# Comparing Pronouns:  Intensive and Reflexive



## bluetoonwithcarrotandnail

Look at the following two sentences

AGRICOLA IPSI AGRUM ARAVIT
AGRICOLA SIBI AGRUM ARAVIT

Does 'SIBI' occupy the level of importance as the western
pronoun such as the German 'Ihr' or english 'they' while
'IPSI' does not.

SIBI cannot be removed from the sentence while IPSI
can

However, either way they are both still pronouns.  What is
the difference?  They really look identical in function.

There is some difference between them or they would be used
the same way - however they are both pronouns.  It is not
as if one is a pronoun and the other is not.

Thanks.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

They don't mean the same and work differently. Your first sentence is right with "sibi" meaning "for him", " in his own interest", unlike the second. " Ipse " is an intensive pronoun underlining an implicite opposition between the person or the thing who / that is referred to and another or others. You can write sentences as : 
" Agricola ipse (sibi ) agrum arat" ( the farmer for his part is ploughing his field )             or
" Agricola agrum ipsum arat " ( The farmer is ploughing  his field  i.e "and nothing else", just his field ).


----------



## bluetoonwithcarrotandnail

J.F. de TROYES said:


> They don't mean the same
> 
> " in his own interest", unlike the second. " Ipse " is an intensive pronoun underlining an implicite opposition between the person or the thing who / that is referred to and another or others



Is this interest that in one sentence he is plowing the field for himself
(as in he wishes to sell the produce for himself) and the second
he is simply plowing it 'by himself' as the doer of the action?

Is that the opposition your talking about?

Thanks.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

bluetoonwithcarrotandnail said:


> Is this interest that in one sentence he is plowing the field for himself
> (as in he wishes to sell the produce for himself) and the second
> he is simply plowing it 'by himself' as the doer of the action?
> 
> Is that the opposition your talking about?
> 
> Thanks.


 

Yes, it is. You can consult this site to find more information about "ipse" which is not always easy to translate :

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=#24873 

 ( ipse... I- In gen ...)  Hope it helps.


----------



## wonderment

Hi: In Latin, _ipse ipsa ipsum_ is an intensive adjective. It serves to bring emphasis to the noun it modifies. _sibi_ is a reflexive pronoun. In English, _himself_ is a pronoun that can be used reflexively or emphatically. It's important to remember that Latin grammar does not map exactly onto English grammar. And one needs to be clear if one is analyzing the Latin or English. 

_agricola ipse agrum aravit _= The farmer himself ploughed the field.

(Latin: _ipse_ is an intensive adjective modifying _agricola_, and thus agrees with it in case, number and gender: nominative, singular, masculine. English: _himself_ is a pronoun used emphatically to call attention to the farmer.)

_agricola sibi agrum aravit _= The farmer ploughed the field for himself.

(Latin: _sibi_ is a reflesive pronoun, dative singular, indirect object. English: _himself _is used as a reflexive pronoun, as object of the preposition _for._)


----------



## bluetoonwithcarrotandnail

It would be very nice if this is so but my book lists
the titles 'IPSE: Intensive Pronoun' and 'Sui, Sibi, Se,
Se: Reflexive Pronoun Third Person'.  It does not list
IPSE as an adjective.  What is the discrepancy?

Thanks.


----------



## wonderment

Hi again: I just checked Bennett’s Latin grammar, and you’re right: _ipse ipsa ipsum_ is listed as a intensive pronoun. But to be honest, I don’t think the labeling is so clear cut. We can call it an intensive pronoun, but it behaves very much like an adjective in Latin; it must agree with the noun it emphasizes in case, number, and gender. In Latin, it’s more like _meus –a –um_ (my, a possessive adjective) than _ego mei mihi me me_ (I/me, first person pronoun). In any case, the distinction between intensive and reflexive obtains.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

wonderment said:


> Hi again: I just checked Bennett’s Latin grammar, and you’re right: _ipse ipsa ipsum_ is listed as a intensive pronoun. But to be honest, I don’t think the labeling is so clear cut. We can call it an intensive pronoun, but it behaves very much like an adjective in Latin; it must agree with the noun it emphasizes in case, number, and gender. In Latin, it’s more like _meus –a –um_ (my, a possessive adjective) than _ego mei mihi me me_ (I/me, first person pronoun). In any case, the distinction between intensive and reflexive obtains.


 
I agree with you by adding that "ipse" may be used alone as a pronoun or as an adjective agreeing with a noun :

1- "*Ipse venit* " (where* "*ipse*"* is undoubtedly a pronoun that refers to a previous name) or "*Ipse veni"* ( where it obviously refers to the subject that is usually not expressed )

2- *"Caesar ipse venit"*  ( as you say, it behaviours here as an adjective )      The same appears in such a sentence:
*" Caesar in ipsa curia occisus est "*  ( Caesar was killed right inside the Curia )  where "ipse "underlines that the event happened in the sacred area of the Curia, neither anywhere nor around the Curia )


----------



## bluetoonwithcarrotandnail

Here if I am correct all of the following are not equivalents: 

(agricola sui agrum aravit) is not the same as (agricola ipsi agrum aravit) 
(agricola sibi agrum aravit) is not the same as (agricola ipsi agrum aravit) 
(agricola se agrum aravit) is not the same as (agricola ipsi agrum aravit) 

none of these combinations are the same 

For 'AGRICOLA IPSI AGRUM ARAVIT' even if I change IPSI (to IPSE, 
IPSIUS, IPSUM, IPSO) it will never make the above sentences equal. 


Thanks.


----------



## wonderment

bluetoonwithcarrotandnail said:


> Here if I am correct all of the following are not equivalents:
> 
> (agricola sui agrum aravit) is not the same as (agricola ipsi agrum aravit)
> (agricola sibi agrum aravit) is not the same as (agricola ipsi agrum aravit)
> (agricola se agrum aravit) is not the same as (agricola ipsi agrum aravit)
> 
> none of these combinations are the same
> 
> For 'AGRICOLA IPSI AGRUM ARAVIT' even if I change IPSI (to IPSE,
> IPSIUS, IPSUM, IPSO) it will never make the above sentences equal.
> 
> 
> Thanks.



bluetoon, what is the question? It would help us identify the specific points of confusion if you could give us your translation of the Latin sentences you've written.


----------

