Can 'non' with gerundive mean both lack of obligation and negative obligation?
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 6 hours ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.4k1271288
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 6 hours ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.4k1271288
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 6 hours ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.4k1271288
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 6 hours ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.4k1271288
asked 6 hours ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.4k1271288
asked 6 hours ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.4k1271288
asked 6 hours ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.4k1271288
asked 6 hours ago
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
49.4k1271288
49.4k1271288
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
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 6 hours ago
KingshorseyKingshorsey
93939
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
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
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 6 hours ago
KingshorseyKingshorsey
93939
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 6 hours ago
KingshorseyKingshorsey
93939
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 6 hours ago
KingshorseyKingshorsey
93939
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 6 hours ago
KingshorseyKingshorsey
93939
edited 5 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
KingshorseyKingshorsey
93939
answered 6 hours ago
KingshorseyKingshorsey
93939
answered 6 hours ago
KingshorseyKingshorsey
93939
93939
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
