Disambiguation of “nobis vobis” and “nobis nobis”Is sal ever neuter?What are the normal genitive and...
Handling Disruptive Student on the Autistic Spectrum
What are some interesting features that are common cross-linguistically but don't exist in English?
How can I unambiguously ask for a new user's "Display Name"?
Is there any way to keep a player from killing an NPC?
Notepad++ cannot print
How do we calculate energy of food?
Why in most German places is the church the tallest building?
Was it ever possible to target a zone?
Why is there so little discussion / research on the philosophy of precision?
What should come first--characters or plot?
Most natural way to use the negative with つもり
How to find out the average duration of the peer-review process for a given journal?
Duplicate instruments in unison in an orchestra
Is gzip atomic?
Are the A380 engines interchangeable (given they are not all equipped with reverse)?
Round towards zero
Is for(( ... )){ ... ;} a valid shell syntax? In which shells?
Can a Rogue PC teach an NPC to perform Sneak Attack?
Is there any way white can win?
What is the difference between Major and Minor Bug?
Which book is the Murderer's Gloves magic item from?
Did a flight controller ever answer Flight with a no-go?
"Sorry to bother you" in an email?
I don't have the theoretical background in my PhD topic. I can't justify getting the degree
Disambiguation of “nobis vobis” and “nobis nobis”
Is sal ever neuter?What are the normal genitive and dative singular forms of “alius”?Comparing ablative and genitive of qualityWho asked whom about the cape of parchment? And who answered?When and why did the ablative form?How “sōlā fidē” means what it is supposed to meanConsecutive ablativesCan 'in-' mean both 'in' and 'no'?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
For many words, the dative and ablative take the same form. Two examples are nos and vos (nobis and vobis, respectively).
Imagine you want to say something like "from us to you [plural]" (where "from" indicates ablative and "to" dative). Since the order is usually uninformative in Latin, nobis vobis is not precise enough. Would something like a nobis vobis be enough?
Similarly, say you want to say "from us to us". Is nobis nobis enough, or would a nobis nobis be more accurate?
More generally, how would one disambiguate these cases where dative and ablative go together? Is it making one of the prepositions explicit, as above?
ablativus ambiguity dativus
add a comment |
For many words, the dative and ablative take the same form. Two examples are nos and vos (nobis and vobis, respectively).
Imagine you want to say something like "from us to you [plural]" (where "from" indicates ablative and "to" dative). Since the order is usually uninformative in Latin, nobis vobis is not precise enough. Would something like a nobis vobis be enough?
Similarly, say you want to say "from us to us". Is nobis nobis enough, or would a nobis nobis be more accurate?
More generally, how would one disambiguate these cases where dative and ablative go together? Is it making one of the prepositions explicit, as above?
ablativus ambiguity dativus
add a comment |
For many words, the dative and ablative take the same form. Two examples are nos and vos (nobis and vobis, respectively).
Imagine you want to say something like "from us to you [plural]" (where "from" indicates ablative and "to" dative). Since the order is usually uninformative in Latin, nobis vobis is not precise enough. Would something like a nobis vobis be enough?
Similarly, say you want to say "from us to us". Is nobis nobis enough, or would a nobis nobis be more accurate?
More generally, how would one disambiguate these cases where dative and ablative go together? Is it making one of the prepositions explicit, as above?
ablativus ambiguity dativus
For many words, the dative and ablative take the same form. Two examples are nos and vos (nobis and vobis, respectively).
Imagine you want to say something like "from us to you [plural]" (where "from" indicates ablative and "to" dative). Since the order is usually uninformative in Latin, nobis vobis is not precise enough. Would something like a nobis vobis be enough?
Similarly, say you want to say "from us to us". Is nobis nobis enough, or would a nobis nobis be more accurate?
More generally, how would one disambiguate these cases where dative and ablative go together? Is it making one of the prepositions explicit, as above?
ablativus ambiguity dativus
ablativus ambiguity dativus
asked yesterday
luchonacholuchonacho
6,8625 gold badges17 silver badges64 bronze badges
6,8625 gold badges17 silver badges64 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
Let me make some remarks on what you say above: "Imagine you want to say something like "from us to you [plural]" (where "from" indicates ablative and "to" dative). Since the order is usually uninformative in Latin, nobis vobis is not precise enough. Would something like a nobis vobis be enough?".
As pointed out by Joonas, context is important here. For example, if the verb dare is involved, the example from Plautus given by brianpck is indeed very natural. If the verb is transire, the most adequate construction would be another one: e.g., cf. August. Bapt. 1.10.13: qui transeunt a nobis ad vos.
Finally, please let me make a more general remark on what you say above: "the order is usually uninformative in Latin". This is often said in some (traditional) Latin grammars but it is not correct. Quite the opposite! Despite appearances, word order is usually informative in Latin. For those of you who are interested in word order in Latin, three important recent works are:
Devine, Andrew M. & Laurence D. Stephens (2006). Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information. New York: Oxford University Press.
Devine, Andrew M. & Laurence D. Stephens (2019). Pragmatics for Latin. From Syntax to Information Structure. New York: Oxford University Press.
Spevak, Olga (2010). Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
add a comment |
I agree with the other answers: though ambiguity sometimes is inevitable, the ablative wouldn't be used alone in this context. Here is an example from Plautus that almost exactly parallels your case (with some previous lines added for context):
Gel. [...] Quid igitur me volt?
Croc. Tritici modios decem rogare, opinor [te volt].
Gel. Mene, ut ab sese petam?
Croc. Immo ut a vobis mutuom nobis dares. (Stichus, I.3)
My translation:
Gel. So what does she want me for?
Croc. I think she wants you to ask for ten pecks of wheat.
Gel. She wants me to ask her for it?
Corc. No, she wants you to give a loan, from you to us.
add a comment |
Despite its name, the Latin “ablative” is not normally used on its own for motion from a place or person. (Often, as in nobis and vobis, the “ablative” is historically not an ablative at all, but an old instrumental). I would stick with “a nobis vobis”.
add a comment |
Ambiguity like this is commonplace in Latin.
For example, "we have to help you" can be nobis vobis auxiliandum est, where the two datives happily mix the two roles.
(In this specific case one of the datives can be replaced by an agent a nobis, but sometimes ambiguity is inevitable.)
Even though Latin word order is flexible, it does contain information.
Especially with ambiguities word order can suggest what is meant.
Your suggestions a nobis vobis and a nobis nobis work fine.
In the second case I might add an ipsis for clarity.
This would only clarify that the same party plays both roles and the repetition of the pronoun is no accident.
If you really want to disambiguate the two roles, something more elaborate is needed.
In general, if you end up with something ambiguity and want to disambiguate, I suggest trying to restructure the entire thought.
Maybe switching between active and passive helps.
Maybe you can turn a personal verb into an absolute ablative.
Maybe you can put the ambiguous entities in two separate sentences.
I have no general magic tool; it all depends on context.
As for your claim that in the case of a nobis nobis you would add an ipsis for clarity, I was wondering if, grammatically speaking, we would continue having morphosyntactic ambiguity since ipsis can be dative or ablative. Perhaps in these cases the better is to use another construction, an unambiguous one like a nobis ad nos ipsos and a different verb.
– Mitomino
yesterday
@Mitomino My idea was that disambiguating between the two instances of nos is pretty useless, and adding ipsis would help underline that the pronoun was not repeated by accident but because the same party plays both roles. But I agree that if disambiguation is wanted, something more elaborate is needed.
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
yesterday
Although the nominal phrase ipsis nobis is attested, I guess that the construction a nobis ipsis nobis would never be used. A nobis nobis ipsis would be used instead, I guess. But there's still something odd as well. Well, I don't know...
– Mitomino
yesterday
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%2f11380%2fdisambiguation-of-nobis-vobis-and-nobis-nobis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Let me make some remarks on what you say above: "Imagine you want to say something like "from us to you [plural]" (where "from" indicates ablative and "to" dative). Since the order is usually uninformative in Latin, nobis vobis is not precise enough. Would something like a nobis vobis be enough?".
As pointed out by Joonas, context is important here. For example, if the verb dare is involved, the example from Plautus given by brianpck is indeed very natural. If the verb is transire, the most adequate construction would be another one: e.g., cf. August. Bapt. 1.10.13: qui transeunt a nobis ad vos.
Finally, please let me make a more general remark on what you say above: "the order is usually uninformative in Latin". This is often said in some (traditional) Latin grammars but it is not correct. Quite the opposite! Despite appearances, word order is usually informative in Latin. For those of you who are interested in word order in Latin, three important recent works are:
Devine, Andrew M. & Laurence D. Stephens (2006). Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information. New York: Oxford University Press.
Devine, Andrew M. & Laurence D. Stephens (2019). Pragmatics for Latin. From Syntax to Information Structure. New York: Oxford University Press.
Spevak, Olga (2010). Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
add a comment |
Let me make some remarks on what you say above: "Imagine you want to say something like "from us to you [plural]" (where "from" indicates ablative and "to" dative). Since the order is usually uninformative in Latin, nobis vobis is not precise enough. Would something like a nobis vobis be enough?".
As pointed out by Joonas, context is important here. For example, if the verb dare is involved, the example from Plautus given by brianpck is indeed very natural. If the verb is transire, the most adequate construction would be another one: e.g., cf. August. Bapt. 1.10.13: qui transeunt a nobis ad vos.
Finally, please let me make a more general remark on what you say above: "the order is usually uninformative in Latin". This is often said in some (traditional) Latin grammars but it is not correct. Quite the opposite! Despite appearances, word order is usually informative in Latin. For those of you who are interested in word order in Latin, three important recent works are:
Devine, Andrew M. & Laurence D. Stephens (2006). Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information. New York: Oxford University Press.
Devine, Andrew M. & Laurence D. Stephens (2019). Pragmatics for Latin. From Syntax to Information Structure. New York: Oxford University Press.
Spevak, Olga (2010). Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
add a comment |
Let me make some remarks on what you say above: "Imagine you want to say something like "from us to you [plural]" (where "from" indicates ablative and "to" dative). Since the order is usually uninformative in Latin, nobis vobis is not precise enough. Would something like a nobis vobis be enough?".
As pointed out by Joonas, context is important here. For example, if the verb dare is involved, the example from Plautus given by brianpck is indeed very natural. If the verb is transire, the most adequate construction would be another one: e.g., cf. August. Bapt. 1.10.13: qui transeunt a nobis ad vos.
Finally, please let me make a more general remark on what you say above: "the order is usually uninformative in Latin". This is often said in some (traditional) Latin grammars but it is not correct. Quite the opposite! Despite appearances, word order is usually informative in Latin. For those of you who are interested in word order in Latin, three important recent works are:
Devine, Andrew M. & Laurence D. Stephens (2006). Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information. New York: Oxford University Press.
Devine, Andrew M. & Laurence D. Stephens (2019). Pragmatics for Latin. From Syntax to Information Structure. New York: Oxford University Press.
Spevak, Olga (2010). Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Let me make some remarks on what you say above: "Imagine you want to say something like "from us to you [plural]" (where "from" indicates ablative and "to" dative). Since the order is usually uninformative in Latin, nobis vobis is not precise enough. Would something like a nobis vobis be enough?".
As pointed out by Joonas, context is important here. For example, if the verb dare is involved, the example from Plautus given by brianpck is indeed very natural. If the verb is transire, the most adequate construction would be another one: e.g., cf. August. Bapt. 1.10.13: qui transeunt a nobis ad vos.
Finally, please let me make a more general remark on what you say above: "the order is usually uninformative in Latin". This is often said in some (traditional) Latin grammars but it is not correct. Quite the opposite! Despite appearances, word order is usually informative in Latin. For those of you who are interested in word order in Latin, three important recent works are:
Devine, Andrew M. & Laurence D. Stephens (2006). Latin Word Order. Structured Meaning and Information. New York: Oxford University Press.
Devine, Andrew M. & Laurence D. Stephens (2019). Pragmatics for Latin. From Syntax to Information Structure. New York: Oxford University Press.
Spevak, Olga (2010). Constituent Order in Classical Latin Prose. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
edited yesterday
luchonacho
6,8625 gold badges17 silver badges64 bronze badges
6,8625 gold badges17 silver badges64 bronze badges
answered yesterday
MitominoMitomino
1,6172 silver badges11 bronze badges
1,6172 silver badges11 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
I agree with the other answers: though ambiguity sometimes is inevitable, the ablative wouldn't be used alone in this context. Here is an example from Plautus that almost exactly parallels your case (with some previous lines added for context):
Gel. [...] Quid igitur me volt?
Croc. Tritici modios decem rogare, opinor [te volt].
Gel. Mene, ut ab sese petam?
Croc. Immo ut a vobis mutuom nobis dares. (Stichus, I.3)
My translation:
Gel. So what does she want me for?
Croc. I think she wants you to ask for ten pecks of wheat.
Gel. She wants me to ask her for it?
Corc. No, she wants you to give a loan, from you to us.
add a comment |
I agree with the other answers: though ambiguity sometimes is inevitable, the ablative wouldn't be used alone in this context. Here is an example from Plautus that almost exactly parallels your case (with some previous lines added for context):
Gel. [...] Quid igitur me volt?
Croc. Tritici modios decem rogare, opinor [te volt].
Gel. Mene, ut ab sese petam?
Croc. Immo ut a vobis mutuom nobis dares. (Stichus, I.3)
My translation:
Gel. So what does she want me for?
Croc. I think she wants you to ask for ten pecks of wheat.
Gel. She wants me to ask her for it?
Corc. No, she wants you to give a loan, from you to us.
add a comment |
I agree with the other answers: though ambiguity sometimes is inevitable, the ablative wouldn't be used alone in this context. Here is an example from Plautus that almost exactly parallels your case (with some previous lines added for context):
Gel. [...] Quid igitur me volt?
Croc. Tritici modios decem rogare, opinor [te volt].
Gel. Mene, ut ab sese petam?
Croc. Immo ut a vobis mutuom nobis dares. (Stichus, I.3)
My translation:
Gel. So what does she want me for?
Croc. I think she wants you to ask for ten pecks of wheat.
Gel. She wants me to ask her for it?
Corc. No, she wants you to give a loan, from you to us.
I agree with the other answers: though ambiguity sometimes is inevitable, the ablative wouldn't be used alone in this context. Here is an example from Plautus that almost exactly parallels your case (with some previous lines added for context):
Gel. [...] Quid igitur me volt?
Croc. Tritici modios decem rogare, opinor [te volt].
Gel. Mene, ut ab sese petam?
Croc. Immo ut a vobis mutuom nobis dares. (Stichus, I.3)
My translation:
Gel. So what does she want me for?
Croc. I think she wants you to ask for ten pecks of wheat.
Gel. She wants me to ask her for it?
Corc. No, she wants you to give a loan, from you to us.
answered yesterday
brianpckbrianpck
25.1k2 gold badges48 silver badges122 bronze badges
25.1k2 gold badges48 silver badges122 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Despite its name, the Latin “ablative” is not normally used on its own for motion from a place or person. (Often, as in nobis and vobis, the “ablative” is historically not an ablative at all, but an old instrumental). I would stick with “a nobis vobis”.
add a comment |
Despite its name, the Latin “ablative” is not normally used on its own for motion from a place or person. (Often, as in nobis and vobis, the “ablative” is historically not an ablative at all, but an old instrumental). I would stick with “a nobis vobis”.
add a comment |
Despite its name, the Latin “ablative” is not normally used on its own for motion from a place or person. (Often, as in nobis and vobis, the “ablative” is historically not an ablative at all, but an old instrumental). I would stick with “a nobis vobis”.
Despite its name, the Latin “ablative” is not normally used on its own for motion from a place or person. (Often, as in nobis and vobis, the “ablative” is historically not an ablative at all, but an old instrumental). I would stick with “a nobis vobis”.
answered yesterday
fdbfdb
11.9k1 gold badge12 silver badges29 bronze badges
11.9k1 gold badge12 silver badges29 bronze badges
add a comment |
add a comment |
Ambiguity like this is commonplace in Latin.
For example, "we have to help you" can be nobis vobis auxiliandum est, where the two datives happily mix the two roles.
(In this specific case one of the datives can be replaced by an agent a nobis, but sometimes ambiguity is inevitable.)
Even though Latin word order is flexible, it does contain information.
Especially with ambiguities word order can suggest what is meant.
Your suggestions a nobis vobis and a nobis nobis work fine.
In the second case I might add an ipsis for clarity.
This would only clarify that the same party plays both roles and the repetition of the pronoun is no accident.
If you really want to disambiguate the two roles, something more elaborate is needed.
In general, if you end up with something ambiguity and want to disambiguate, I suggest trying to restructure the entire thought.
Maybe switching between active and passive helps.
Maybe you can turn a personal verb into an absolute ablative.
Maybe you can put the ambiguous entities in two separate sentences.
I have no general magic tool; it all depends on context.
As for your claim that in the case of a nobis nobis you would add an ipsis for clarity, I was wondering if, grammatically speaking, we would continue having morphosyntactic ambiguity since ipsis can be dative or ablative. Perhaps in these cases the better is to use another construction, an unambiguous one like a nobis ad nos ipsos and a different verb.
– Mitomino
yesterday
@Mitomino My idea was that disambiguating between the two instances of nos is pretty useless, and adding ipsis would help underline that the pronoun was not repeated by accident but because the same party plays both roles. But I agree that if disambiguation is wanted, something more elaborate is needed.
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
yesterday
Although the nominal phrase ipsis nobis is attested, I guess that the construction a nobis ipsis nobis would never be used. A nobis nobis ipsis would be used instead, I guess. But there's still something odd as well. Well, I don't know...
– Mitomino
yesterday
add a comment |
Ambiguity like this is commonplace in Latin.
For example, "we have to help you" can be nobis vobis auxiliandum est, where the two datives happily mix the two roles.
(In this specific case one of the datives can be replaced by an agent a nobis, but sometimes ambiguity is inevitable.)
Even though Latin word order is flexible, it does contain information.
Especially with ambiguities word order can suggest what is meant.
Your suggestions a nobis vobis and a nobis nobis work fine.
In the second case I might add an ipsis for clarity.
This would only clarify that the same party plays both roles and the repetition of the pronoun is no accident.
If you really want to disambiguate the two roles, something more elaborate is needed.
In general, if you end up with something ambiguity and want to disambiguate, I suggest trying to restructure the entire thought.
Maybe switching between active and passive helps.
Maybe you can turn a personal verb into an absolute ablative.
Maybe you can put the ambiguous entities in two separate sentences.
I have no general magic tool; it all depends on context.
As for your claim that in the case of a nobis nobis you would add an ipsis for clarity, I was wondering if, grammatically speaking, we would continue having morphosyntactic ambiguity since ipsis can be dative or ablative. Perhaps in these cases the better is to use another construction, an unambiguous one like a nobis ad nos ipsos and a different verb.
– Mitomino
yesterday
@Mitomino My idea was that disambiguating between the two instances of nos is pretty useless, and adding ipsis would help underline that the pronoun was not repeated by accident but because the same party plays both roles. But I agree that if disambiguation is wanted, something more elaborate is needed.
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
yesterday
Although the nominal phrase ipsis nobis is attested, I guess that the construction a nobis ipsis nobis would never be used. A nobis nobis ipsis would be used instead, I guess. But there's still something odd as well. Well, I don't know...
– Mitomino
yesterday
add a comment |
Ambiguity like this is commonplace in Latin.
For example, "we have to help you" can be nobis vobis auxiliandum est, where the two datives happily mix the two roles.
(In this specific case one of the datives can be replaced by an agent a nobis, but sometimes ambiguity is inevitable.)
Even though Latin word order is flexible, it does contain information.
Especially with ambiguities word order can suggest what is meant.
Your suggestions a nobis vobis and a nobis nobis work fine.
In the second case I might add an ipsis for clarity.
This would only clarify that the same party plays both roles and the repetition of the pronoun is no accident.
If you really want to disambiguate the two roles, something more elaborate is needed.
In general, if you end up with something ambiguity and want to disambiguate, I suggest trying to restructure the entire thought.
Maybe switching between active and passive helps.
Maybe you can turn a personal verb into an absolute ablative.
Maybe you can put the ambiguous entities in two separate sentences.
I have no general magic tool; it all depends on context.
Ambiguity like this is commonplace in Latin.
For example, "we have to help you" can be nobis vobis auxiliandum est, where the two datives happily mix the two roles.
(In this specific case one of the datives can be replaced by an agent a nobis, but sometimes ambiguity is inevitable.)
Even though Latin word order is flexible, it does contain information.
Especially with ambiguities word order can suggest what is meant.
Your suggestions a nobis vobis and a nobis nobis work fine.
In the second case I might add an ipsis for clarity.
This would only clarify that the same party plays both roles and the repetition of the pronoun is no accident.
If you really want to disambiguate the two roles, something more elaborate is needed.
In general, if you end up with something ambiguity and want to disambiguate, I suggest trying to restructure the entire thought.
Maybe switching between active and passive helps.
Maybe you can turn a personal verb into an absolute ablative.
Maybe you can put the ambiguous entities in two separate sentences.
I have no general magic tool; it all depends on context.
edited yesterday
answered yesterday
Joonas Ilmavirta♦Joonas Ilmavirta
52.2k12 gold badges74 silver badges310 bronze badges
52.2k12 gold badges74 silver badges310 bronze badges
As for your claim that in the case of a nobis nobis you would add an ipsis for clarity, I was wondering if, grammatically speaking, we would continue having morphosyntactic ambiguity since ipsis can be dative or ablative. Perhaps in these cases the better is to use another construction, an unambiguous one like a nobis ad nos ipsos and a different verb.
– Mitomino
yesterday
@Mitomino My idea was that disambiguating between the two instances of nos is pretty useless, and adding ipsis would help underline that the pronoun was not repeated by accident but because the same party plays both roles. But I agree that if disambiguation is wanted, something more elaborate is needed.
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
yesterday
Although the nominal phrase ipsis nobis is attested, I guess that the construction a nobis ipsis nobis would never be used. A nobis nobis ipsis would be used instead, I guess. But there's still something odd as well. Well, I don't know...
– Mitomino
yesterday
add a comment |
As for your claim that in the case of a nobis nobis you would add an ipsis for clarity, I was wondering if, grammatically speaking, we would continue having morphosyntactic ambiguity since ipsis can be dative or ablative. Perhaps in these cases the better is to use another construction, an unambiguous one like a nobis ad nos ipsos and a different verb.
– Mitomino
yesterday
@Mitomino My idea was that disambiguating between the two instances of nos is pretty useless, and adding ipsis would help underline that the pronoun was not repeated by accident but because the same party plays both roles. But I agree that if disambiguation is wanted, something more elaborate is needed.
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
yesterday
Although the nominal phrase ipsis nobis is attested, I guess that the construction a nobis ipsis nobis would never be used. A nobis nobis ipsis would be used instead, I guess. But there's still something odd as well. Well, I don't know...
– Mitomino
yesterday
As for your claim that in the case of a nobis nobis you would add an ipsis for clarity, I was wondering if, grammatically speaking, we would continue having morphosyntactic ambiguity since ipsis can be dative or ablative. Perhaps in these cases the better is to use another construction, an unambiguous one like a nobis ad nos ipsos and a different verb.
– Mitomino
yesterday
As for your claim that in the case of a nobis nobis you would add an ipsis for clarity, I was wondering if, grammatically speaking, we would continue having morphosyntactic ambiguity since ipsis can be dative or ablative. Perhaps in these cases the better is to use another construction, an unambiguous one like a nobis ad nos ipsos and a different verb.
– Mitomino
yesterday
@Mitomino My idea was that disambiguating between the two instances of nos is pretty useless, and adding ipsis would help underline that the pronoun was not repeated by accident but because the same party plays both roles. But I agree that if disambiguation is wanted, something more elaborate is needed.
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
yesterday
@Mitomino My idea was that disambiguating between the two instances of nos is pretty useless, and adding ipsis would help underline that the pronoun was not repeated by accident but because the same party plays both roles. But I agree that if disambiguation is wanted, something more elaborate is needed.
– Joonas Ilmavirta♦
yesterday
Although the nominal phrase ipsis nobis is attested, I guess that the construction a nobis ipsis nobis would never be used. A nobis nobis ipsis would be used instead, I guess. But there's still something odd as well. Well, I don't know...
– Mitomino
yesterday
Although the nominal phrase ipsis nobis is attested, I guess that the construction a nobis ipsis nobis would never be used. A nobis nobis ipsis would be used instead, I guess. But there's still something odd as well. Well, I don't know...
– Mitomino
yesterday
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%2f11380%2fdisambiguation-of-nobis-vobis-and-nobis-nobis%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