# Who has to write long letters?



## Russula emetica

Hello everyone,

There's a interesting example sentence in Adler's textbook, which got me thinking about the ways the gerundive can be expressed in English, _Who has long letters to write?_ and it is rendered as follows: _Cui sunt epistolae longae scribendae?_ I was wondering what would happen to the sentence should we allow a slight but distinctive change in meaning, namely substitute the modal "have to" for the "have (acc.) to (inf.)" construction, thus: _Who has to write long letters?_

How would you translate this sentence into Latin, making sure that the alteration in question is preserved?

Thank you.


----------



## Scholiast

Russula, Здравствуйте, salvete et collucubrantes!

An interesting conundrum, this—and no guidance that I can see from the usually splendid A&G online at Perseus. I am afraid to say I am unacquainted with Adler's textbook, but I am _au fait_ with the grammatical difficulty: as a general rule, a Latin 'gerundive of obligation' requires a dative of the implied agent (_*mihi* faciendum est_ = '*I* must do it'), which creates the problem Russula has identified, in (for example) 'I have to write a letter to Livia', because _mihi epistula Iuliae scribenda est_ is ambiguous: have I to write the letter to Julia, or she to me? But Latin hates ambiguity, and a writer would get round this by adopting a different syntactical structure or form of words, perhaps using a verb such as _oportet_ (governing the accusative: _me oportet epistolam Iuliae scribere_), or adopt a prepositional expression (e.g.  _mihi ad Iuliam epistola scribenda est_).

But it is a grey area, and by Russula, well spotted.

Σ


----------



## Russula emetica

Would it be fair then to say that while the correct and stylistically justified translation of _Who has long letters to write? _into Latin is by a gerundival construction_ Cui sunt epistolae longae scribendae?_, the proper rendition of _Who has to write long letters? _becomes _Quem oportet epistolas longas scribere?*** _or _Cui necesse est epistolas longas scribere?
_
It's rather by Latin that I'm trying to elucidate some idiosyncrasies of English than the other way around.

*I'm not sure if I'm correctly forming the who-question here.

Adler's Grammar can be seen here: A practical grammar of the Latin language


----------



## Russula emetica

Scholiast said:


> which creates the problem Russula has identified &c., &c.


That is a very interesting observation, but it's not exactly what I'm attempting to find out. The initial question was about the difference between the two sentences: _Who has long letters to write? _and _Who has to write long letters? _- and the ways in which they could be translated into Latin.


----------



## bearded

Russula emetica said:


> That is a very interesting observation, but it's not exactly what I'm attempting to find out. The initial question was about the difference between the two sentences: _Who has long letters to write? _and _Who has to write long letters? _- and the ways in which they could be translated into Latin.


Hello
The problem with your (or Adler's) example is that a dative case with the verb _scribere _usually represents the addressee (_tibi scribo = _I write to you), therefore the sentence becomes ambiguous exactly in the way Scholiast has detected and underlined. Besides, to me the semantic difference between the two formulations (_has long letters to write _vs. _has to write long letters_) is frankly  not so clear. In both cases, the long letters do not exist yet, and the person must write them: what does ''has long letters to write'' actually mean?
I would perhaps try with a different verb and some already available object.  For example, how can the two sentences _Who has so many bread loaves to eat _and _Who has to eat so many bread loaves _be rendered in Latin? Although even here the semantic difference is not clear at 100% (in the first sentence, maybe this time the loaves are there, available for eating/consumption..), most probably an expert like Scholiast will be able to help.


----------



## Russula emetica

bearded said:


> The problem with your (or Adler's) example is that a dative case with the verb _scribere _usually represents the addressee (_tibi scribo = _I write to you),


Sorry. I see no problem. 


bearded said:


> therefore the sentence becomes ambiguous exactly in the way Scholiast has detected and underlined.


Which sentence are you talking about? Certainly _Cui sunt epistolae longae scribendae? _is not ambiguous: what could have _cui _possibly meant but the logical subject of the sentence? It's the Scholiast's example which is ambuguous and, I'm sorry to say, not pertinent to the point.


bearded said:


> to me the semantic difference between the two formulations (_has long letters to write _vs. _has to write long letters_) is frankly not so clear


I'm satisfied with the (very distinct) syntactical difference alone; as for the meaning, I _sense _these two do not say the same, but my English is not good enough to explain why.


----------



## bearded

Russula emetica said:


> Which sentence are you talking about? Certainly _Cui sunt epistolae longae scribendae? _is not ambiguous


It can mean either ''to whom have long letters to be written?'' or ''by whom (agent) have long letters to be written?''. That's the ambiguity, due to the verb _scribere, _which governs the dative case (_tibi scribo_) and the gerundive construction  (_mihi est scribendum = _I have to write/it must be written to me)...


----------



## Russula emetica

I'm sorry, but it cannot. _Cui _here can only be _dat. auctoris_ and not the dative of the remote object -- if it were, the sentence would just fall apart. The proof is very simple: impersonal constructions are only possible with the gerundive in the neuter gender (like: de gustibus non est disputandum), which is not the case here.


----------



## bearded

Russula emetica said:


> impersonal constructions


But we are not talking about impersonal constructions here: _epistulae _is the clear and identifiable subject. Please see the following link in English:
Dative of Agent | Dickinson College Commentaries

''The ablative of the agent with 'ab' is sometimes used with the ..periphrastic conjugation when the dative would be ambiguous, for example
_....rem (esse) ab omnibus vobis providendam (= that the matter has to be attended by all of you)_
The dative ''omnibus vobis'' might mean ''for all of you''.

As you can see, the possible ambiguity with the gerundive, in case a dative could refer to an element other than the agent in the same sentence, indeed exists and is well known to grammarians.


----------



## Russula emetica

As I said, for "mihi" in, say, "epistola mihi est scribenda." to be the dative of the remote object, the sentence itself should have had to be impersonal. "mihi" here is undoubtedly a dativus auctoris, and the phrase can only mean "I must write a letter", not "A letter is to be written to me." Ambuguity arises only when we have an impersonal sentence, as in "scribendum mihi est.", where we can't say if it means "I must write" or "~[Someone] must write to me". 

Interesting.

All Russian textbooks of Latin say that such ambiguity exists only in impersonal sentences, where the gerundive doesn't agree with the subject (because there is no subject). I shall look further into the matter.


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings once more.

I'm sorry if I have got the wrong end of the stick (with reference to ## 2, 3, 4 here).


Russula emetica said:


> _Who has long letters to write? _and _Who has to write long letters?_


This is more a question about English idiom than it is about Latin, and could be raised in the English Only Forum. But I suspect that overwhelmingly, the answer would be 'it depends on the context'—and, I would add, the tone of voice and emphasis. Semantically, the difference between these two formulations is negligible, though the phrasal verb 'have to', in the sense of 'must', is more strongly pointed in 'Who has to write...?' &c. than in 'Who has long letters to write?'.

If I have muddied things for Russula, I apologise, but I am doing my best to understand precisely what she is looking for. Apologies also for cross-posting.

Σ


----------



## Russula emetica

Scholiast said:


> overwhelmingly, the answer would be 'it depends on the context'—and, I would add, the tone of voice and emphasis. Semantically, the difference between these two formulations is negligible, though the phrasal verb 'have to', in the sense of 'must', is more strongly pointed in 'Who has to write...?' &c. than in 'Who has long letters to write?'.


Thank you, that's already something.


Scholiast said:


> If I have muddied things for Russula, I apologise, but I am doing my best to understand precisely what she is looking for.


I'm a _he_, and moreover, I feel called upon to say that you and I actually go back at least three and a half years, L., you might remember me by the name intolerandus, I think it would be fair to say that before you've wasted more of your time on me.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete de novo


Russula emetica said:


> such ambiguity exists only in impersonal sentences, where the gerundive doesn't agree with the subject (because there is no subject).


This is a misapprehension. Even impersonal verbs have at least an implied subject (sentences would not be grammatical otherwise), which in English is usually rendered with 'It': 'It suits him to...', 'It behoves you to...', 'It appears to me that...' (compare in German 'Es gefällt ihr', which = 'she enjoys it'); so for example Latin _mihi agendum est_ can mean 'It is necessary for me to take action'. I'm sure such verbs exist in Russian too, though my grasp of Russian is too flimsy to be sure.
Σ
Edit: sorry Intolerande (# 12)! As a Scotsman I wear skirts sometimes


----------



## Russula emetica

I've been thinking about the issue and it occurred to me that Russian retains the same ambiguity as Latin in _Cui est epistola scribenda? - Кому надлежит (на)писать письмо?_ "Кому" here can be comprehended both as _dat. auctoris_ and as the dat. of remote object: _who has to write the letter?_ and _To whom has the letter to be written?_

It would be of interest to learn if Italian preserves the same equivocality. Are there more or less parallel constructions in Italian to those expressed with the gerundive in Latin, bearded?


----------



## bearded

No, I don't think so.


----------



## Russula emetica

Thanks for having been patient with me.


----------



## Scholiast

Scholiasta amicis S.P.D.


Russula emetica said:


> Thanks for having been patient with me.


@ Russula # 16: not at all—it's always an agreeable challenge to try to be helpful in this Forum. Incidentally, have you not access to a more modern manual of Latin grammar than Adler?
Σ


----------



## bearded

Russula emetica said:


> Thanks for having been patient with me.


It was a pleasure to discuss such interesting subjects.


----------



## Russula emetica

Scholiast said:


> Incidentally, have you not access to a more modern manual of Latin grammar than Adler?


I have studied Latin using textbooks in Russian—there are some, but old grammars are very much to my liking, for a number of reasons, especially that of Adler, a magnificent and unique grammar book.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete omnes, praesertim Russula


Russula emetica said:


> especially that of Adler, a magnificent and unique grammar book


I had a closer look, and am warming to it. I particularly like the title page inscription, including '...with perpetual exercises in _speaking_ [!] and writing...' [my emphasis].
_bona fortuna tibi studiisque adstet._
Σ


----------



## Russula emetica

You might also like his German Grammar: Ollendorff's new method of learning to read, write, and speak the German language

It's a pity no-one compiled textbooks on other languages using Ollendorffian method.  It turned out there are plenty similar grammar books on other languages (written by Ollendorff himself or his successors) available on the Archive.

Tibi gratias ago toto pectore, quod me omni difficultate liberas.


----------



## Snodv

A little off the subject, but surely the gender confusion is understandable.  The photo tells us that Russula emetica is a sickening red mushroom, but given that the contributor is Russian, one could be forgiven for thinking that Russula might mean "little Russian girl."  
A point about the _English_ "have to" (=must) construction:  it is very possible that it developed from the "have /_direct object_ / to" construction.  Surely there is little difference between having to write letters and having letters to write.  Well, I've got work to do.  Or I've got to do work.


----------



## Russula emetica

Thanks a lot!


----------



## Scholiast

saluete amici!


Snodv said:


> A point about the _English_ "have to" (=must) construction: it is very possible that it developed from the "have /_direct object_ / to" construction


Yes, cf. my # 11 in this Thread. Not to contradict Snodv's observation, but to amplify: I think this construction is quite ancient, because a similar parlance exists in modern German with the verb _haben_, which strongly suggests that its current English usage goes back to Anglo-Saxon.
Σ


----------

