Pinkster, Harm (1942-) [1990], Latin Syntax and Semantics [info], xii, 320 p.: ill.; 24 cm. [word count] [Pinkster].
Previous Sub2Sect

Next Sub2Sect

7.4.6 Accusativus cum Participio (praesentis)

The AcP-construction, as exemplified in (26f) and (104), occurs in Classical Latin [56] with verbs of `perception'.

(26f) idque Socratem … audio dicentem

(104) adulescentium greges Lacedaemone vidimus ipsi incredibili contentione certantes pugnis (`We have seen with our own eyes troops of youngsters in Lacedaemon fighting with inconceivable obstinacy, using fists', Cic. Tusc. 5.77) [added 12-08] Besides the AcP this group of verbs also allows the AcI (the reverse is not always the case!). The difference between the two constructions is that in the case of the AcP the aspect of `perception' is central, and with the AcI that of `cognition' and `reflection' (see Sz. 387; Bolkestein 1976b: 283–8). In practically all instances of the AcP the accusative constituent can also be interpreted as an argument with the verb of perception. In example (26f), for instance, it can be argued that Socrates is heard while he is speaking. The only instance known to me that might be considered an exception is (105): [57]

(105) at ille ut Carthaginem venit multo aliter ac sperarat rem publicam se habentem cognovit (`But when he came to Carthage, he noticed that the political situation was quite different from what he had expected', Nep. Ham. 2.1)

K.–St. (I. 704) interpret this instance as an example of an AcP. In this case, the meaning must be that he could perceive the changes with his own eyes. [58] Against this analysis it can be objected that with two-place cognoscere in this sense we do not find nouns such as res publica as Object. It might be better to

-- 132 --

regard rem publicam and se habentem as Object and Object Complement, respectively (see p. 22), since there are parallels for three-place cognoscere (`to find (to be)':

(106) firmitatem … et constantiam … eandem cognosces quam reliquisti (`You will find my firmness and constancy to be the same as when you left', Cic. Fam. 9.11.1)

Sz. treats the AcP as a subcategory of the use of the participle as Praedicativum. It is true that in many cases omission of the participle and the constituents governed by it does not result in ungrammaticality of the remainder of the sentence. [59] In example (104) above this is, of course, impossible.

K.–St. I.704 classify in this group also instances such as (107), where no perception is involved. I consider these instances as clear examples of participles in the function Praedicativum. Unlike (26f), here replacement with an infinitive construction is impossible. 59a

(107) offendi eum sedentem in exedra et cum C. Velleio senatore disputantem (`I came upon him seated in the sitting room, in a discussion with the senator C.V.', Cic. N.D. 1.15)

Previous Sub2Sect

Next Sub2Sect


Pinkster, Harm (1942-) [1990], Latin Syntax and Semantics [info], xii, 320 p.: ill.; 24 cm. [word count] [Pinkster].
Powered by PhiloLogic