionary entry. In which you surly would see that the accusative is of a pronoun and in old comedies. From here you hardly can conclude that both usages are correct. Furthermore, you should really ask yourself what exactly is ecce? Is it a verb or an exclamation? If it was felt as verb, is that why it takes an acc? If it was not felt as a verb, is the acc. that follows an acc. of exclam? etc… etc… etc… I am sure there are studies done on this. So a link to those studies would be better than giving us a link to a dictionary entry. A link to a dictionary entry, Ignis, that we already have and read.
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
If however you want to make claims on ecce + acc. vs ecce + nom. Please do more than linking to a dictionary entry. In which you surly would see that the accusative is of a pronoun and in old comedies. From here you hardly can conclude that both usages are correct.
I think that the ubiquitous use of ecce + acc. in "old comedies" suffices to prove it's correct. Except if you decide to think that authors like Plautus and Terence just didn't know Latin. If you want to imitate Cicero, then yes, you should use the nom. But there's nothing wrong in imitating Plautus and using the acc. The usage is not limited to pronouns.
Furthermore, you should really ask yourself what exactly is ecce? Is it a verb or an exclamation? If it was felt as verb, is that why it takes an acc? If it was not felt as a verb, is the acc. that follows an acc. of exclam? etc… etc… etc… I am sure there are studies done on this. So a link to those studies would be better than giving us a link to a dictionary entry.
I read somewhere that ecce and en were indeed felt as kind of imperatives in early Latin, with a meaning close to "look" or "take". Unfortunately I don't remember when I read this exactly.
So a link to those studies would be better than giving us a link to a dictionary entry. A link to a dictionary entry, Ignis, that we already have and read.
Dictionaries are useful things, you know. And, although error is human, they are still most of the time right. As you were denying that ecce could take the accusative, it's a perfectly natural reaction on Ignis Umbra's part to prove it could by linking to a dictionary (you say that "we have all read it", but how was he supposed to think you had read it while you didn't know it could take the acc?).
 

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus
Simply for you to correct the grammar, Ignis.
There was nothing ungrammatical about what I had written. Tu can either be present, or not, and the sentence would remain grammatical. Ecce can take either case, but Pacis informed me that the accusative is rarer, but not ungrammatical.
From here you hardly can conclude that both usages are correct.
I didn't simply look at L&S and instantly think upon reading that the accusative was valid that I would use that particular construction, I can assure of you of that.
So a link to those studies would be better than giving us a link to a dictionary entry. A link to a dictionary entry, Ignis, that we already have and read.
I am well aware that you may have read it, but that is no grounds for shooting me down in flames. Honestly, this thread should not be as long as it has become. Had you explained your reasons for questioning ecce in post #20, I think things would be much better...

If you want to continue this discussion, please send me a PM and I'll try to satisfy your curiosity...
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Btw, not about ecce, but as I was looking a bit now at examples with ecce and en since they are similar, I've just found out that en is even found with the acc. in Cic. en meam mansuetudinem in ad Atticum 8.5. Until now I'd always thought he only used it with the nom. Just for the info...
 

LCF

a.k.a. Lucifer
I think that the ubiquitous use of ecce + acc. in "old comedies" suffices to prove it's correct.
not really, no. In order to imitate Plautus, we need to understand Plautus first. And in a lot of cases, it's hardly possible anymore.

If you want to imitate Cicero, then yes, you should use the nom.
This is the only formal Latin that we can imitate.

I read somewhere that ecce and en were indeed felt as kind of imperatives in early Latin, with a meaning close to "look" or "take". Unfortunately I don't remember when I read this exactly.
I do remember one. See, Bennett in Syntax Of Early Latin.

He talks about it when he talks about acc. of exclams. But just a little. And one of the theories proposed there, was that it was a felt as imer. verb. With a remark that it was already loosing "verb" form and becoming more of an exclam.

This however is just one side of the story. The exclam itself, needs to be understood. What tone, in what dialect, for a lack of a better word, it has with an accusative, with a dative and with a nominative and in what periods. This is a big study to be done or to be read. No one is sure what ecce is, hence:

"In order to imitate Plautus, we need to understand Plautus first."

Until then, we have classical authors to imitate.

If you want to continue this discussion, please send me a PM and I'll try to satisfy your curiosity...
I do not believe private conversation will be productive, Ignis. For a number of different reasons. So discuss it here. And BTW, no one is flaming you. You are simply being corrected.
 

Laurentius

Civis Illustris
I do not believe private conversation will be productive, Ignis. For a number of different reasons. So discuss it here. And BTW, no one is flaming you. You are simply being corrected.
Lucifer's flames. o_O
 

Nikolaos

schmikolaos
Staff member
The accusative does seem to be more or less confined to comedy, but I don't understand the strong objection to tu.
 

Riumka

Member
What a complicated discussion! One says "errare humanum'st" does't he?

Why not try "erras, ecca!" or "erras, ecce ratio!" ?

(I have just read the discussion about nom./acc. after "ecce", and my dictionary confirms Cicero's nominative).
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima
Staff member
Ecca doesn't really work here.
 

limetrees

Civis Illustris
Ha ha. This is gas.
The discussion seems to show that it's not so easy to say "you're wrong and here's why".

On the Latin: the most well-known phrase with "ecce" is certainly "ecce homo" (there are any number of paintings with this title), so your safest bet is to go with a nominative and put:
"ecce ratio".
and I just don't think you need the "tu" at all.

So, for my money: "falleris, et ecce ratio"
 

Ignis Umbra

Ignis Aeternus
I confirm falleris, et ecce ratio.
 
Top