DBG VI:21 -- how could they tell?
- Thread starter Callaina
- Start date
Another little thing, from chapter 28.
Haec [cornua] studiose conquisita ab labris argento circumcludunt atque in amplissimis epulis pro poculis utuntur.
Shouldn't he have switched to an ablative for that second part of the sentence ("atque his...utuntur")? L&S does list a rare use of a direct object for utor, but apparently this is seen only in the gerundive in Classical Latin. Did Caesar just mess up?
Haec [cornua] studiose conquisita ab labris argento circumcludunt atque in amplissimis epulis pro poculis utuntur.
Shouldn't he have switched to an ablative for that second part of the sentence ("atque his...utuntur")? L&S does list a rare use of a direct object for utor, but apparently this is seen only in the gerundive in Classical Latin. Did Caesar just mess up?
B
Bitmap
Guest
Instead of saying that the antlers look like a hand, he says they look like palms and fingers.
B
Bitmap
Guest
Not really ... the use of uti (and other deponents like frui) + direct object was still known from Old Latin and it was retained in gerundive constructions. It doesn't seem to be much of a problem for me for that reason alone given that he constructs it parallely with circumludunt, which takes a direct object ... and that direct object is at the beginning of the sentence. And well, apart from all that, all he's leaving out (grammatically speaking) is an implied eis. I can at least easily see how he can arrive at such a sentence.
B
Bitmap
Guest
That was a comment I found, but I thought it made some sense. ramus cannot mean "finger" (that was an exaggeration, maybe), but I can relate to the picture of a hand with branches growing out of it. I think the -que actually does quite a bit of clarification because it enforces your reading. Without it, it could be read as "branches spreading out like palms" :>
I suppose I was thinking of palma more in the "palm tree" meaning, which already implies the "branches" aspect, but I do see what you mean now.
By someone who was stretching things or dreaming things up a bit, maybe.
B
Bitmap
Guest
It didn't seem to much of a stretch to me ...By someone who was stretching things or dreaming things up a bit, maybe.
I always had the palm of a hand in mind when I read palmae.
I guess it's possible that plama here means the palm of a hand, and that branches are said to be sprouting from it instead of fingers. That couldn't quite have been expressed by the single word manus, though, so I'm not sure it's right to call it a hendiadys.
I suppose the technical term would be "used absolutely"
Done (DBG VI)!!  banana.gif "(1) Banana :banana:")
Toward the end there were some interesting expressions which I hadn't seen before, like interdicere alicui aqua et igni (to forbid someone fire and water, i.e. to banish them) and supplicium sumere de aliquo (to exact punishment upon someone).
I think I'm going to do some Cicero next...the Pro Archia as that's what's on my PhD reading list (which I am slowly but surely working through). I should be able to get through at least that & one more thing before the end of the summer
Toward the end there were some interesting expressions which I hadn't seen before, like interdicere alicui aqua et igni (to forbid someone fire and water, i.e. to banish them) and supplicium sumere de aliquo (to exact punishment upon someone).
I think I'm going to do some Cicero next...the Pro Archia as that's what's on my PhD reading list (which I am slowly but surely working through). I should be able to get through at least that & one more thing before the end of the summer
B
Bitmap
Guest
That's surprising because it is quite common an expression and also played a role in Cicero's biography.
Technically, it doesn't mean to banish somebody, though, at least not in the sense that you expel them. The Romans didn't expel people by means of an aquae et ignis interdictio until the very end of the Republic under Caesar's dictatorship (IIRC). An aquae et ignis interdictio simply prohibited people who were already gone from returning to Rome.
I suppose you could also consider this some kind of ban; but people often mistake the term for sending people into exile, which it doesn't mean. (And by people I mean even a lot of scholars)