Ablative of agent

[john abshire]

1- The guard killed the king with a knife.
2- The king was killed by the guard with a knife.

The ablative of means is “knife” in both sentences; the point being that both active and passive voice verbs can have an ablative of means.
The ablative of agent, however, is only in sentence 2, the passive voice sentence. And I can’t figure out a way to put an ablative of agent in an active voice sentence. Is this a basic thing, that only the passive voice has a ablative of agent?

 

[Pacifica]

The ablative of means is “knife” in both sentences; the point being that both active and passive voice verbs can have an ablative of means.
The ablative of agent, however, is only in sentence 2, the passive voice sentence.

Correct.

And I can’t figure out a way to put an ablative of agent in an active voice sentence. Is this a basic thing, that only the passive voice has a ablative of agent?

An ablative of agent will go with a passive verb, like, 99.9% of the time. Very occasionally you can find one with a technically active verb if that verb has some kind of passive idea to it, e.g. periit/cecidit ab hoste = he perished/fell (killed) by the enemy.

 

[Pacifica]

he perished/fell (killed) by the enemy

Or, more elegantly, "he perished/fell at the hands of the enemy."

 

[Godmy]

The semantic roles, agent & patient:

In an active clause (with active verb), the AGENT is the subject (most often the nominative, or in an AcI clause, usually the first accusative; in participal clauses sometimes in different cases as well; but let's just think nominative now in basic sentences).

In a passive clause, the AGENT is expressed by an ablative of AGENT. While the nominative that goes with the passive verb is PATIENT. PATIENT means something or someone who or which is acted upon. In an active clause, the PATIENT is the accusative = the direct object of the verb.


1. Pāstor ovem cultrō necat.

- pāstor = agent, subject (the one who originates the action)​

- ovem = patient, object (the one or the thing acted upon, the recipient of the action)​

- cultrō = ablative of means expressing a manner, adverbial (of manner), it just specifies the way the action happened (with a knife)​

​

2. Ovis cultrō ā pāstōre necātur.

- ovis = patient, subject (subject of the clause, but not the originator of the action, only the recipient, hence patient)​

- ā pāstōre = agent, indirect object (while the grammatical category is indirect object, it's semantical role is an agent)​

- cultrō = ablative of means expressing a manner, adverbial, -like before- it just specifies the way the action happened (with a knife)​

​

As you can see, the semantic roles stayed the same in both sentences, because, semantically, the sentences are equal = they express the same thought and action (the same thing happens, the result is equal: the sheep is dead).

In both sentences the shephard kills the sheep. But they are phrased differently. An agent/the originator of the action can either be a subject(nominative) with an active verb, or it can be an indirect object with an ablative ab/ā preposition with a passive verb. The patient = the one who receives the action (is acted upon) = is in both sentences the sheep. It is either a direct object in accusative with an active verb, or a subject (nominative) with a passive verb.

The semantical role "manner" in which the sheep is killed uses the same grammatical category in both sentences (an adverbial via the bare ablative / ablative of means)

​

 

[Iacobinus]

And I can’t figure out a way to put an ablative of agent in an active voice sentence.

Think the thing logically rather than grammatically, if it helps: the agent (id est, literally, the "doer") of an active voice is the subject.
It is in passive voices that the subject became the patient (id est, literally, the "endurer"). That's where a complement of agent is needed to express the agent.

 

[john abshire]

Correct.

An ablative of agent will go with a passive verb, like, 99.9% of the time. Very occasionally you can find one with a technically active verb if that verb has some kind of passive idea to it, e.g. periit/cecidit ab hoste = he perished/fell (killed) by the enemy.

That makes sense, and your follow up post, “he died by (at the hands of) the enemy.”
Thanks

 

[john abshire]

The semantic roles, agent & patient:

In an active clause (with active verb), the AGENT is the subject (most often the nominative, or in an AcI clause, usually the first accusative; in participal clauses sometimes in different cases as well; but let's just think nominative now in basic sentences).

In a passive clause, the AGENT is expressed by an ablative of AGENT. While the nominative that goes with the passive verb is PATIENT. PATIENT means something or someone who or which is acted upon. In an active clause, the PATIENT is the accusative = the direct object of the verb.


1. Pāstor ovem cultrō necat.

- pāstor = agent, subject (the one who originates the action)​

- ovem = patient, object (the one or the thing acted upon, the recipient of the action)​

- cultrō = ablative of means expressing a manner, adverbial (of manner), it just specifies the way the action happened (with a knife)​

​

2. Ovis cultrō ā pāstōre necātur.

- ovis = patient, subject (subject of the clause, but not the originator of the action, only the recipient, hence patient)​

- ā pāstōre = agent, indirect object (while the grammatical category is indirect object, it's semantical role is an agent)​

- cultrō = ablative of means expressing a manner, adverbial, -like before- it just specifies the way the action happened (with a knife)​

​

As you can see, the semantic roles stayed the same in both sentences, because, semantically, the sentences are equal = they express the same thought and action (the same thing happens, the result is equal: the sheep is dead).

In both sentences the shephard kills the sheep. But they are phrased differently. An agent/the originator of the action can either be a subject(nominative) with an active verb, or it can be an indirect object with an ablative ab/ā preposition with a passive verb. The patient = the one who receives the action (is acted upon) = is in both sentences the sheep. It is either a direct object in accusative with an active verb, or a subject (nominative) with a passive verb.

The semantical role "manner" in which the sheep is killed uses the same grammatical category in both sentences (an adverbial via the bare ablative / ablative of means)

​

How is “a pastore” an indirect object?
Ovem cultro a pastore necatur.
Even if you specify that only “the grammatical category” is indirect object, it still doesn’t make sense.

 

[Clemens]

How is “a pastore” an indirect object?
Ovem cultro a pastore necatur.
Even if you specify that only “the grammatical category” is indirect object, it still doesn’t make sense.

I don't think it is an indirect object. I've never seen the agent of a passive sentence described this way. Besides, grammatically, an indirect object is in the dative, not the ablative, as here.

 

[Iacobinus]

A pastore is a complement of agent, not a complement of indirect object.

The object depends to the verb.
In « pāstor ovem cultrō necat », the object is ovem and, as it is the patient of necat, it is a direct object.
In « ovis cultrō ā pāstōre necātur », there is no object (cultrō is an adverbial, ā pāstōre is an agent).
In « necātiō pāstōris ovi nocet », the object is ovi and, as it isn't the patient of nocet, it is an indirect object.

In necātiō pāstōris, pāstōris is a subjective possessive, which means that, would we change necātiō to a verb, pāstōris would become the subject in an active voice: pāstor necat (or the complement of agent in a passive voice: ā pāstōre necātur).

In necātiō ovis, ovis is an objective possessive, which means that, would we change necātiō to a verb, ovis would become the the object of an active voice: ovem necat (or the subject in a passive voice: ovis necātur).

 

[john abshire]

A pastore is a complement of agent, not a complement of indirect object.

The object depends to the verb.
In « pāstor ovem cultrō necat », the object is ovem and, as it is the patient of necat, it is a direct object.
In « ovis cultrō ā pāstōre necātur », there is no object (cultrō is an adverbial, ā pāstōre is an agent).
In « necātiō pāstōris ovis nocet », the object is ovis and, as it isn't the patient of nocet, it is an indirect object.

In necātiō pāstōris, pāstōris is a subjective possessive, which means that, would we change necātiō to a verb, pāstōris would become the subject in an active voice: pāstor necat; or the complement of agent in a passive voice: ā pāstōre necātur.

In necātiō ovis, ovis is an objective possessive, which means that, would we change necātiō to a verb, ovis would become the subject in a passive voice: ovis necātur; or the object of an active voice: ovem necat.

What is necatio?

 

[Iacobinus]

Necatio idem quod actio necandi: -tio is a very common suffix to form from a verb (here, necare) a noun relating to some action or the result of an action (here the action to kill). Necatio is a late Latin noun, but the aim of my example is to keep a clear morphology to easily show how changing necatio pastoris (subjective genitive) to a verbal sentence results in pastor necat (subject) hence a pastore necatur (agent) and to compare it with necatio ovis (objective genitive) changed to ovem necat (object).

As for the lexicon: necātio, -ōnis f. a necare. [in falsa var. l. ISID. orig. 5, 26, 17, v. vol. V 2, 564, 8.] i. q. actio necandi, nex (accedit gen. obi.): Vet. Lat. sap. 12, 5 (cod. Θh Vulg. al.) Chananaei odibilia tibi, domine, opera faciebant ... per filiorum [necation]es (gr. φονάς pro φονέας verti vid. [...]).

 

[Pacifica]

In « necātiō pāstōris ovis nocet », the object is ovis and, as it isn't the patient of nocet, it is an indirect object.

*ovi

changing necatio pastoris (subjective genitive) to a verbal sentence results in pastoris necat (subject)

*pastor necat

 

[Godmy]

I don't think it is an indirect object. I've never seen the agent of a passive sentence described this way. Besides, grammatically, an indirect object is in the dative, not the ablative, as here.

Indirect object, at least as it is taught in schools here in the Czech Republic, is any case* besides the subject case and the direct object case (accusative usually). Grammatically, it is an indirect object, but that doesn't say anything about its semantics. Semantically, a dative indirect object will carry a very different meaning than an ablative indirect object, or, in Czech e.g., an instrumental indirect object or a locative indirect object... People mistake constantly semantics or semantic roles with grammatical categories. Technically speaking, they have nothing to do one with another. A grammatical category doesn't care really about what meaning it carries, it just describes "technically" the type of "connections" in the sentence, irrespective of the meaning behind.

*an exception is when the case (usually with preposition) can be categorized as an adverbial, then adverbial takes a precedence in categorization over "indirect object"; also genitive cases are mostly categorized as attributes, not indirect objects.
**another exception would be a complement, but that will never appear, as we understand the grammar, in a prepositional phrase

 

[Godmy]

In our understanding of the grammar, the inversion of an active clause into a passive clause (and vice-versa) creates a sort of almost perfect chiasm. Subject becomes an object [indirect object, really, hence "imperfect chiasm"], and an object becomes a subject. (While the semantic roles stay the same: agent and patient and the adverbials - like in Latin ablative of means, stay the same as well.)

 

[Clemens]

Indirect object, at least as it is taught in schools here in the Czech Republic, is any case* besides the subject case and the direct object case (accusative usually). Grammatically, it is an indirect object, but that doesn't say anything about its semantics. Semantically, a dative indirect object will carry a very different meaning than an ablative indirect object, or, in Czech e.g., an instrumental indirect object or a locative indirect object... People mistake constantly semantics or semantic roles with grammatical categories. Technically speaking, they have nothing to do with one another. A grammatical category doesn't care really about what meaning it carries, it just describes "technically" the type of "connections" in the sentence, irrespective of the meaning behind.

*an exception is when the case (usually with preposition) can be categorized as an adverbial, then adverbial takes a precedence in categorization over "indirect object"; also genitive cases are mostly categorized as attributes, not indirect objects.
**another exception would be a complement, but that will never appear, as we understand the grammar, in a prepositional phrase

I apologize! We must be bringing our own cultures' grammar traditions into it, which is something that keeps surprising me even though I should understand it by now. In English grammar as native speakers are taught, an indirect object is a sort of secondary object of the verb, and something like "by Caesar" or "on the hill" isn't understood to be an "object" at all. Whether that's a meaningful distinction or not, I don't know. Thanks for explaining.

Sometimes I feel, in the United States at least, that what we're taught as grammar isn't as useful or as clear as how non-natives learn it, in that there are traditions of terminology and other types of cultural baggage that get dragged into it. A lot of what we are taught as grammar is stylistics as well.

 

[AoM]

I guess the closest thing we’d have in English is calling them the oblique/objective cases.

 

[Iacobinus]

French linguistics are similar to English and opposed to Czech in that matters, and it defines the directness by formal elements more than by semantic elements. The complément d'objet direct is a complement of the verb, the patient of an active voice, which is directly related to it. The complément d'objet indirect is a complement of the verb which is indirectly related to it, through a preposition. However the kind of prepositions used quasi always correspond to the dative. There is also a complément d'objet second which completes a direct object with a second object, and who might evoke the double accusative albeit it commonly translates as a dative too.

Here are examples of compléments d'objets indirects, from French Wikipedia:
(fr) La grêle a nui aux récoltes ;
(en) This occurred to me ;
(ro) Opinia dumitale contravine realității ;
(sr) Nisam mislio na vas.

Here are examples of compléments d'objets seconds, from French Wikipedia:
(fr) donner une pomme à un enfant ;
(en) John gave Mary the book ;
(ro) Se va atribui cuiva un premiu de consolare? ;
(cnr) Izdala je sobu dvjema studentkinjama.

 

[Clemens]

The French Wikipedia article “Complement d’objet” says “le complément d’objet second, un COI [complément d’objet indirect] placé après un COD du même verbe.” So it would seem to be a subtype. The article you reference also says that what is considered an indirect object is influenced by grammatical traditions.

 

[Iacobinus]

Yes. The complément d'objet indirect (COI) is a complément d'objet, and the complément d'objet second (COS) is a complément d'objet indirect.

There is an interesting article about the French grammatical traditions, in Belgium, Canada, France and Switzerland to discriminate the COI:

Complément (d’objet) indirect, complément circonstanciel et complément de phrase dans les grammaires contemporaines

L’étude menée analyse comment un corpus de 40 grammaires françaises contemporaines traite des compléments prépositionnels diversement rattachés au verbe : des compléments fortement liés au verbe (nuire à quelqu’un), et d’autres qui y sont moins liés (manger dans la cuisine). Au-delà des...

books.openedition.org

Because the COI isn't really a semantic object, grammars fails to understand "what it is" exactly -especially through various languages-, albeit they perceives that "it is".

I would like to look at universal grammars, like the grammar of Port Royal (grounded in Latin) or as the one of Chomsky (similar principle, but grounded in English), to see what do they call "indirect object".

 

[Clemens]

I would like to look at universal grammars, like the grammar of Port Royal (grounded in Latin) or as the one of Chomsky (similar principle, but grounded in English), to see what do they call "indirect object".

There probably isn't one, just like there's no such thing as the subjunctive except as a grammatical function, not a semantic one.