Can 'non' with gerundive mean both lack of obligation and negative obligation?How do I say “this must not happen”?Can *ne* in *ne … quidem* mean *ne* instead of *non*?Comparing ius sacrum and fasCan the gerundive be used like an adjective?-NL- and -LL- in Classical LatinPassive periphrastic with two dativesCan I use abesse with hinc, inde, and others?“There is” in LatinHow can you tell whether prefixed ‘in-’ is the preposition ‘in’ or Indo-European ‘in-’?What would this pun mean?Gerundive Confusion
How can Republicans who favour free markets, consistently express anger when they don't like the outcome of that choice?
Why did C use the -> operator instead of reusing the . operator?
How come there are so many candidates for the 2020 Democratic party presidential nomination?
How do I check if a string is entirely made of the same substring?
a sore throat vs a strep throat vs strep throat
What are the steps to solving this definite integral?
Two field separators (colon and space) in awk
Extension of 2-adic valuation to the real numbers
acheter à, to mean both "from" and "for"?
Classification of surfaces
If a planet has 3 moons, is it possible to have triple Full/New Moons at once?
Can someone publish a story that happened to you?
Does tea made with boiling water cool faster than tea made with boiled (but still hot) water?
How exactly does Hawking radiation decrease the mass of black holes?
Implications of cigar-shaped bodies having rings?
Don’t seats that recline flat defeat the purpose of having seatbelts?
Checks user level and limit the data before saving it to mongoDB
What makes accurate emulation of old systems a difficult task?
How do I deal with a coworker that keeps asking to make small superficial changes to a report, and it is seriously triggering my anxiety?
What happens to Mjolnir (Thor's hammer) at the end of Endgame?
What happened to Captain America in Endgame?
How to write a column outside the braces in a matrix?
What is the most expensive material in the world that could be used to create Pun-Pun's lute?
Can SQL Server create collisions in system generated constraint names?
Can 'non' with gerundive mean both lack of obligation and negative obligation?
How do I say “this must not happen”?Can *ne* in *ne … quidem* mean *ne* instead of *non*?Comparing ius sacrum and fasCan the gerundive be used like an adjective?-NL- and -LL- in Classical LatinPassive periphrastic with two dativesCan I use abesse with hinc, inde, and others?“There is” in LatinHow can you tell whether prefixed ‘in-’ is the preposition ‘in’ or Indo-European ‘in-’?What would this pun mean?Gerundive Confusion
If a gerundive is used with non, can it mean both lack of obligation and negative obligation?
For example, can non loquendum est mean both "it is not necessary to speak" and "it is necessary not to speak"?
Does the word order have a role here?
If you want to argue that a gerundive with non can have a certain meaning, can you please provide a classical quotation where the meaning is clearly only one of the two possibilities?
In the cases I have seen, I find it hard to decide whether a lack of obligation or a negative obligation was meant.
To me the literal reading of such a phrase is lack of obligation, but negative obligation is possible too.
This was discussed in connection to the earlier question concerning negative obligations, but I wanted to ask this separate focused question to settle this matter.
classical-latin example-request gerundivum negation
asked Apr 22 at 16:09
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.6k1271289
add a comment |
If a gerundive is used with non, can it mean both lack of obligation and negative obligation?
For example, can non loquendum est mean both "it is not necessary to speak" and "it is necessary not to speak"?
Does the word order have a role here?
If you want to argue that a gerundive with non can have a certain meaning, can you please provide a classical quotation where the meaning is clearly only one of the two possibilities?
In the cases I have seen, I find it hard to decide whether a lack of obligation or a negative obligation was meant.
To me the literal reading of such a phrase is lack of obligation, but negative obligation is possible too.
This was discussed in connection to the earlier question concerning negative obligations, but I wanted to ask this separate focused question to settle this matter.
classical-latin example-request gerundivum negation
asked Apr 22 at 16:09
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.6k1271289
add a comment |
If a gerundive is used with non, can it mean both lack of obligation and negative obligation?
For example, can non loquendum est mean both "it is not necessary to speak" and "it is necessary not to speak"?
Does the word order have a role here?
If you want to argue that a gerundive with non can have a certain meaning, can you please provide a classical quotation where the meaning is clearly only one of the two possibilities?
In the cases I have seen, I find it hard to decide whether a lack of obligation or a negative obligation was meant.
To me the literal reading of such a phrase is lack of obligation, but negative obligation is possible too.
This was discussed in connection to the earlier question concerning negative obligations, but I wanted to ask this separate focused question to settle this matter.
classical-latin example-request gerundivum negation
asked Apr 22 at 16:09
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.6k1271289
If a gerundive is used with non, can it mean both lack of obligation and negative obligation?
For example, can non loquendum est mean both "it is not necessary to speak" and "it is necessary not to speak"?
Does the word order have a role here?
If you want to argue that a gerundive with non can have a certain meaning, can you please provide a classical quotation where the meaning is clearly only one of the two possibilities?
In the cases I have seen, I find it hard to decide whether a lack of obligation or a negative obligation was meant.
To me the literal reading of such a phrase is lack of obligation, but negative obligation is possible too.
This was discussed in connection to the earlier question concerning negative obligations, but I wanted to ask this separate focused question to settle this matter.
classical-latin example-request gerundivum negation
classical-latin example-request gerundivum negation
asked Apr 22 at 16:09
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.6k1271289
asked Apr 22 at 16:09
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.6k1271289
asked Apr 22 at 16:09
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.6k1271289
asked Apr 22 at 16:09
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.6k1271289
asked Apr 22 at 16:09
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.6k1271289
49.6k1271289
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
The following examples are of the negated gerundive clearly equivalent to a prohibition.
The pair faciendum / non faciendum is used to indicate positive and negative obligation, as evidenced by the parallelism with sequi / fugere.
Videsne ut quibus summa est in voluptate perspicuum sit quid iis faciendum sit aut non faciendum? ut nemo dubitet eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? (Cic. De Fin. 4.17.46)
The grammarians consistently use dicendum and non dicendum to mean "an obligatory expression" and "a prohibited expression."
Mi Paula et mi Aemilia non dicendum, quia mi masculini est generis
pronomen, non feminini, et ortum est a prima positione meus; sed dicen-
dum mea Paula et mea Aemilia, o meum caput, o meumque brachium. (Flavius Caper, De Orthographia, 102)
Legal Latin frequently uses the negated gerundive to signify prohibition. (The Digests itself is post-classical but consists largely of extracts of earlier Latin.)
Proculus ait ... [in a case where one crime/tort could be prosecuted under two different legal statutes] si uno iudicio res esset iudicata, altero amplius non agendum. (Digesta, 9.2.27.11.3)
A slightly post-classical example clearly signifying prohibition:
quod in facto reicitur, etiam in dicto non est recipiendum. (Tertullian, De Spectaculis, 17)
answered Apr 22 at 16:57
KingshorseyKingshorsey
94939
add a comment |
How about "non loquendum est" = literally: "it ought not to be spoken"; equivalent to "it must not be spoken"; therefore your second choice: "it is necessary not to speak".
Suspect that if you want to introduce "necessary" you may have to deploy "necessitas"; not the gerundive-of-obligation impersonal-construction.
answered yesterday
tonytony
79819
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "644"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9537%2fcan-non-with-gerundive-mean-both-lack-of-obligation-and-negative-obligation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The following examples are of the negated gerundive clearly equivalent to a prohibition.
The pair faciendum / non faciendum is used to indicate positive and negative obligation, as evidenced by the parallelism with sequi / fugere.
Videsne ut quibus summa est in voluptate perspicuum sit quid iis faciendum sit aut non faciendum? ut nemo dubitet eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? (Cic. De Fin. 4.17.46)
The grammarians consistently use dicendum and non dicendum to mean "an obligatory expression" and "a prohibited expression."
Mi Paula et mi Aemilia non dicendum, quia mi masculini est generis
pronomen, non feminini, et ortum est a prima positione meus; sed dicen-
dum mea Paula et mea Aemilia, o meum caput, o meumque brachium. (Flavius Caper, De Orthographia, 102)
Legal Latin frequently uses the negated gerundive to signify prohibition. (The Digests itself is post-classical but consists largely of extracts of earlier Latin.)
Proculus ait ... [in a case where one crime/tort could be prosecuted under two different legal statutes] si uno iudicio res esset iudicata, altero amplius non agendum. (Digesta, 9.2.27.11.3)
A slightly post-classical example clearly signifying prohibition:
quod in facto reicitur, etiam in dicto non est recipiendum. (Tertullian, De Spectaculis, 17)
answered Apr 22 at 16:57
KingshorseyKingshorsey
94939
add a comment |
The following examples are of the negated gerundive clearly equivalent to a prohibition.
The pair faciendum / non faciendum is used to indicate positive and negative obligation, as evidenced by the parallelism with sequi / fugere.
Videsne ut quibus summa est in voluptate perspicuum sit quid iis faciendum sit aut non faciendum? ut nemo dubitet eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? (Cic. De Fin. 4.17.46)
The grammarians consistently use dicendum and non dicendum to mean "an obligatory expression" and "a prohibited expression."
Mi Paula et mi Aemilia non dicendum, quia mi masculini est generis
pronomen, non feminini, et ortum est a prima positione meus; sed dicen-
dum mea Paula et mea Aemilia, o meum caput, o meumque brachium. (Flavius Caper, De Orthographia, 102)
Legal Latin frequently uses the negated gerundive to signify prohibition. (The Digests itself is post-classical but consists largely of extracts of earlier Latin.)
Proculus ait ... [in a case where one crime/tort could be prosecuted under two different legal statutes] si uno iudicio res esset iudicata, altero amplius non agendum. (Digesta, 9.2.27.11.3)
A slightly post-classical example clearly signifying prohibition:
quod in facto reicitur, etiam in dicto non est recipiendum. (Tertullian, De Spectaculis, 17)
answered Apr 22 at 16:57
KingshorseyKingshorsey
94939
add a comment |
The following examples are of the negated gerundive clearly equivalent to a prohibition.
The pair faciendum / non faciendum is used to indicate positive and negative obligation, as evidenced by the parallelism with sequi / fugere.
Videsne ut quibus summa est in voluptate perspicuum sit quid iis faciendum sit aut non faciendum? ut nemo dubitet eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? (Cic. De Fin. 4.17.46)
The grammarians consistently use dicendum and non dicendum to mean "an obligatory expression" and "a prohibited expression."
Mi Paula et mi Aemilia non dicendum, quia mi masculini est generis
pronomen, non feminini, et ortum est a prima positione meus; sed dicen-
dum mea Paula et mea Aemilia, o meum caput, o meumque brachium. (Flavius Caper, De Orthographia, 102)
Legal Latin frequently uses the negated gerundive to signify prohibition. (The Digests itself is post-classical but consists largely of extracts of earlier Latin.)
Proculus ait ... [in a case where one crime/tort could be prosecuted under two different legal statutes] si uno iudicio res esset iudicata, altero amplius non agendum. (Digesta, 9.2.27.11.3)
A slightly post-classical example clearly signifying prohibition:
quod in facto reicitur, etiam in dicto non est recipiendum. (Tertullian, De Spectaculis, 17)
answered Apr 22 at 16:57
KingshorseyKingshorsey
94939
The following examples are of the negated gerundive clearly equivalent to a prohibition.
The pair faciendum / non faciendum is used to indicate positive and negative obligation, as evidenced by the parallelism with sequi / fugere.
Videsne ut quibus summa est in voluptate perspicuum sit quid iis faciendum sit aut non faciendum? ut nemo dubitet eorum omnia officia quo spectare, quid sequi, quid fugere debeant? (Cic. De Fin. 4.17.46)
The grammarians consistently use dicendum and non dicendum to mean "an obligatory expression" and "a prohibited expression."
Mi Paula et mi Aemilia non dicendum, quia mi masculini est generis
pronomen, non feminini, et ortum est a prima positione meus; sed dicen-
dum mea Paula et mea Aemilia, o meum caput, o meumque brachium. (Flavius Caper, De Orthographia, 102)
Legal Latin frequently uses the negated gerundive to signify prohibition. (The Digests itself is post-classical but consists largely of extracts of earlier Latin.)
Proculus ait ... [in a case where one crime/tort could be prosecuted under two different legal statutes] si uno iudicio res esset iudicata, altero amplius non agendum. (Digesta, 9.2.27.11.3)
A slightly post-classical example clearly signifying prohibition:
quod in facto reicitur, etiam in dicto non est recipiendum. (Tertullian, De Spectaculis, 17)
answered Apr 22 at 16:57
KingshorseyKingshorsey
94939
edited Apr 22 at 17:34
answered Apr 22 at 16:57
KingshorseyKingshorsey
94939
answered Apr 22 at 16:57
KingshorseyKingshorsey
94939
answered Apr 22 at 16:57
KingshorseyKingshorsey
94939
94939
add a comment |
add a comment |
How about "non loquendum est" = literally: "it ought not to be spoken"; equivalent to "it must not be spoken"; therefore your second choice: "it is necessary not to speak".
Suspect that if you want to introduce "necessary" you may have to deploy "necessitas"; not the gerundive-of-obligation impersonal-construction.
answered yesterday
tonytony
79819
add a comment |
How about "non loquendum est" = literally: "it ought not to be spoken"; equivalent to "it must not be spoken"; therefore your second choice: "it is necessary not to speak".
Suspect that if you want to introduce "necessary" you may have to deploy "necessitas"; not the gerundive-of-obligation impersonal-construction.
answered yesterday
tonytony
79819
add a comment |
How about "non loquendum est" = literally: "it ought not to be spoken"; equivalent to "it must not be spoken"; therefore your second choice: "it is necessary not to speak".
Suspect that if you want to introduce "necessary" you may have to deploy "necessitas"; not the gerundive-of-obligation impersonal-construction.
answered yesterday
tonytony
79819
How about "non loquendum est" = literally: "it ought not to be spoken"; equivalent to "it must not be spoken"; therefore your second choice: "it is necessary not to speak".
Suspect that if you want to introduce "necessary" you may have to deploy "necessitas"; not the gerundive-of-obligation impersonal-construction.
answered yesterday
tonytony
79819
answered yesterday
tonytony
79819
answered yesterday
tonytony
79819
answered yesterday
tonytony
79819
79819
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Latin Language Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f9537%2fcan-non-with-gerundive-mean-both-lack-of-obligation-and-negative-obligation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
