# scrutanda veniunt



## Vladimir Nimčević

I have difficulties in understanding the following passage of the 18-century text. It is a defense closing argument.

4to. In Actu Coitus non personarum parvitas, aut juvenilis aetas *scrutanda veniunt*, quia contrarium in quotidianis connubiorum experimentis videtur;

In response to this, the persecutor Zbisko said in his closing statement the following

In contrahendis connubys verum est quantitatem Personarum haud attendi, attamen ex aetate capacitas, atque Sexuum qualitas semper considerari assoleret


----------



## wandle

Vladimir Nimčević said:


> *scrutanda veniunt*


In the act of intercourse the smallness of the persons or their youthful age does not come into consideration, because the contrary appears [i.e. such is not the case] in the daily experience of marriage.

In marriage contracts it is true that the size of the persons is not regarded; on the other hand their capacity as due to age and the condition of the sexual organs would usually be considered.


----------



## Scholiast

saluete amici!

This is in no way to quarrel with wandle's impeccable translation, rather a subsidiary footnote. _scrutanda _is a gerundive, in (here) feminine agreement with _parvitas _and _aetas_. Strict grammatical logic might have called for a plural (_scrutandae_), but we know already that in this late Latinity of Serbian/Croatian/Hungarian origin there are some anomalies.

Σ


----------



## wandle

I believe _scrutanda_ is more likely to be neuter plurai, 'matters to be examined', in the nominative, agreeing with _parvitas_ and _aetas, _and forming a complement to_ veniunt._


----------



## Scholiast

Greetings all round


wandle said:


> I believe _scrutanda_ is more likely to be neuter plurai, 'matters to be examined', in the nominative, agreeing with _parvitas_ and _aetas, _and forming a complement to_ veniunt_


Point well taken here, except that if it's a neuter plural, it can under no circumstances be in grammatical agreement with the feminine noun(s) _parvitas _and _aetas._
Perhaps Vladimir can make sense of this, from the point of view of the native Hungarian of the original writer? To the best of my (very) limited knowledge, Hungarian has no grammatical gender, which might account for some degree of confusion in this context.

Σ


----------



## wandle

I take _scrutanda_ as a substantive (things to be examined) standing as complement to the verb _veniunt_ and agreeing in case (nominative) with the subject, in the form of the two preceding nouns.

This means ascribing to the verb what may in the circumstances be a not inappropriate copulative function.

The idea is that if we simplify the sentence to _parvitas et aetas veniunt scrutanda,_ we can construe this as 'smallness and age come (present themselves as) things to be examined'. English 'come' has a similar sense in expressions such as 'Don't come the salesman with me'.


----------



## Scholiast

Dear Latin-swingers



wandle said:


> a not inappropriate copulative function.



"Copulative" is rather choice here.



Σ


----------



## Vladimir Nimčević

I think the sentence has nothing to do with with the Hungarian grammar. As far as I know the Latin, the part I do not understand very well should be literally translated as following: „not (non) the smallness of the persons or (aut) their youthful age is to be examined“. My theory is that the word scrutanda refers both to the parvitas and juvenilis aetas, even though it isn't the plural form.


----------



## Vladimir Nimčević

P. S.

Thank you, both of you, for providing me with additional ideas!


----------



## wandle

Vladimir Nimčević said:


> My theory is that the word scrutanda refers both to the parvitas and juvenilis aetas, even though it isn't the plural form


The gerundive _scrutandus, _as a second declension adjective, has the ending _-a_ in the feminine singular nominative and has the same ending in the neuter plural nominative and accusative. Thus on its own, _scrutanda_ could be feminine singular or neuter plural.

In the context, we have to explain how _veniunt_ comes to be plural, following the exclusive disjunction _aut, _which requires the subject to be singular (either _parvitas_ or _aetas_, but not both). To explain a plural verb, the natural recourse is to look for a plural substantive (noun, pronoun, etc.).

If we read _scrutanda_ as neuter, not only does it become plural instead of singular, but it also becomes a substantive rather than an adjective. Like any Latin adjective, it can act as a noun (e.g. _bona_ neut. pl. 'good things'). This then gives us a plural substantive to correspond with the plural verb.

How can that fit in the sentence? We can see it as the complement of the verb, if we assign it a predicative function: _veniunt scrutanda '_come as things to be examined'. But, you may say, it is not in that predicative position (following the verb).

In Latin, it does not need to be. It is normal for the verb to come last. Latin word order is even flexible enough to allow a word in some cases to move out of its clause. And when two terms are placed side by side, in some cases they agree with each other by attraction.

In this case, I take it that _scrutanda_, intended in a predicative role as the complement of the verb, has been placed before it for the sake of custom and then, being plural, has attracted the verb _veniunt_ into the plural also.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete omnes!

This is in no way to take issue with wandle's impeccable Latin expertise (on parade again here in # 10), but rather to enter a minor note of doubt as to whether the strict syntactical proprieties would have been observed as rigorously by 18th-century Magyar jurists as by Cicero or Remmius Palaemon or 20th-century schoolmasters such as me.

Σ


----------



## wandle

I share that doubt. Lawyers have to be practical and, in many cases, blunt. The advocate was probably numbering the points in his mind and not being scrupulous over the use of _aut_. That I think is how _scrutanda_ comes to be plural.


----------

