GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
08:30 Jan 7, 2005 |
Latin to English translations [Non-PRO] Art/Literary - Linguistics | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: María Roberto (X) | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
5 +1 | force Quintius to go out |
| ||
5 +1 | It is ablative indeed |
| ||
3 +1 | ablativus absolutus |
|
force Quintius to go out Explanation: Gamze: It is an ablativus absolutus. |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
ablativus absolutus Explanation: True, it does look like a dative; the fact that 'inquit' is not used parenthetically makes it look as the indirect object. However, if the participle is temporal - as I think it is - then we can only talk of an ablative absolute. So, basically, I think the difference is that with the a.a. the emphasis is put on the temporal relation between the action of the main verb and that of the participle - which is certainly not the case if you take 'Quinto' as a dative/object. |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
It is ablative indeed Explanation: Dear Gamze, yes, it looks like dative because it could be a dative, but it is also ablative (-o). Definitely an ablative absolute, in my humble opinion. Flavio |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.