Appositions
- Thread starter Symposion
- Start date
As I understand it, an appositive represents the same thing as the noun to which it is in apposition. They are two names for the same thing (either or both may have their own modifiers). Sometimes these different names disagree in gender and/or number (depending on the aspect indicated), but grammatically, they're doing the same thing in the sentence, so the case should be the same. I don't think an adjective by itself can be an appositive, it would just describe the noun.
I suppose there can be exceptions but the only case I can think of off the top of my head where an adjective would be likely to be an apposition is when it's in the superlative together with a genitive or so (so it wouldn't be "by itself"), e.g. Cicero, oratorum clarissimus, iussu Marci Antonii interfectus est (Cicero, the most famous of orators, was killed on the order of Mark Antony).
B
Bitmap
Guest
That's because a noun is sort of implied there in the genitive and it would be needless to repeat it twice ...
This is such an interesting point... I don't think I've ever seen this called apposition (in Latin or else), but it should be.
Are these saying
is shorthand for "My wife who is a surgeon by training..." and that's how appositives were born?
If a non-place noun is used with a city in the locative, is it ablative (I think I had a textbook that said so)? If so, is the locative a specialization of the ablative, or is this an exception to the rule?
Acronym: Badger In The Meadow Approaching Photographer?
Usually with a preposition, I believe, e.g. Romae in urbe praeclara.
Three Indo-European cases, the ablative, the instrumental and the locative, merged into the Latin ablative. The locative and instrumental survived only in a few words, notably the locative in names of cities. So if, alongside a locative noun, you're using a word which, like the majority of words, doesn't have a locative case, you're forced to find a solution like Romae in urbe (which goes by sense) or domi tuae (which goes by looks, so to speak; as the locative domi looks like a genitive, tuae is put in the genitive).
Actually, perhaps tuae is locative there... After all it would look the same. I don't know how the Romans thought of it — most likely it was all conflated in their heads.
B
Bitmap
Guest
No. The wiki article says that translating "morituri te salutant" as "those who are going to die greet you" makes use of an apposition in the translation ... which is wrong.
Apposition is similar to the complement/predicate when the verb is esse (Cicero ōrātor est.). The difference this that in such case the complement and the thing it connects to (the subject) are different (disjoined) syntactic elements in the sentence. In the case of the apposition, they are the same syntactic element / in the same group and the predicate (the verb etc.) is something different. (Cicero, ōrātor maximus, dormit. // Gaius Cicerōnem ōrātōrem videt.)
Here you go, easy!
______________________
Here you go, easy!
______________________
mmmmm.... where else is the original instrumental other than inside the ablative? Are we talking some adverbs maybe?
Last edited:
That "adjective apposition" is still only an attribute (not an apposition). The attribute doesn't care which syntactic element it goes with. The only case where "adjective" could theoretically be an apposition would be, if it was treated as a noun. But I suppose such sentence would be unintellegible/too-ambiguous anyway... (I can't imagine it)
Yes, I thought qui meaning "how" was an old instrumental, for instance. At any rate I believe I've read that somewhere, now maybe it was wrong and this is just an ablative...
Hm, the OLD seems unsure. It says it's an "old abl., loc., or instrumental". Lol.
If I may follow the thread with another question, isn't this a partitive object (I don't know how that's called in English) than can be expressed in (at least) by means of (at least) two equivalent expressions?
Cicero, clarissimus ex oratoribus, ...et cetera
Cicero clarissimus inter oratores,... et cetera
Does it really necessarily mean "the most famous of"? Couldn't it also be translated as "a very famous"?
Oratorum is a partitive genitive. Is that what you mean?
Yes, those are correct equivalents.
Clarissimus by itself could translate that way, but together with a genitive or equivalent expression, not really, as that clearly points to a relative superlative meaning.
Yes, that's what I meant, expressed in a more appropriate English.
Thank you for your answer.
I take umbrage with that sentiment for two reasons: (1) you may be investing a bit too much into the study of Latin, and (2) I resent the suggestion that anybody is crappier than myself. I, sir, am the crappiest of the crappers! I am so crappy that I don't understand half of what Bitmap is saying above...