Livy AUC XLV

[LaurentiusH]

Salvete,

The grammatical structure of this sentence is unclear to me:

Sensit Perseus, cuius nominis obliviscendum victo esset.

I found a translation so I know what the sentence means (Perseus, defeated, understood that he had to renounce his title), but I don't see how to connect the Latin words. There are several problems:
- with sentio, I would have expected an infinitive clause (and an accusative)
- should I supply an esse with obliviscendum?
- what is the subject of esset?
- is victo a one-word ablative absolute?

Hm, to sumarize, I'm afraid I don't understand much in that sentence :-(

Thanks!

 

[Bitmap]

- with sentio, I would have expected an infinitive clause (and an accusative)

It is an indirect question (which sentire can also be constructed with). It literally means "Perseus understood which title had to be forgotten by the defeated one".

- should I supply an esse with obliviscendum?

There is an esset already.

- what is the subject of esset?

obliviscendum.

- is victo a one-word ablative absolute?

It is a dativus auctoris.

 

[Pacifica]

Obliviscendum isn't really the subject. The subject is some kind of impersonal "it", to which obliviscendum is predicative.

 

[Bitmap]

Obliviscendum isn't really the subject. The subject is some kind of impersonal "it", to which obliviscendum is predicative.

That thought gave me some pause as well ... but there is no "it" in this sentence, and there is no word that you could add in Latin that would represent an "it" in any way.

 

[Pacifica]

Indeed, there isn't. It's an invisible "it", as in all impersonal passive constructions.

 

[Bitmap]

Hm. You're right.

 

[LaurentiusH]

Thanks Bitmap and Pacifica. It seems clearer now.

I confess I'd never heard about a dativus auctoris. Is it the same use as in, e.g., Erit Ille mihi semper deus, which describes some point of view?

 

[LaurentiusH]

To be complete, I believe the main reason why that sentence made no sense to me is because I wanted to interpret cuius... esset as a relative clause, while it is an indirect question.

Thanks again

 

[Pacifica]

Thanks Bitmap and Pacifica. It seems clearer now.

I confess I'd never heard about a dativus auctoris. Is it the same use as in, e.g., Erit Ille mihi semper deus, which describes some point of view?

No. A dativus auctoris (or dative of agent in English) represents the person by whom an action is or was done or to be done. It's most common with gerundives, where the agent is almost always in the dative, but also sometimes occurs with other forms, especially past participles, most often in poetry.

 

[LaurentiusH]

Oh, thanks Pacifica. I finally found it in Bennett's grammar under the name "dative of agency": Haec nobis agenda sunt.