Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

USAGE miserere nobis (was: Possession and genitivity)

Expand Messages
  • Ray Brown
    ... Yes. I ve just checked again, but it is quite clear that in the Classical the object of pity is (almost) always genitive. In CL have pity on us is
    Message 1 of 34 , Apr 30 11:02 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      On Saturday, April 30, 2005, at 12:40 , Roger Mills wrote:

      > Ray Brown wrote:
      >> In Latin the genitive is used for the object of certain verbs (probably
      >> development of the partitive use):
      >> 1. verbs of 'filling' and 'lacking' - complere (to fill), abundare (to )
      >> ,
      >> egere (to lack), indigere (), carere ();
      >> 2. verbs of remembering, and forgetting - mimenisse (tui memini "I
      >> remember you"), oblivisci (to forget); the verb 'misereri' (to pity) also
      >> governs the genitive.
      >
      > (What about "miserere nobis"-- or is that Later (Church) Latin?)

      Yes.

      I've just checked again, but it is quite clear that in the Classical the
      'object of pity' is (almost) always genitive. In CL 'have pity on us' is
      "miserere nostri".

      It is even found _actively_ as an impersonal, i.e. _me tui miseret_ =
      (approx.) 'it moves me to pity regarding you' = 'I pity you'. But the
      passive _tui misereor' (I am moved to pity regarding you = I pity you) is
      more common.

      FWIW using the impersonal form "Have mercy on us" would be 'misereat te
      nostri'.

      The impersonal usage is never found with the object of pity in the dative
      case.

      Because of its more frequent use in the passive, it seems to have become
      regarded by many as a deponent. AFAIK the only recorded instance of its
      being use with the dative in the Classical period is in the Fabellae of C.
      Julius Hyginus where we find:
      .. cui Venus postea miserata est - .. whom Venus later pitied.

      But the 4th century grammarian Diomedes has the word governing the dative.

      > I probably knew that list 50 years ago as a schoolboy ;-)); so apparently
      > it
      > was lingering in the memory banks when I got to Kash. These verbs take
      [etc snip]

      It certainly gives Kash a natlang feel IMO :)

      Ray
      ===============================================
      http://home.freeuk.com/ray.brown
      ray.brown@...
      ===============================================
      Anything is possible in the fabulous Celtic twilight,
      which is not so much a twilight of the gods
      as of the reason." [JRRT, "English and Welsh" ]
    • Herman Miller
      ... A couple of other Minza verbs use with in this way (e.g. noni = to be related ) non -u tuök no ghul-at related-PF dog with wolf-GEN dogs are
      Message 34 of 34 , May 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Ray Brown wrote:
        > On Saturday, April 30, 2005, at 04:14 , Herman Miller wrote:

        >> sera magwá no fulgha-t zaghi-t
        >> resemble fog-ABS with soup-GEN peas-GEN
        >> "the fog resembles pea soup" (intransitive, with "fog" as subject)
        >>
        >> alternatively
        >> sera magwá-t fulgha zaghi-t
        >> resemble fog-GEN soup-ABS peas-GEN
        >> "the fog resembles pea soup" (genitive as subject)
        >
        >
        > Interesting - I think I prefer the second version. The 'with' relationship
        > seems to me a bit strained in the 1st version.

        A couple of other Minza verbs use "with" in this way (e.g. "noni" = "to
        be related")

        non -u tuök no ghul-at
        related-PF dog with wolf-GEN
        "dogs are related to wolves"

        But it seems that most Minza verbs that use "with" can be rephrased to
        use "and" ("dogs and wolves are related"). "Resemble" doesn't fit that
        pattern.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.