ON DEVIANT CASE-MARKING IN LATIN^319b. Si pudoris egeas.
if modesty(G) (you)should-lack
"If you should lack modesty..." Plaut. Am. 819
(11) a. Me cum privares tui.
() when (you)deprived yourself(G)
"When you deprived me of yourself..." Afran., ap. Non.
498,17
b. Quibus purgantis civitatem omnis facti dictique
WIIO(AB) purging(Aß) state(A) every(G) deed(G) word(G)
hostilis (G) adversus Romanos (A).
and hostile(G) against Romans(A)
"Who when purging the state of every deed and hostile word
lodged against the Romans..." Liv. 37, 28
Picus... quern carmine Circe exutum
PÍCUS(N) whom(A) magic(Aß) () deprived(A)
formae...iussit.
form(G) ordered
"Picus whom Circe ordained by magic deprived of human
form..." Sil. 8,144The fact that the same case-marking pattern (ablative or genitive theme)
should be used to express the opposing notions of abundance and lack (and
their respective causative counterparts, transfer and removal) is rather
puzzling. To explain this apparent anomaly, Latinists like Mountford have
asserted that the ablative occurring with abundance and transfer verbs is
instrumental, whereas that appearing with verbs of lacking and removal is
one of separation. No motivation has been suggested for the analogous
genitive pattern, however.
We might now examine these instances in which stative and causative
verbs of both abundance and lack take ablative objects. Stative predicates
denoting abundance license an ablative object. Examples are given in (12).
(12) a. Flumen abundat piscibus.
river(N) abounds fish(Aß)
"The river abounds with fish."
b. Quae [crux] etiam nunc civis Romani
which [cross] even now citizen(G) Roman(G)