The Gerundive and Impersonal Constructions

[rolleston]

Literarum Lectioni facilius quam hactenus addiscendae,

is this the same as 'ad addiscendum Lectionem' (Gerund) ?
It's about the same and actually the more common locution with most
verbs. A classical writer wouldn't use it though because a gerundive
is passive and "discere" doesn't have any personal passive forms.

No personal passive forms? I remember a sentece "loqui loquendo discitur",
where "discere" is used in a personal passive form.

(Let's overlook for a moment the fact that "disco" is not the same
as "addisco", although it may be used similarly.)

This is not a very good example because there are impersonal
constructions in which the verb may take a subject*,
e.g., necesse est mori. The presence of a subject does not make
a particular use of the verb personal. Examples:

accidit ut esset luna plena
reliquum est ut officiis certemus inter nos
sequitur ut doceam

In each case "ut ..." is the "apparent subject".

Here is a better example demonstrating that "discere"
does have personal passive forms:

[Lewis, http://tinyurl.com/3xjfv]

quae (artes) non sine otio discuntur

The plural of a verb does not occur in impersonal constructions.

Refute if wrong.

Quae cum ita sint, I agree with what you say above and that's why I
issued a retraction. "Discere" is transitive but it doesn't have any
personal passive forms. So it's a necessary but not sufficient
condition for a verb to have personal passive forms that it be
transitive.

I agree now.

This is not scrictly correct. As shown above, "discere" does have
personal passive forms. Indeed, (nearly) all transitive verbs that
are not defective will have personal passive forms. That's a bold
statement; let's see if anyone can come up with counterexamples.

Conversely, nearly all intransitive verbs will, in the passive, admit
only impersonal constructions. The exceptions are: utor, fruor, fungor,
potior, vescor and their compounds. They may be used with the
gerundive personally:

Heraclio omnia utenda ac possidenda tradiderat

passive forms". It is illogical, because a gerundive is not a personal
passive form, so the fact that "discere" have or have not passive personal
forms is not a reason for using or not its gerundive.

Again, not strictly correct. If "discere" has personal passive forms,
that is a good reason for using its gerundive personally, i.e., in a
personal construction. This is because verbs that have personal passive
forms are usually transitive, and for those verbs the passive personal
use of their gerundives is admissible.

I have made some strong claims here; I hope you will criticize them
if they are wrong. I'm trying to make some sense of this myself.

R.

*

No personal passive forms? I remember a sentece "loqui loquendo
discitur", where "discere" is used in a personal passive form.

But in this sentence, "discitur" is in fact impersonal. If not, what
is its subject, expressed or implied?

Evidently, the subject, expressed, is "loqui".

[Edward Casey]

Post by rolleston

Literarum Lectioni facilius quam hactenus addiscendae,

is this the same as 'ad addiscendum Lectionem' (Gerund) ?
It's about the same and actually the more common locution with most
verbs. A classical writer wouldn't use it though because a gerundive
is passive and "discere" doesn't have any personal passive forms.

No personal passive forms? I remember a sentece "loqui loquendo discitur",
where "discere" is used in a personal passive form.

This doesn't sound personal to me but maybe I limit the word personal to
persons. Does this mean '"loqui" ("talking," subject, nominative case of
gerund) by talking is learned' or 'It is learned to speak by speaking'? I
think the latter, but maybe it's just a matter of interpretation. You
could say, citing the canonical case, "It rains" means that the rain rains
(itself?!) as in:

"Westron wind, when wilt thou blow,
The small rain down can rain?
Christ, if my love were in my arms
And I in my bed again!"

or the sky or the day or the weather or the air rains or God rains. Anyway
it's long thought to be purely impersonal as in:

***I thought you did,' said the Mouse. `--I proceed. "Edwin and Morcar,
the earls of Mercia and Northumbria, declared for him: and even Stigand,
the patriotic archbishop of Canterbury, found it advisable--"'

`Found what?' said the Duck.

`Found it,' the Mouse replied rather crossly: `of course you know what
"it" means.'

`I know what "it" means well enough, when I find a thing,' said the Duck:
`it's generally a frog or a worm. The question is, what did the archbishop
find?' ***

from the caucus race in "Alice and Wonderland."

Post by rolleston
(Let's overlook for a moment the fact that "disco" is not the same
as "addisco", although it may be used similarly.)
This is not a very good example because there are impersonal
constructions in which the verb may take a subject*,
e.g., necesse est mori. The presence of a subject does not make
accidit ut esset luna plena
reliquum est ut officiis certemus inter nos
sequitur ut doceam
In each case "ut ..." is the "apparent subject".

If you want to interpret the result clause as the subject, i.e. the fact
that the moon was full happened, that state of affairs happened, came
about. Most would say "It happened (impersonally, nobody's fault) that the
moon was full."

Post by rolleston
Here is a better example demonstrating that "discere"
[Lewis, http://tinyurl.com/3xjfv]
quae (artes) non sine otio discuntur

But are arts persons? If so, then why can't I say "discor" (by somebody) ?

Post by rolleston
The plural of a verb does not occur in impersonal constructions.
Refute if wrong.

Quae cum ita sint, I agree with what you say above and that's why I
issued a retraction. "Discere" is transitive but it doesn't have any
personal passive forms. So it's a necessary but not sufficient
condition for a verb to have personal passive forms that it be
transitive.

I agree now.

This is not scrictly correct. As shown above, "discere" does have
personal passive forms. Indeed, (nearly) all transitive verbs that
are not defective will have personal passive forms. That's a bold
statement; let's see if anyone can come up with counterexamples.

Semantics will also have an influence here as shown by your example of
discendi. "Hic multum discitur" (a lot of learning is going on here) is
clearly impersonal. Since we can say "Artes discuntur," we can also say
"Hic multa discuntur" (Here many things are being learned). But all of
these are strictly impersonal. "I" is confessional, "you" is accusatory,
but "he" is merely gossip.

Post by rolleston
Conversely, nearly all intransitive verbs will, in the passive, admit
only impersonal constructions. The exceptions are: utor, fruor, fungor,
potior, vescor and their compounds. They may be used with the
Heraclio omnia utenda ac possidenda tradiderat

passive forms". It is illogical, because a gerundive is not a personal
passive form, so the fact that "discere" have or have not passive personal
forms is not a reason for using or not its gerundive.

Again, not strictly correct. If "discere" has personal passive forms,
that is a good reason for using its gerundive personally, i.e., in a
personal construction. This is because verbs that have personal passive
forms are usually transitive, and for those verbs the passive personal
use of their gerundives is admissible.

Give examples.

Post by rolleston
I have made some strong claims here; I hope you will criticize them
if they are wrong. I'm trying to make some sense of this myself.
R.

[rolleston]

I've just been thinking this over again. It's all
incredibly doubtful. My most serious doubts concern
the presence of an implied or apparent subject.

I would like to think that there is a single
defining feature all impersonal constructions
have in common. Perhaps there is no such feature.

R.