# Ablative of instrumental vs manner



## purasbabosadas

Ovid writes:"Qui canit arte,canat.Qui bibit arte,bibat."Why is arte used in the ablative instrumental(By itself,without "cum")?I thought the instrumental was used mostly with tools.Here shouldn't it be "cum arte"("Skillfully",in the ablative of manner with "cum",because "arte" is referring to the manner)?


----------



## Scholiast

No! saluete, purasbabosadas et collectores!

Two reasons, nay three: first, the 'instrumental' ablative is precisely that (and some slavic languages, including Russian, retain a separate Instrumental noun-case), whereas _cum_ means 'in company with...'. Secondly Ovid is composing poetry, which often short-circuits formal grammar. Thirdly, this is _funny_, and humour too often circumvents the grammar-school righteousness of formal syntax: 'He who composes, sings with the Muse; he who drinks, thinks with booze'.

Σ


----------



## Snodv

I learned (and taught) that means or instrument was never expressed with _cum_, while ablatives of manner could be but didn't have to be.  _Cum_ is particularly expected when there is no adjective, so Ovid is indeed exercising his poetic license.  When there is an adjective, it can go either way: e.g.,  _magna cum cura, _but _magna voce.  _Whoops, or is voice an instrument?  They claim it is in choir.


----------



## Scholiast

Thanks, Snodv. Quite right about e.g. _magna cum cura_. And yes, apart from the appealling choral pun, _magna uoce_ would, syntactically speaking, be classed as an 'instrumental' ablative.
Σ


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings again

In a Private Message received this morning I have been (gently and courteously) chided for the substance of my first response here (# 2), with the suggestion that I was there unclear or inconsistent. So this is by way of clarification. When I said that poetry 'often short-circuits formal grammar', I did not mean to suggest or imply that Ovid or any other Latin _vates_ would capriciously _disregard_ or break grammatical and syntactical principles; rather that, like inventive prose-authors (notably Sallust and Tacitus), poets will sometimes 'stretch' the conventions; and Ovid's characteristic fondness of word-play is conspicuous here, with the pointed repetition of _arte_, which in the context of poetic creativity makes natural and obvious sense, while in the context of habitual drinking it is a little incongruous, and it is that incongruity which makes it amusing.

Secondly, I have sought in vain in A&G's _Grammar_ (online at Perseus) for an explanation of what at school I learned to know as the 'Instrumental' Ablative, and if anyone else here can help, that would be very welcome.

purasbabosadas might have helped by supplying the reference (_Ars Amatoria_ 506). And I confess to having too hastily overlooked another verbal sophistication in Ovid's line, in the contrasting (indicative and subjunctive) moods of the verbs: 'He who sings [indic.], _should sing _[subjunct.] with art/taste/skill/craft/experthood; he who drinks [indic.] _should drink_ [subjunct.] with art/taste/skill/craft/experthood'—which makes me suspicious of the punctuation parasbabosadas has given us in his Original Post.

Does this clear things up?

Σ


----------



## Scholiast

A further clarification: in # 5, I ought to have given the reference as _Ars Am. _2.506.

Also, all the texts I have been able to consult punctuate 'qui canit, arte canat; qui bibit, arte bibat'.

Σ


----------



## Scholiast

And another...

In Harm Pinkster's vastly learned and detailed _The Oxford Latin Grammar_ (OUP 2015), vol. 1, p. 874, there is a citation from Cic. _ND_ 2.127, as follows:

_*cornibus* tauri, apri *dentibus*, *cursu* leones, aliae *fuga* se, aliae *occultatione* tutantur._
('Bulls defend themselves with their horns, boars with their tusks, lions by their speed; some creatures by flight, others by hiding...').

This illustrates that no hard and fast distinction can be drawn between the 'instrumental' ablative, and the 'ablative of manner'—both of which are late antique or mediaeval grammarians' inventions, useful up to a point, but sometimes pedantically, and misleadingly, 'exact'.

Σ


----------



## purasbabosadas

Thanks.It helps a lot.


----------

