# Odi profanum volgus et arceo [vulgus]



## Casquilho

_Odi profanum volgus et arceo..._
(apud Q. Horatii Flacci carmen primum libri tertii.)

Is _profanum volgus_ in accusative, as direct object both for _odi_ and _arceo_?


----------



## linguos

It should be "vulg*u*s" my friend. 

Apart from that, I believe you're right. "Vulgum profanum" would be the normal singular accusative but my dictionary says that "vulgus" is an acceptable alternative.


----------



## Casquilho

linguos said:


> It should be "vulg*u*s" my friend.
> 
> Apart from that, I believe you're right. "Vulgum profanum" would be the normal singular accusative but my dictionary says that "vulgus" is an acceptable alternative.



I thank you heartily for the clarification!

In another thread, someone said that _vulgum_ is rarely used. Further, Whitaker's dictionary registers _vulgum_ as the nominative plural of _vulgus_, not as accusative. Is my dictionary incomplete?


----------



## linguos

My dictionary states that it is the second declension and hence the plural nominative of "vulgus" is the same as the singular genitive, i.e."vulgi".


----------



## BjesniStakor

Hello,
vulgus is the correct accusative, since vulgus,i is not a masculine but a neuter word. The Accusative is identical to the Nominative of all neuter words in Indo-European languages(and to the Vocative). It's an exception, virus(,i n.)is such a word too.


----------



## linguos

I presume you're right. Wiktionary also gives acc. "vulgus" only as an alternative to "vulgum", but I guess this source cannot be trusted.


----------



## Casquilho

_<< Deleted question discussed in: _crocum (neuter word). >>

Also, when Horace wrote

_Odi profanum vulgus et arceo..._

if _vulgus_ is acc. sing., by force _vulgus, -i_ is a neuter word of the 2nd.
But my grammar clarly states:

Neuter nouns occur only in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th declensions.
They have _-a_ as plural desinence.
They have the same form for nom., acc., and voc.
In the 2nd, they are neuter those nouns of sing. nom. in _-um_: _bellum, forum, signum, verbum..._

It doesn't say a word about nouns ending in -us, as _vulgus_. I did think they should be masculine, as _servus_.
Therefore my confusion.


----------



## CapnPrep

Casquilho said:


> if _vulgus_ is acc. sing., by force _vulgus, -i_ is a neuter word of the 2nd.


Correct. Your grammar is incomplete. As BjesniStakor wrote above, there are a few 2nd declension neuter nouns in _-us_: _pelagus_, _virus_, _vulgus_. 

However note, as suggested already, that _vulgus_ is sometimes treated as a masculine noun. This also came up in another recent thread:
Verb sum (posts #6 and #7)


----------



## XiaoRoel

La forma primitiva a de ser uolgus y es la que transmiten los mejores manuscritos de Horacio, siendo uulgus una forma asimilada, populaqr y más tardía que la forma con volg-. Pdero se prefiera una u otra forma, ese uulgus es, como ya se ha dicho aquí, un neutro singular en caso nom.-ac. con su adjetivo profanum.
El uso del masculino es un _arcaísmo_ en autores, como Salustio o Lucrecio, aficionados a este adorno. De todas maneras aquí solo puede ser _neutro_ ya que la secuencia -_um/-us_ de las desinencias casuales en sintagmas nominales adjetivo/sustantivo con palabras de la _segunda declinación_ solo puede darse cuando -_*us*_ caracteriza un neutro singular.
Este sintagma nominal _profanum uolgus_, que podría ser sujeto o objeto directo, en este caso es el objeto directo de _odi_ que con su desinencia de primera persona _*-i*_ marca el sujeto (-*i*, como -*o*, significa '_yo_', es decir, representa la forma sujeto del pronombre personal) por lo que la forma neutra automáticamente, con un verbo transitivo y al estar ya explícito el sujeto, se polariza en la otra función necesaria a un verbo transitivo activo, la de _objeto directo_.
El sentido de *profanum* aquí es el de 'no entendido en el arte', con lo que Horacio eleva la literatura, el arte al nivel de algo religioso.
Es conocido el valor de presente del perfecto _*odi*_, por lo que no haré hincapié en el tema.
En cuanto al transitivo _*arceo*_ que por un zeugma puede tener como OD el del verbo odi, yo prefiero entenderlo con valor absoluto, sin OD.
Así mi traducción será, *desprecio el (o al) vulgo indocto/ignorante y me mantengo aparte.*
Pero si se quisiese entender como transitivo pleno _*arceo*_, entonces traduciríamos: *odio y mantengo alejado el (o al) vulgo indocto/ignorante*.


----------



## Casquilho

Grato, XR, por tua cultíssima explicação!


----------

