# Habui quidem multos paedagogos qui ad me erudiendam diligenter elaboraverunt.



## languagelearner

*Habui quidem multos pedagogos qui ad me erudiendam diligenter elaboraverunt.*

Does anyone have a translation for the above?

I have the following:

I have had many teachers who have worked diligently to render me erudite.

What are your thoughts?

Regards

Languagelearner


Moderation note:
Please include your question both in the title and the post itself.  Thread titles may be edited for redefining the scope of the thread, correcting typos and other reasons to make the thread more searchable and poster-friendly.  It is, therefore, important for the original question to remain unchanged in the main body of the post.


----------



## Whodunit

Hi Languagelearner, (what a nice name! )

where have you gotten the sentence from? I'm not sure if the second part (after paedagogos) is correct. I don't know if "elaborare" is followed by "ad" or by an infinitive.



languagelearner said:


> *Habui quidem multos paedagogos qui ad me erudiendam diligenter elaboraverunt.*
> 
> Does anyone have a translation for the above?
> 
> I have the following:
> 
> At least, I have had many teachers who have worked diligently to render me erudite.


 
I consider your translation quite ok.


----------



## judkinsc

An infinitive with a complementary accusative would seem better, in place of the future passive participle "_erudiendam_": _me eruditum facere_. This would give your sense of "to render me erudite."


*Habui quidem multos paedagogos qui ad me erudiendam diligenter elaboraverunt.*
  The sentence above, as it stands, would translate as “I have indeed many [slave] teachers who have worthily taken great pain towards me about to be erudite.”

_Elaboro, -are_, can mean "to strive to" with an infinitive (_eruditum facere_), but otherwise it is intransitive in this sense of working upon someone; thus, it cannot be used with an accusative and complementary accusative participle as it is here. The future passive participle seems clumsy to me, in this form (it is often a passive periphrastic when it is the subject of a sentence, and a gerundive otherwise, but the usage doesn’t make sense here); I also don't think the gerundive is used with transitive verbs very often). I would replace the participle with the simple adjective, "_eruditum_" (from _eruditus, -a_), to make a complementary accusative. Also, I would remove the "ad;" it seems unnecessary.
_Erudio, ire_ can take a double accusative to mean "to teach someone something," as well, but you'll need to pick what the _eruditi_ have taught "_me_" for that sense to work.

_Habui quidem multos paedagogos qui me eruditum facere diligenter elaboraverunt. _"I have indeed many [slave] teachers who worked diligently to render [really, "make"] me erudite."
_Habui quidem multos paedogogos qui me eruditum esse erudiverunt. _"I have indeed many [slave] teachers who taught me to be erudite."
_Multi paedogogi me eruditum esse erudiverunt. _"Many [slave] teachers taught me to be erudite
_Multi eruditi me eruditum esse erudiverunt _(I like this one, just for the repetition). "Many erudite men have taught me to be erudite."

I do not know if you've used _paedogogus _in the sense you meant it to be in. A _paedogogus _was a slave in charge of schooling. Perhaps "_magister_" or "_docens, -tis_" instead? There are also other options, but personally I'd use "_doctus_," "_magister_," or "_eruditus_."

"_Multi eruditi me eruditum esse erudiverunt_" is especially my favorite. The concept is very traditional in that it has required many learned men to teach one to be learned. Follow the wisdom of the ages.


----------



## clara mente

Very scholarly analysis you have rendered, judkinsc. I agree with your view that the construction (fpp/gerundive?) is a bit awkward. Your suggestion of eruditus-a-um fits the bill nicely. One observation, though, if I interpret the original sentence accurately, I am led to believe that the poster is a woman, hence the erudiendAm, therefore making the appositive accusative eruditam.


----------



## judkinsc

clara mente said:


> One observation, though, if I interpret the original sentence accurately, I am led to believe that the poster is a woman, hence the erudiendAm, therefore making the appositive accusative eruditam.



That would be a good point.


----------



## Whodunit

clara mente said:


> Very scholarly analysis you have rendered, judkinsc. I agree with your view that the construction (fpp/gerundive?) is a bit awkward.


 
As I said above, I wasn't sure myself if it really worked. In my textbook, they use "hortare" with "ad" but "studere" with an infitive. By the way, why do you call "ad (me) erudiendam" a future passive participle? I have only heard of a future active participle, but as far as I am aware, this form doesn't exist in the passive.

To my mind, it is a gerundive with "ad" in the accuastive.



> Your suggestion of eruditus-a-um fits the bill nicely. One observation, though, if I interpret the original sentence accurately, I am led to believe that the poster is a woman, hence the erudiendAm, therefore making the appositive accusative eruditam.


 
Yes, that's correct. The speaker (me) is feminine, otherwise it would have been "ad me erudiendum."

My own version would be:

*Equidem multos magistros habui qui me erudita facere vere studuerunt.*


----------



## clara mente

Whodunit said:


> By the way, why do you call "ad (me) erudiendam" a future passive participle? I have only heard of a future active participle, but as far as I am aware, this form doesn't exist in the passive.
> 
> To my mind, it is a gerundive with "ad" in the accuastive.


This term was also a curiosity to me also. That's why I used a "?" next to it. I don't like to raise a grammatical issue unless I"m convinced that this terminology is not used in a different country or format. In the system of Latin which I was taught, for example we use the term "reported discourse" and "past perfect" instead of "pluperfect" as well as different names for declensions which may seem funny to a student of the traditional method.
To be technical, however, the gerundive does seem to fit all the critrion of a participle as described here. First,it is passive-second, it does have some element of future anticipation-and thirdly, it's form is derived from a verb. Food for thought!


----------



## judkinsc

I termed it a future passive participle, since that is what the basic formation of it is. I wasn't sure if the speaker intended it to be the passive periphrastic or the gerundive, although the latter seemed more likely. The passive periphrastic, the gerund, and the gerundive are all based off of the passive future participle. If you look at the chart of participles in Latin, there are only four, out of a possible six, formations: active present, active future, passive perfect, and passive future. The active perfect and the passive present don't exist as participles.


----------



## Whodunit

You're right. In English (according to Google), they often use "future passive participle" instead of "gerundive," whereas in German, for example, the former term is nearly unknown. 

Anyway, technically it is correct to call it a FPP, but according to most grammar books, this "tense/voice" (I know it isn't any) does not exist in Latin.


----------



## virgilio

judisnk,
 You were almost right. Verb-derived adjectives of the "-andus", "-endus" type are in fact *present* passive participles, often called - as clara mente points out - "gerundive" participles because they always combine so inseparably with their substantives that the two together come to have the force of a gerund.
We often do the same thing in English with present *active* participles:
e.g.
I was annoyed by him reading over my shoulder.

Congratulations.

Virgilio


----------

