How is the subject of the verb identified in this verse of the Vulgata?
In 2 Kings 4:4 we read:
Erat autem Jonathae filio Saul filius debilis pedibus : quinquennis enim fuit, quando venit nuntius de Saul et Jonatha ex Jezrahel. Tollens itaque eum nutrix sua, fugit : cumque festinaret ut fugeret, cecidit, et claudus effectus est : habuitque vocabulum Miphiboseth.
The English translation has:
And Jonathan the son of Saul had a son that was lame of his feet: for he was five years old when the tidings came of Saul and Jonathan from Jezrahel. And his nurse took him up and fled: and as she made haste to flee, he fell and became lame: and his name was Miphiboseth.
I highlighted the part that confuses me. It is unclear to me how we are to know that the individual who "fell and became lame" is the son of Jonathan and not his nurse. Both are third person singular so it could well be that cecidit, et claudus effectus est applies to the nurse. Is this identification purely based on context? Or am I missing a linguistical clue somewhere else in the verse helping out in the identification of the subject to which the verbs apply?
verbs subject
asked Jan 1 at 23:32
luchonacholuchonacho
4,46231050
add a comment |
In 2 Kings 4:4 we read:
Erat autem Jonathae filio Saul filius debilis pedibus : quinquennis enim fuit, quando venit nuntius de Saul et Jonatha ex Jezrahel. Tollens itaque eum nutrix sua, fugit : cumque festinaret ut fugeret, cecidit, et claudus effectus est : habuitque vocabulum Miphiboseth.
The English translation has:
And Jonathan the son of Saul had a son that was lame of his feet: for he was five years old when the tidings came of Saul and Jonathan from Jezrahel. And his nurse took him up and fled: and as she made haste to flee, he fell and became lame: and his name was Miphiboseth.
I highlighted the part that confuses me. It is unclear to me how we are to know that the individual who "fell and became lame" is the son of Jonathan and not his nurse. Both are third person singular so it could well be that cecidit, et claudus effectus est applies to the nurse. Is this identification purely based on context? Or am I missing a linguistical clue somewhere else in the verse helping out in the identification of the subject to which the verbs apply?
verbs subject
asked Jan 1 at 23:32
luchonacholuchonacho
4,46231050
2
Translation could be "and when she (Nutrix) hurried so as to escape, she fell; and he became lame: and his name was M." But it must be "he became lame," as TKR says.
– Hugh
Jan 2 at 0:12
add a comment |
In 2 Kings 4:4 we read:
Erat autem Jonathae filio Saul filius debilis pedibus : quinquennis enim fuit, quando venit nuntius de Saul et Jonatha ex Jezrahel. Tollens itaque eum nutrix sua, fugit : cumque festinaret ut fugeret, cecidit, et claudus effectus est : habuitque vocabulum Miphiboseth.
The English translation has:
And Jonathan the son of Saul had a son that was lame of his feet: for he was five years old when the tidings came of Saul and Jonathan from Jezrahel. And his nurse took him up and fled: and as she made haste to flee, he fell and became lame: and his name was Miphiboseth.
I highlighted the part that confuses me. It is unclear to me how we are to know that the individual who "fell and became lame" is the son of Jonathan and not his nurse. Both are third person singular so it could well be that cecidit, et claudus effectus est applies to the nurse. Is this identification purely based on context? Or am I missing a linguistical clue somewhere else in the verse helping out in the identification of the subject to which the verbs apply?
verbs subject
asked Jan 1 at 23:32
luchonacholuchonacho
4,46231050
In 2 Kings 4:4 we read:
Erat autem Jonathae filio Saul filius debilis pedibus : quinquennis enim fuit, quando venit nuntius de Saul et Jonatha ex Jezrahel. Tollens itaque eum nutrix sua, fugit : cumque festinaret ut fugeret, cecidit, et claudus effectus est : habuitque vocabulum Miphiboseth.
The English translation has:
And Jonathan the son of Saul had a son that was lame of his feet: for he was five years old when the tidings came of Saul and Jonathan from Jezrahel. And his nurse took him up and fled: and as she made haste to flee, he fell and became lame: and his name was Miphiboseth.
I highlighted the part that confuses me. It is unclear to me how we are to know that the individual who "fell and became lame" is the son of Jonathan and not his nurse. Both are third person singular so it could well be that cecidit, et claudus effectus est applies to the nurse. Is this identification purely based on context? Or am I missing a linguistical clue somewhere else in the verse helping out in the identification of the subject to which the verbs apply?
verbs subject
verbs subject
asked Jan 1 at 23:32
luchonacholuchonacho
4,46231050
asked Jan 1 at 23:32
luchonacholuchonacho
4,46231050
asked Jan 1 at 23:32
luchonacholuchonacho
4,46231050
asked Jan 1 at 23:32
luchonacholuchonacho
4,46231050
asked Jan 1 at 23:32
luchonacholuchonacho
4,46231050
4,46231050
2
Translation could be "and when she (Nutrix) hurried so as to escape, she fell; and he became lame: and his name was M." But it must be "he became lame," as TKR says.
– Hugh
Jan 2 at 0:12
add a comment |
2
Translation could be "and when she (Nutrix) hurried so as to escape, she fell; and he became lame: and his name was M." But it must be "he became lame," as TKR says.
– Hugh
Jan 2 at 0:12
2
2
Translation could be "and when she (Nutrix) hurried so as to escape, she fell; and he became lame: and his name was M." But it must be "he became lame," as TKR says.
– Hugh
Jan 2 at 0:12
Translation could be "and when she (Nutrix) hurried so as to escape, she fell; and he became lame: and his name was M." But it must be "he became lame," as TKR says.
– Hugh
Jan 2 at 0:12
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Claudus effectus est is masculine, so it can't be the nurse. And the previous sentence stated that it was the son, not the nurse, who was lame.
ETA: as Hugh and Cerberus point out, this doesn't apply to cecidit, which could refer to either one: "she fell [and dropped the child] and he was made lame", or "he fell [out of the nurse's arms] and was made lame". The latter seems more likely to me, but the grammar is ambiguous.
answered Jan 1 at 23:46
TKRTKR
13.7k2756
Even so, do we know who it was that fell, the nurse or the boy? Contextually, it could be either or both. Perhaps she fell and crushed him as she was holding him. Or he fell from her hands as she was hurrying. Or they both fell together, if she dropped him out of a reflex as she was falling.
– Cerberus♦
Jan 2 at 2:31
@Cerberus Good point, I've added an edit. (I don't think it can be both though or we'd have a plural verb.)
– TKR
Jan 2 at 2:40
Yes, or it would be...what is that figure of speech or syntactic construction called again? I think there was a Greek name, although perhaps I am thinking of something different.
– Cerberus♦
Jan 2 at 2:59
Thanks! I see I missed the claudus being masculine. You are right that the previous sentence indicates the boy was lame, but it's odd to describe him becoming lame after such sentence (well, it's the Vulgata; there are plenty of these oddities around). So, cecidit is subject-ambiguous. Interesting.
– luchonacho
Jan 2 at 14:26
add a comment |
As others have remarked, Latin cecidit could in theory refer either to the nurse or the child. But in the original Hebrew the corresponding וַיִּפֹּל is unambiguously masculine (verbs have gender in Semitic languages).
PS. The "2 Regum" of the Vulgate is "2 Sam." in the MT and KJV.
answered Jan 2 at 18:44
fdbfdb
10.6k11127
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "644"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8807%2fhow-is-the-subject-of-the-verb-identified-in-this-verse-of-the-vulgata%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Claudus effectus est is masculine, so it can't be the nurse. And the previous sentence stated that it was the son, not the nurse, who was lame.
ETA: as Hugh and Cerberus point out, this doesn't apply to cecidit, which could refer to either one: "she fell [and dropped the child] and he was made lame", or "he fell [out of the nurse's arms] and was made lame". The latter seems more likely to me, but the grammar is ambiguous.
answered Jan 1 at 23:46
TKRTKR
13.7k2756
Even so, do we know who it was that fell, the nurse or the boy? Contextually, it could be either or both. Perhaps she fell and crushed him as she was holding him. Or he fell from her hands as she was hurrying. Or they both fell together, if she dropped him out of a reflex as she was falling.
– Cerberus♦
Jan 2 at 2:31
@Cerberus Good point, I've added an edit. (I don't think it can be both though or we'd have a plural verb.)
– TKR
Jan 2 at 2:40
Yes, or it would be...what is that figure of speech or syntactic construction called again? I think there was a Greek name, although perhaps I am thinking of something different.
– Cerberus♦
Jan 2 at 2:59
Thanks! I see I missed the claudus being masculine. You are right that the previous sentence indicates the boy was lame, but it's odd to describe him becoming lame after such sentence (well, it's the Vulgata; there are plenty of these oddities around). So, cecidit is subject-ambiguous. Interesting.
– luchonacho
Jan 2 at 14:26
add a comment |
Claudus effectus est is masculine, so it can't be the nurse. And the previous sentence stated that it was the son, not the nurse, who was lame.
ETA: as Hugh and Cerberus point out, this doesn't apply to cecidit, which could refer to either one: "she fell [and dropped the child] and he was made lame", or "he fell [out of the nurse's arms] and was made lame". The latter seems more likely to me, but the grammar is ambiguous.
answered Jan 1 at 23:46
TKRTKR
13.7k2756
Even so, do we know who it was that fell, the nurse or the boy? Contextually, it could be either or both. Perhaps she fell and crushed him as she was holding him. Or he fell from her hands as she was hurrying. Or they both fell together, if she dropped him out of a reflex as she was falling.
– Cerberus♦
Jan 2 at 2:31
@Cerberus Good point, I've added an edit. (I don't think it can be both though or we'd have a plural verb.)
– TKR
Jan 2 at 2:40
Yes, or it would be...what is that figure of speech or syntactic construction called again? I think there was a Greek name, although perhaps I am thinking of something different.
– Cerberus♦
Jan 2 at 2:59
Thanks! I see I missed the claudus being masculine. You are right that the previous sentence indicates the boy was lame, but it's odd to describe him becoming lame after such sentence (well, it's the Vulgata; there are plenty of these oddities around). So, cecidit is subject-ambiguous. Interesting.
– luchonacho
Jan 2 at 14:26
add a comment |
Claudus effectus est is masculine, so it can't be the nurse. And the previous sentence stated that it was the son, not the nurse, who was lame.
ETA: as Hugh and Cerberus point out, this doesn't apply to cecidit, which could refer to either one: "she fell [and dropped the child] and he was made lame", or "he fell [out of the nurse's arms] and was made lame". The latter seems more likely to me, but the grammar is ambiguous.
answered Jan 1 at 23:46
TKRTKR
13.7k2756
Claudus effectus est is masculine, so it can't be the nurse. And the previous sentence stated that it was the son, not the nurse, who was lame.
ETA: as Hugh and Cerberus point out, this doesn't apply to cecidit, which could refer to either one: "she fell [and dropped the child] and he was made lame", or "he fell [out of the nurse's arms] and was made lame". The latter seems more likely to me, but the grammar is ambiguous.
answered Jan 1 at 23:46
TKRTKR
13.7k2756
edited Jan 2 at 2:39
answered Jan 1 at 23:46
TKRTKR
13.7k2756
answered Jan 1 at 23:46
TKRTKR
13.7k2756
answered Jan 1 at 23:46
TKRTKR
13.7k2756
13.7k2756
Even so, do we know who it was that fell, the nurse or the boy? Contextually, it could be either or both. Perhaps she fell and crushed him as she was holding him. Or he fell from her hands as she was hurrying. Or they both fell together, if she dropped him out of a reflex as she was falling.
– Cerberus♦
Jan 2 at 2:31
@Cerberus Good point, I've added an edit. (I don't think it can be both though or we'd have a plural verb.)
– TKR
Jan 2 at 2:40
Yes, or it would be...what is that figure of speech or syntactic construction called again? I think there was a Greek name, although perhaps I am thinking of something different.
– Cerberus♦
Jan 2 at 2:59
Thanks! I see I missed the claudus being masculine. You are right that the previous sentence indicates the boy was lame, but it's odd to describe him becoming lame after such sentence (well, it's the Vulgata; there are plenty of these oddities around). So, cecidit is subject-ambiguous. Interesting.
– luchonacho
Jan 2 at 14:26
add a comment |
Even so, do we know who it was that fell, the nurse or the boy? Contextually, it could be either or both. Perhaps she fell and crushed him as she was holding him. Or he fell from her hands as she was hurrying. Or they both fell together, if she dropped him out of a reflex as she was falling.
– Cerberus♦
Jan 2 at 2:31
@Cerberus Good point, I've added an edit. (I don't think it can be both though or we'd have a plural verb.)
– TKR
Jan 2 at 2:40
Yes, or it would be...what is that figure of speech or syntactic construction called again? I think there was a Greek name, although perhaps I am thinking of something different.
– Cerberus♦
Jan 2 at 2:59
Thanks! I see I missed the claudus being masculine. You are right that the previous sentence indicates the boy was lame, but it's odd to describe him becoming lame after such sentence (well, it's the Vulgata; there are plenty of these oddities around). So, cecidit is subject-ambiguous. Interesting.
– luchonacho
Jan 2 at 14:26
Even so, do we know who it was that fell, the nurse or the boy? Contextually, it could be either or both. Perhaps she fell and crushed him as she was holding him. Or he fell from her hands as she was hurrying. Or they both fell together, if she dropped him out of a reflex as she was falling.
– Cerberus♦
Jan 2 at 2:31
Even so, do we know who it was that fell, the nurse or the boy? Contextually, it could be either or both. Perhaps she fell and crushed him as she was holding him. Or he fell from her hands as she was hurrying. Or they both fell together, if she dropped him out of a reflex as she was falling.
– Cerberus♦
Jan 2 at 2:31
@Cerberus Good point, I've added an edit. (I don't think it can be both though or we'd have a plural verb.)
– TKR
Jan 2 at 2:40
@Cerberus Good point, I've added an edit. (I don't think it can be both though or we'd have a plural verb.)
– TKR
Jan 2 at 2:40
Yes, or it would be...what is that figure of speech or syntactic construction called again? I think there was a Greek name, although perhaps I am thinking of something different.
– Cerberus♦
Jan 2 at 2:59
Yes, or it would be...what is that figure of speech or syntactic construction called again? I think there was a Greek name, although perhaps I am thinking of something different.
– Cerberus♦
Jan 2 at 2:59
Thanks! I see I missed the claudus being masculine. You are right that the previous sentence indicates the boy was lame, but it's odd to describe him becoming lame after such sentence (well, it's the Vulgata; there are plenty of these oddities around). So, cecidit is subject-ambiguous. Interesting.
– luchonacho
Jan 2 at 14:26
Thanks! I see I missed the claudus being masculine. You are right that the previous sentence indicates the boy was lame, but it's odd to describe him becoming lame after such sentence (well, it's the Vulgata; there are plenty of these oddities around). So, cecidit is subject-ambiguous. Interesting.
– luchonacho
Jan 2 at 14:26
add a comment |
As others have remarked, Latin cecidit could in theory refer either to the nurse or the child. But in the original Hebrew the corresponding וַיִּפֹּל is unambiguously masculine (verbs have gender in Semitic languages).
PS. The "2 Regum" of the Vulgate is "2 Sam." in the MT and KJV.
answered Jan 2 at 18:44
fdbfdb
10.6k11127
add a comment |
As others have remarked, Latin cecidit could in theory refer either to the nurse or the child. But in the original Hebrew the corresponding וַיִּפֹּל is unambiguously masculine (verbs have gender in Semitic languages).
PS. The "2 Regum" of the Vulgate is "2 Sam." in the MT and KJV.
answered Jan 2 at 18:44
fdbfdb
10.6k11127
add a comment |
As others have remarked, Latin cecidit could in theory refer either to the nurse or the child. But in the original Hebrew the corresponding וַיִּפֹּל is unambiguously masculine (verbs have gender in Semitic languages).
PS. The "2 Regum" of the Vulgate is "2 Sam." in the MT and KJV.
answered Jan 2 at 18:44
fdbfdb
10.6k11127
As others have remarked, Latin cecidit could in theory refer either to the nurse or the child. But in the original Hebrew the corresponding וַיִּפֹּל is unambiguously masculine (verbs have gender in Semitic languages).
PS. The "2 Regum" of the Vulgate is "2 Sam." in the MT and KJV.
answered Jan 2 at 18:44
fdbfdb
10.6k11127
answered Jan 2 at 18:44
fdbfdb
10.6k11127
answered Jan 2 at 18:44
fdbfdb
10.6k11127
answered Jan 2 at 18:44
fdbfdb
10.6k11127
10.6k11127
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Latin Language Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8807%2fhow-is-the-subject-of-the-verb-identified-in-this-verse-of-the-vulgata%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Translation could be "and when she (Nutrix) hurried so as to escape, she fell; and he became lame: and his name was M." But it must be "he became lame," as TKR says.
– Hugh
Jan 2 at 0:12