ginlindzey

I have spent the better part of this weekend not grading quizzes as I should be but buidling a new set of quia.com online quizzes for reviewing and understanding Ablatives of Description, Comparison, and Respect.  During this time I'm watching friends post from the Living Latin Institute put on by Paideia in NY and feeling not only a little jealous but admittedly a bit defensive about what I've been working on.

But I'm not currently teaching via Comprehensible Input, I'm using the Cambridge Latin Course and focusing, as I have done for a long time, on reading strategies. The two are not, of course, exclusive. In fact, I am looking for ways to bring the two together in the future. And it may one day be that I will be totally CI in my approach, but for now, I'm a CLC girl.

CLC often gets complaints about not having enough grammar, but truly it's all there.  Sometimes it is discussed in the ABOUT THE LANGUAGE sections, but other times it isn't. Sometimes it is discussed in the LANGUAGE INFORMATION section in the back of the book, sometimes it isn't.  In the case of the Ablatives of Description, Comparison, and Respect, one can find very minimal information of them in the back of the book. One doesn't get a sense of how often one sees them in the text.  Certainly the students have no idea about what they are seeing. CLC would like students to discover patterns for themselves and/or to internalize new constructions after having experienced them multiple times.

However, there are times when the examples are spread out to just a few here or a few there. Sometimes explanations aren't really needed. But there does come a time when students start feeling that there are hundreds of exceptions to how to translate or understand something. And while I often feel more problems are caused by worrying about what would sound "right" in an English translation which could be avoided if we kept our focus IN the Latin, we have to understand the situation from the student's point of view.  That is, sometimes it is worth pointing out exactly what is going on grammatically, especially if we can back it up with multiple examples.  And when we start hitting ablatives that sound better translated with things other than "by" or "with" (the two standby's we learn with declining), to me that is the time to point out the new guys.

I give tests every couple of stages, for the most part, and usually pull together samples just from those stages of whatever needs targetting.  In this case, I decided we needed a closer look at Ablatives of Description, Comparison, and Respect. Combined together I was able to make two 18 question online quizzes regarding identifying the construction and translating.  (They use the same 18 sentences in each.)  While it may seem to the student and other users of these two new quia.com quizzes that I'm merely hammering home grammatical features, what I really am trying to do is to force students to read and reread these examples more times than we would have met them just in class.  In class I can count on them seeing the constructions in full context with their work groups (three people each) a couple of times, plus one more time when we go over it again all together in class.  That's maybe three times, four if I'm lucky. With the online quizzes, which I end up using to prep and preview for tests, I hope to force them to see these same sentences at least 2 more times, more if they review them again on their own time at home. I doubt more than 4 or 5 questions will actually make it to the test.  After all, Stages 36 and 37 cover present subjunctives and more on indirect statements--big ticket items. But sometimes it is frustration with the smaller items that can put off students, especially when examples are spread out and one feels you are learning something new each time it comes up.  Hence the need for repetition in context with similar items to focus and engage the students.

So here are the two new items.

1. CLC Stages 36-37: Identifying Ablatives
2. CLC Stages 36-37: Translating Ablatives

Unit Four isn't to be feared; it's to be mined for its wonderful depth of information. Join me in embracing it.

These next few entries were first published on the Cambridge Latin Course listserv. FYI

***

OK, so let’s begin with Ablative of Cause. First what the grammars I consulted say (I was drawn to all that Gildersleeve and Lodge had to say):

Ablative of Cause or Reason, Hale & Buck, p 233

444. Cause or Reason may be expressed by the ablative without a preposition.
cūrīs aeger, sick with anxiety
metū relictās urbīs, cities abandoned because of fear
meā restitūtiōne laetātus est, rejoiced in my return
a.       The construction is especially frequent with verbs and adjectives of taking pleasure, rejoicing, boasting, or the opposite.
b.The prepositions dē, ex, and in are occasionally used with one or another of these words. Thus ex vulnere aeger, sick from a wound; ex commūtātiōne rērum doleant, suffer from a change of fortune; ut in hōc sit laetātus, quod…, so that he took pleasure in the fact that…
c.       Cause may also be expressed by ob, per, or propter with accusatives. Thus ob eās rēs, on account of these achievements.
d.      causā and grātiā, common with the genitive, were themselves originally ablatives of cause.

Ablative of Cause, Gildersleeve and Lodge, p 263

408. The ablative of cause is used without a preposition, chiefly with verbs of emotion.
in culpā sunt quī officia dēserunt mollitiā animī, they are to blame who shirk their duties from effeminacy of temper; ōdērunt peccāre bonī virtūtis amōre, the good hate to sin from love of virtue; dēlictō dolēre, corrēctiōne gaudēre (oportet), one ought to be sorry for sin, to be glad of chastisement; nōn dīcī potest quam flagrem dēsideriō urbis, I burn (am afire) beyond expression with longing for Rome.
Notes:
1.      A number of combinations become phraseological, as the verbals: arbitrātū, hortātū, impulsū, iūssū, missū, rogātū, etc; also cōnsiliō, auctōritāte, with a gen. or possessive pronoun: iūssū cīvium, at the bidding of the citizens; meō rogātū, at my request.
2.      The moving cause is often expressed by a participle with an ablative, which usually precedes: adductus, led; ārdēns, fired; commōtus, stirred up; incitātus, egged on; incēnsus, inflamed; impulsus, driven on; mōtus, moved, and many others; amōre, by love; īrā, by anger; odiō, by hate; metū, by fear; spē, by hope, etc. Metū perterritus, sore frightened; verēcundiā dēterritus, abashed, etc.
3.      Instead of the simple ablative, the prepositions dē and ex (sometimes in), with the abl., ob and propter with the acc. are often used; perhaps occasionally ab.
4.      The preventing cause is expressed by prae, for: prae gaudiō ubi sim nescio, I know not where I am for joy.
5.      On causā and grātiā with the gen., see…
6.      The use of the abl for the external cause, as rēgāle genus nōn tam rēgnī quam rēgis vitiīs repudiātum est, the kingly form of government was rejected no so much by reason of the faults of the kingly form, as by reason of the faults of the king. is not common in the early and in the classical period, except in certain formulae; but it becomes very common later.
7.      The ablative of cause may have its origin in the instrumental ablative, in the ablative of source, or in the comitative ablative.

Ablative of Cause. Bennett’s New Latin Grammar
219. The ablative is used to denote cause; as—
multa glōriae cupiditāte fēcit, he did many things on account of his love of glory
1.      So especially with verbs denoting mental states; as, dēlector, gaudeō, laetor, glōrior, fīdō, cōnfīdō. Also with contentus, as—
fortūnā amīcī gaudeō, I rejoice at the fortune of my friend (i.e. on account of it)
victōriā suā glōriantur, they exult over their victory;
nātūrā locī cōnfīdēbant, they trusted in the character of their country
a.       fīdō and cōnfīdō always take the dative of the person; sometimes the dative of the thing.
2.      As ablatives of cause are to be reckoned also such Ablatives as iussū, by order of, iniussū, without the order, rogātū, etc.


There is nothing about the Ablative of Cause in the language information section of CLC Unit 4.  If what Gildersleeve and Lodge says in #7 is correct, CLC is just letting much of what is Abl of Cause slip under Abl of Means. But I think that is too simple.  For Ablative of Means they simply have (p 323) “The ablative of means answers the question, “by what means?”:

Salvius pūgiōne vulnerātus est. Salvius was wounded by a dagger.

And this is fine and simple, but your average student may not come up with “from” when needed in some circumstances when “by or with” is all that’s generally taught for Means. But I think leaving it simple has made me sloppy and left some students frustrated with the slipperiness of ablatives.

I just remembered A Student’s Latin Grammar put out by Cambridge.  On page 56 it has this:
6a like “by” or “with” in English, indicating the method or instrument by which something is done:*
clāmōribus excitātus, awakened by the shouts
hastīs armātī, armed with spears
* The preposition ā/ab is used with the ablative to indicate a person by whom something is done:
ab amīcīs excitātus, awakened by friends
ā duce armātī, armed by the leader
If the action is done by an animal, ā/ab may be either included or left out:
(ā) cane excitātus, awakened by the dog

6c like English “from,” indicating the origin of someone or something:
            clārā gente nātus, born from a famous family

Ablative of Cause is not mentioned at all.  The simplicity of 6c having “from” indicate the origin (which seems more specific in the first three grammars, but Abl of Source can be another thread for another time), does harken back to what Gildersleeve and Lodge say in #7 about the Ablative of Cause having its origin in Abl of Instrument (Means) and Source.  (I honestly don’t understand it also being from Comitative, but that’s ok.)

Here’s why I want to teach an Ablative of Cause: it gives me an understanding of why “by” or “with” doesn’t sound right but “from” does at times, and it does not force my mind into mental gymnastics to see everything as a means or instrument.  That’s not to say that I can’t see it as both means and cause sometimes. But if we look at G&L’s explanation that “The ablative of cause is used without a preposition, chiefly with verbs of emotion,” and tell students that “from” will often sound better with ablatives used like this, it might aide in speed or quality of comprehension.

I am sure this list is not complete because the more I thought about this and read and reread the grammars above, the more I started seeing Ablative of Cause all over the place.  So, admittedly, maybe I’m going overboard. But this will toss a lot of the examples altogether for you to see and ponder yourselves.

28        Belimicus, spē praemiī adductus, mīlitēs Rōmānōs adiuvābat et incitābat.

28        Belimicus, metū mortis pallidus, surrēxit.
28        Belimicus venēnō excruciātus, pugiōnem tamen in Salvium coniēcit, spē ultiōnis adductus.
29        duae enim captīvae, magnō dolōre affectae, in carcere cantābant:…
30        Salvius ipse summō gaudiō affectus est quod Imperātor arcum Hateriī valdē laudāverat.
30        Haterius, īrā commōtus, sōlus domī manēbat.
30        cūr tanTā īrā afficeris, mī Haterī?
30        deinde Salvium admīrātiōne affectum rogā dē sacerdōtiō.
30        Salvius pavōre paene cōnfectus clausīs oculīs ad sēdem haerēbat.
30        ubi tandem oculōs aperuit, spectāculō attonitus, “dī immortālēs!” inquit.
30        Imperātor, simulatque illum arcum vīdit, summā admīrātiōne affectus est.
30        summō gaudiō afficior quod opus meum ab Imperātōre laudātum est.
30        itaque ambō humum rediērunt, alter spē immortālitātis ēlātus, alter praesentī pecūniā contentus.
30        itaque ambō humum rediērunt, alter spē immortālitātis ēlātus, alter praesentī pecūniā contentus.
31        cēterī autem, oculīs in vultum praecōnis dēfīxīs, spē favōris manēbant.
31        aliī spē pecūniae dēiectī invītī discessērunt.
32        iussū meō hūc vēnit Athēnīs, ubi habitant philosophī nōtissimī.
32        etiam eī quī spē favōris cēnās magistrātibus dant, rē vērā labōrant.
34        quae [Domitia] metū āmēns vītaeque suae neglegēns in hortum reversa est.
35        gaudiō enim afficiēbar, quod tam diū epistulam ā tē exspectābam; dolēbam autem, quod tū tot labōribus opprimēbāris.
35        ego quoque, cum Rōmae essem, saepe negōtiīs vexābar; nunc tamen vītā rūsticā fruor.
36        Martiālis, interpellātiōne valdē īrātus, dē scaenā dēscendit ut auditōrem vituperet.
36        ūnus audītor tamen, M’ Acīlius Glabriō, tālī adulātiōne offēnsus, nōn modo plausū abstinet sed ē sellā surgit ut ex auditōriō ēgrediātur.
36        quā audāciā attonitus, Martiālis paulīsper immōtus stat; deinde ad extrēmam scaenam prōcēdit ut plausū fruātur.
36        dīcis amōre tuī bellās ardēre puellās, / quī faciem sub aquā, Sexte, natantis habēs.
36        centum mē tetigēre manūs Aquilōne gelātae:…
37        ibi mīlitēs nostrī, spē glōriae adductī, victōriam nōmine tuō dignam rettulērunt.
37        ille tamen victōriā nimis ēlātus est.
37        tum M’. Acīlius Glabriō, hāc sententiā incēnsus, “Cornēlī Fusce,” inquit, “tū sine causā Agricolam culpās.”
37        cēterī, audāciā Glabirōnis obstupefactī, oculōs in Imperātōrem dēfīxōs tenēbant nec quicquam dīcere audēbant.
37        …omnēs scīmus Galbam cupīdine imperiī correptum esse…
38        Clēmēns semper cum Imperātōre cōnsentīre solet; verētur enim nē idem sibi accidat ac frātrī Sabīnō, quī iussū Imperātōris occīsus est.
38        grātiās maximās tibi agō, domine, quod meīs fīliīs ascīscendīs mē tantō honōre afficis.
38        (gaudiō et pavōre commōta) Helvidī quō modō hūc vēnistī?
38        (īrā et amōre incēnsus) ēn haec fidēs!
38        (dolōre paene cōnfecta) audī, mī Helvidī!
39        (fābulam nārrāns) deinde Iuppiter, rēx deōrum, sceleribus hominum valdē offēnsus.
39        puerī, timōre commōtī, extrā tablīnum haesitant.
39        bonā causā perturbāmur.
39        sed tanta erat Iovis īra ut imbribus caelī contentus nōn esset. (see #1 Bennett)
39        avēs, postquam terram diū quaerēbant ubi cōnsistere possent, tandem in mare fessīs ālīs dēcidērunt.
39        Domitiānus, audāciā Titī obstupefactus, nihil dīcit.
39        sed timuit, nē forte sacer tot ab ignibus aethēr conciperet flammās, longusque ardēsceret axis. (see #3 G&L for use of ab)
39        …madidīs Notus ēvolat ālīs; barba gravis nimbīs, cānīs fluit unda capillīs.
39        nec caelō contenta suō est Iovis īra, sed illum caeruleus frāter iuvat auxiliāribus undīs. (see #1 Bennett)
39        ipse tridente suō terram percussit, at illa / intremuit mōtūque viās patefēcit aquārum.
39        in mare lassātīs volucris vaga dēcidit ālīs.
40        quā rē imprōvīsā perturbātus, amīcōs statim cōnsuliut utrum accūsātiōnem sperneret an dēfēnsiōnem susciperet.
40        invidia Salviī aucta est suspīciōne Cogidubnum venēnō necātum esse.
40        omnibus autem abnuentibus, domum rediit, spē omnī dēiectus.
40        Salvius, iam metū cōnfectus, ad cūriam lectīcā vectus est; fīliō comitante, manibus extentīs, Domitiānō lentē ac suppliciter appropinquāvit.
40        …eum Vespasiānī patris amīcum fuisse, adiūtōremque Agricolae ā sē missum esse Britanniae administrandae causā.
40        “opprimor, domine, inimīcōrum coniūrātiōne mendācibusque testibus, nec mihi licet innocentiam meam probāre.
40        Q. Haterius Latrōniānus, quī favōrem Salviī flōrentis semper quaerēbat, eum rēbus adversīs oppressum nōn dēseruit, sed in exilium comitātus est.
40        plūrimī autem exīstimābant Glabriōnem rē vērā Domitiānum hāc accūsātiōne graviter offendisse.


I like to think of whether there’s a “test” that can work.  For instance, for Sparsus Pōllam brachiīs tollit ut eam trāns līmen portet you can say “Sparsus raises Polla with his arms” or “by means of his arms” but not “from his arms.”  But you could translate Glabriō, hāc sententiā incēnsus as “Glabrio, inflamed by this opinion” or “Glabrio, inflamed from this opinion.” Or consider avēs…tandem in mare fēssīs ālīs dēcidērunt translates much better as “the birds finally fell into the sea from tired wings” or even preferably “because of tired wings” rather than “by means of tired wings” or “with tired wings.” (39)  I haven’t gone through and tried it with all of these so I have no idea whether this “test” really holds up.  Of course, there are times when even Means sounds better translated as “in” such as Domitia lectīcā vecta, “Domitia, carried in a sedan chair,” (34) which harkens back to aliī per forum in lectīcīs feruntur, “others are being carried in sedan chairs through the forum” (29).

I used to tell my students that sometimes Latin really doesn’t sound great translated into English, and that that was ok as long as you totally understood it in the Latin and could see what was going on in the Latin. After all, I am all about reading Latin in word order and understanding Latin as it comes with all of its wonderful phrasing. I would love to just stay in Latin to comprehend the Latin. But perhaps sometimes the problem is that I’ve been sloppy with my understanding and teaching of ablatives.

It’s not about using grammar to be prescriptive; it’s about using grammar to understand the nuances, especially with a case like the Ablative which has so many uses. Consider the confusion ablatives can cause in real Latin.  In stage 39 we have Ovid’s flood.  If I’m understanding this sentence (part of a sentence) correctly, there are three different types of ablatives here and none have prepositions for guidance:

…madidīs Notus ēvolat ālīs; barba gravis nimbīs, cānīs fluit unda capillīs.
Notus flies out by means of his soaked wings / on soaked wings (abl of means)
his beard heavy with rain clouds/from rain clouds (abl of cause)
a wave flows from his white hair (abl place where, no prep in poetry)

This can be a lot for a student to comprehend if his or her understanding of the ablative is muddled. But consider, if I have correctly identified all of the above sentences from CLC as Ablative of Cause and thus have all of those many, many examples to show students, then perhaps they will begin to pick up on more of the nuances of the Ablative, instead of resorting to “by or with, or something that sounds right” (or worse, whatever they can find in a translation on Google).

Ok, I’ll stop there.  It’s a lot to digest, not to mention hardly proofread.  My apologies for the length … then again, this may be really useful for people (and I did include long marks, which I hope will display correctly).