Regarding the mode of “terram†in Deuteronomy 28:38
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Deuteronomy 28:38 reads:
Sementem multam jacies in terram, et modicum congregabis: quia locustæ devorabunt omnia.
I think the first phrase before the comma has the following structure (but reordered; e.g. accusatives come before the verb, and subject is implicit in the verb):
[subject/nominative] [verb] [object/accusative] preposition [ablative]
However, terram is in accusative, instead of in ablative (terrÄÂ). The object of the phrase is clearly sementis (hence the accusative mode sementem), whereas in is indicating an ablative of place. Why is then terram in accusative?
Quaestio brevis. Quid "terram" est accusativum in Deuteronomium 28:38? Non debet sit ablativum?
vulgata ablativus accusativus case
asked Aug 6 at 12:17
luchonacho
2,6511839
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Deuteronomy 28:38 reads:
Sementem multam jacies in terram, et modicum congregabis: quia locustæ devorabunt omnia.
I think the first phrase before the comma has the following structure (but reordered; e.g. accusatives come before the verb, and subject is implicit in the verb):
[subject/nominative] [verb] [object/accusative] preposition [ablative]
However, terram is in accusative, instead of in ablative (terrÄÂ). The object of the phrase is clearly sementis (hence the accusative mode sementem), whereas in is indicating an ablative of place. Why is then terram in accusative?
Quaestio brevis. Quid "terram" est accusativum in Deuteronomium 28:38? Non debet sit ablativum?
vulgata ablativus accusativus case
asked Aug 6 at 12:17
luchonacho
2,6511839
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
up vote
5
down vote
favorite
Deuteronomy 28:38 reads:
Sementem multam jacies in terram, et modicum congregabis: quia locustæ devorabunt omnia.
I think the first phrase before the comma has the following structure (but reordered; e.g. accusatives come before the verb, and subject is implicit in the verb):
[subject/nominative] [verb] [object/accusative] preposition [ablative]
However, terram is in accusative, instead of in ablative (terrÄÂ). The object of the phrase is clearly sementis (hence the accusative mode sementem), whereas in is indicating an ablative of place. Why is then terram in accusative?
Quaestio brevis. Quid "terram" est accusativum in Deuteronomium 28:38? Non debet sit ablativum?
vulgata ablativus accusativus case
asked Aug 6 at 12:17
luchonacho
2,6511839
Deuteronomy 28:38 reads:
Sementem multam jacies in terram, et modicum congregabis: quia locustæ devorabunt omnia.
I think the first phrase before the comma has the following structure (but reordered; e.g. accusatives come before the verb, and subject is implicit in the verb):
[subject/nominative] [verb] [object/accusative] preposition [ablative]
However, terram is in accusative, instead of in ablative (terrÄÂ). The object of the phrase is clearly sementis (hence the accusative mode sementem), whereas in is indicating an ablative of place. Why is then terram in accusative?
Quaestio brevis. Quid "terram" est accusativum in Deuteronomium 28:38? Non debet sit ablativum?
vulgata ablativus accusativus case
asked Aug 6 at 12:17
luchonacho
2,6511839
edited Aug 6 at 13:35
asked Aug 6 at 12:17
luchonacho
2,6511839
asked Aug 6 at 12:17
luchonacho
2,6511839
asked Aug 6 at 12:17
luchonacho
2,6511839
2,6511839
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
Not all prepositions are created equal.
Some prepositions need to be followed by ablative as you say. Examples are cum (e.g. cum Ipso), sine (sine Deo nihil), de (de hoc mundo).
Yet most prepositions need to be followed by accusative, like ante (ante constitutionem mundi), per (per Ipsum), post (post mortem).
A number of prepositions may be followed by both acc. and abl., with different meanings, as in, sub, super. The rule of thumb with these three is that accusative adds movement to the meaning of the preposition:
in+[abl] → in, on, at;
in+[acc] → to, into, towards.
In the quote from Deuteronomy, the seed is to be thrown to the ground.
See also: i) L&S entry for in, and ii) this list (and also this one) of prepositions and the cases they are followed by (none of both is exhaustive, and the exact content of a complete list is disputed).
In the lists you can see that some are said to be followed by genitive, like ope, and tenus. These are listed by some as prepositions, but not universally agreed as such. My perception in this issue is they are nouns in the process of mutating from/to prepositions by gaining/losing cases (either created by generalization or falling out of use). Note that ope is said by L&S to be the ablative of ops, which itself is not attested, being another example of a defective paradigm. Other cases of ops are also rare.
answered Aug 6 at 12:57
Rafael
5,253936
1
Oh no, more exceptions to learn! Thanks. I just realised the wikipedia entry on the ablative makes similar comments about the use of prepositions, distinguishing the case of in.
– luchonacho
Aug 6 at 14:20
1
@luchonacho hahaha, ánimo. Back in the day it helped me a lot to learn a handful of texts that were already familiar to me in Spanish by memory, and make sense of them afterwards. E.g. Pater Noster qui es in caelis... et ne nos inducas in tentationem...
– Rafael
Aug 6 at 14:30
2
That's a great example of both uses of in. ¡Gracias!
– luchonacho
Aug 6 at 14:38
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
Not all prepositions are created equal.
Some prepositions need to be followed by ablative as you say. Examples are cum (e.g. cum Ipso), sine (sine Deo nihil), de (de hoc mundo).
Yet most prepositions need to be followed by accusative, like ante (ante constitutionem mundi), per (per Ipsum), post (post mortem).
A number of prepositions may be followed by both acc. and abl., with different meanings, as in, sub, super. The rule of thumb with these three is that accusative adds movement to the meaning of the preposition:
in+[abl] → in, on, at;
in+[acc] → to, into, towards.
In the quote from Deuteronomy, the seed is to be thrown to the ground.
See also: i) L&S entry for in, and ii) this list (and also this one) of prepositions and the cases they are followed by (none of both is exhaustive, and the exact content of a complete list is disputed).
In the lists you can see that some are said to be followed by genitive, like ope, and tenus. These are listed by some as prepositions, but not universally agreed as such. My perception in this issue is they are nouns in the process of mutating from/to prepositions by gaining/losing cases (either created by generalization or falling out of use). Note that ope is said by L&S to be the ablative of ops, which itself is not attested, being another example of a defective paradigm. Other cases of ops are also rare.
answered Aug 6 at 12:57
Rafael
5,253936
1
Oh no, more exceptions to learn! Thanks. I just realised the wikipedia entry on the ablative makes similar comments about the use of prepositions, distinguishing the case of in.
– luchonacho
Aug 6 at 14:20
1
@luchonacho hahaha, ánimo. Back in the day it helped me a lot to learn a handful of texts that were already familiar to me in Spanish by memory, and make sense of them afterwards. E.g. Pater Noster qui es in caelis... et ne nos inducas in tentationem...
– Rafael
Aug 6 at 14:30
2
That's a great example of both uses of in. ¡Gracias!
– luchonacho
Aug 6 at 14:38
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
Not all prepositions are created equal.
Some prepositions need to be followed by ablative as you say. Examples are cum (e.g. cum Ipso), sine (sine Deo nihil), de (de hoc mundo).
Yet most prepositions need to be followed by accusative, like ante (ante constitutionem mundi), per (per Ipsum), post (post mortem).
A number of prepositions may be followed by both acc. and abl., with different meanings, as in, sub, super. The rule of thumb with these three is that accusative adds movement to the meaning of the preposition:
in+[abl] → in, on, at;
in+[acc] → to, into, towards.
In the quote from Deuteronomy, the seed is to be thrown to the ground.
See also: i) L&S entry for in, and ii) this list (and also this one) of prepositions and the cases they are followed by (none of both is exhaustive, and the exact content of a complete list is disputed).
In the lists you can see that some are said to be followed by genitive, like ope, and tenus. These are listed by some as prepositions, but not universally agreed as such. My perception in this issue is they are nouns in the process of mutating from/to prepositions by gaining/losing cases (either created by generalization or falling out of use). Note that ope is said by L&S to be the ablative of ops, which itself is not attested, being another example of a defective paradigm. Other cases of ops are also rare.
answered Aug 6 at 12:57
Rafael
5,253936
1
Oh no, more exceptions to learn! Thanks. I just realised the wikipedia entry on the ablative makes similar comments about the use of prepositions, distinguishing the case of in.
– luchonacho
Aug 6 at 14:20
1
@luchonacho hahaha, ánimo. Back in the day it helped me a lot to learn a handful of texts that were already familiar to me in Spanish by memory, and make sense of them afterwards. E.g. Pater Noster qui es in caelis... et ne nos inducas in tentationem...
– Rafael
Aug 6 at 14:30
2
That's a great example of both uses of in. ¡Gracias!
– luchonacho
Aug 6 at 14:38
add a comment |Â
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
up vote
5
down vote
accepted
Not all prepositions are created equal.
Some prepositions need to be followed by ablative as you say. Examples are cum (e.g. cum Ipso), sine (sine Deo nihil), de (de hoc mundo).
Yet most prepositions need to be followed by accusative, like ante (ante constitutionem mundi), per (per Ipsum), post (post mortem).
A number of prepositions may be followed by both acc. and abl., with different meanings, as in, sub, super. The rule of thumb with these three is that accusative adds movement to the meaning of the preposition:
in+[abl] → in, on, at;
in+[acc] → to, into, towards.
In the quote from Deuteronomy, the seed is to be thrown to the ground.
See also: i) L&S entry for in, and ii) this list (and also this one) of prepositions and the cases they are followed by (none of both is exhaustive, and the exact content of a complete list is disputed).
In the lists you can see that some are said to be followed by genitive, like ope, and tenus. These are listed by some as prepositions, but not universally agreed as such. My perception in this issue is they are nouns in the process of mutating from/to prepositions by gaining/losing cases (either created by generalization or falling out of use). Note that ope is said by L&S to be the ablative of ops, which itself is not attested, being another example of a defective paradigm. Other cases of ops are also rare.
answered Aug 6 at 12:57
Rafael
5,253936
Not all prepositions are created equal.
Some prepositions need to be followed by ablative as you say. Examples are cum (e.g. cum Ipso), sine (sine Deo nihil), de (de hoc mundo).
Yet most prepositions need to be followed by accusative, like ante (ante constitutionem mundi), per (per Ipsum), post (post mortem).
A number of prepositions may be followed by both acc. and abl., with different meanings, as in, sub, super. The rule of thumb with these three is that accusative adds movement to the meaning of the preposition:
in+[abl] → in, on, at;
in+[acc] → to, into, towards.
In the quote from Deuteronomy, the seed is to be thrown to the ground.
See also: i) L&S entry for in, and ii) this list (and also this one) of prepositions and the cases they are followed by (none of both is exhaustive, and the exact content of a complete list is disputed).
In the lists you can see that some are said to be followed by genitive, like ope, and tenus. These are listed by some as prepositions, but not universally agreed as such. My perception in this issue is they are nouns in the process of mutating from/to prepositions by gaining/losing cases (either created by generalization or falling out of use). Note that ope is said by L&S to be the ablative of ops, which itself is not attested, being another example of a defective paradigm. Other cases of ops are also rare.
answered Aug 6 at 12:57
Rafael
5,253936
edited Aug 6 at 15:59
answered Aug 6 at 12:57
Rafael
5,253936
answered Aug 6 at 12:57
Rafael
5,253936
answered Aug 6 at 12:57
Rafael
5,253936
5,253936
1
Oh no, more exceptions to learn! Thanks. I just realised the wikipedia entry on the ablative makes similar comments about the use of prepositions, distinguishing the case of in.
– luchonacho
Aug 6 at 14:20
1
@luchonacho hahaha, ánimo. Back in the day it helped me a lot to learn a handful of texts that were already familiar to me in Spanish by memory, and make sense of them afterwards. E.g. Pater Noster qui es in caelis... et ne nos inducas in tentationem...
– Rafael
Aug 6 at 14:30
2
That's a great example of both uses of in. ¡Gracias!
– luchonacho
Aug 6 at 14:38
add a comment |Â
1
Oh no, more exceptions to learn! Thanks. I just realised the wikipedia entry on the ablative makes similar comments about the use of prepositions, distinguishing the case of in.
– luchonacho
Aug 6 at 14:20
1
@luchonacho hahaha, ánimo. Back in the day it helped me a lot to learn a handful of texts that were already familiar to me in Spanish by memory, and make sense of them afterwards. E.g. Pater Noster qui es in caelis... et ne nos inducas in tentationem...
– Rafael
Aug 6 at 14:30
2
That's a great example of both uses of in. ¡Gracias!
– luchonacho
Aug 6 at 14:38
1
1
Oh no, more exceptions to learn! Thanks. I just realised the wikipedia entry on the ablative makes similar comments about the use of prepositions, distinguishing the case of in.
– luchonacho
Aug 6 at 14:20
Oh no, more exceptions to learn! Thanks. I just realised the wikipedia entry on the ablative makes similar comments about the use of prepositions, distinguishing the case of in.
– luchonacho
Aug 6 at 14:20
1
1
@luchonacho hahaha, ánimo. Back in the day it helped me a lot to learn a handful of texts that were already familiar to me in Spanish by memory, and make sense of them afterwards. E.g. Pater Noster qui es in caelis... et ne nos inducas in tentationem...
– Rafael
Aug 6 at 14:30
@luchonacho hahaha, ánimo. Back in the day it helped me a lot to learn a handful of texts that were already familiar to me in Spanish by memory, and make sense of them afterwards. E.g. Pater Noster qui es in caelis... et ne nos inducas in tentationem...
– Rafael
Aug 6 at 14:30
2
2
That's a great example of both uses of in. ¡Gracias!
– luchonacho
Aug 6 at 14:38
That's a great example of both uses of in. ¡Gracias!
– luchonacho
Aug 6 at 14:38
add a comment |Â
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
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f6976%2fregarding-the-mode-of-terram-in-deuteronomy-2838%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
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
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
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