Ecce rationem = Here is the reason...
Tu is just meant as an intensifier...
Tu is just meant as an intensifier...
Tu is just meant as an intensifier...
Ecce rationem = Here is the reason..
The subject, "you".intensifier of what?
Ecce can take the accusative case in some contexts.what is the accusative doing there?
Why?The subject, "you".
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.Ecce can take the accusative case in some contexts.
Why not?Why?
Well, here's one, for starters...In what contexts?
I don't see what you're trying to accomplish...these are rhetorical questions, Ignis Umbra.
Since both seem to be equally valid, let us leave this up to the OP. Ecce rationem, or ecce ratio.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.
I don't see what you're trying to accomplish...
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.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 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.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.
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?).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.
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.Simply for you to correct the grammar, Ignis.
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.From here you hardly can conclude that both usages are correct.
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...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.
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.I think that the ubiquitous use of ecce + acc. in "old comedies" suffices to prove it's correct.
This is the only formal Latin that we can imitate.If you want to imitate Cicero, then yes, you should use the nom.
I do remember one. See, Bennett in Syntax Of Early Latin.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 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.If you want to continue this discussion, please send me a PM and I'll try to satisfy your curiosity...
Lucifer's flames.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.