Are singular and plural ablatives interchangeable?

[kev67]

Something I have noticed that has puzzle me for a while is that quite often the plural ablative is used where you would think it should be singular.
For example, Thomas de Quincey titled his essay, Suspiria De Profundis, and Oscar Wilde titled his strange letter, De Profundis. I suppose that means 'from the depths', which still makes sense. In the Latin version of the Lord's Prayer, Pater Noster, the second line goes 'qui es in caelis', but the the sixth line goes 'sicut in caelo et in terra'. So how many heavens are there? I went to a church this morning and I saw a sign above a picture of the Virgin Mary that said, ' Benedictus fructus ventris tui Iesus'. She only had one belly. It seems like ablative singular and plural are interchangeable depending on what sounds best.

 

[Dumnorix]

In the Ave Maria, ventris tui, of thy womb, is genitive singular. I read De Profundis as Out of the Depths.
As far as the Pater Noster, I will also be glad to know why both the singular and plural of caelum are used -- whether there is any significant difference.

 

[Clemens]

For caelum, at least, the plural is probably a Christian usage based on the Septuagint/Greek NT and/or a Semitic idiom.

 

[Laurentius]

You should know that in English and many other languages you can have the same exact figure of speech and you could very well say "king of the skies" and things like that.

 

[kev67]

In the Ave Maria, ventris tui, of thy womb, is genitive singular. I read De Profundis as Out of the Depths.
As far as the Pater Noster, I will also be glad to know why both the singular and plural of caelum are used -- whether there is any significant difference.

venter. -tris m. Should have checked.

 

[interprete]

For caelum, at least, the plural is probably a Christian usage based on the Septuagint/Greek NT and/or a Semitic idiom.

Same thing in French. You can use either the singular or the plural, the latter simply sounds more poetic.
As for de profundis, I don't know about English, but if you used the singular in French, people would ask 'the depth of what?' whereas in the plural no further detail is expected.

 

[Godmy]

Dē Prōfundīs would be likely a neuter plural, ablative of prōfunda. Just like with omnia meaning "everything" etc., Latin & Greek used neuter plural for abstract subjects where you would, in the least (if you have neuter in your tongue), expect singular.

Prōfunda can then be translated simply as "the depth", if necessary.


Btw. about how many heavens are there (not like I should be an expert on that, an atheist as well), but the ancient pre-Christian Jewish angeology(?) had several very precisely described heavens (precisely described locations of them). There was the space under the Moon, which was the firmament, it was a perfect copy of this world (with ground, trees, rivers, waters, rocks... and everything!), there angels would fight the demons/the satan, the hell would be somewhere in that place as well (not under the ground). Above all of that, as you had the planets on the night sky etc., you would have other levels of heaven: first to seventh, the lower levels largely inhabited by angels of different importance, based on the level. The seventh would be likely situated in what we consider "the space" today... The God-creator (and later on Jesus by his side) would reside in the Seventh.

But again, I'm no expert, no idea how the denominations of Christianity deal with these things today!

But, of course, the reason for the plural was correctly written by @Clemens, this was just... a note ;P

 

[Clemens]

This is possible in Arabic as well, which is what makes me wonder if the Latin wording is ultimately a calque of a Semitic use.

 

[Pacifica]

In any case, the frequent use of caeli in the plural arose with the Bible. It's extremely rare before that (Lucretius has one caelos). So I think it must be a calque, or a partial calque,* of some sort, either from Greek or from Semitic (Hebrew and/or Aramaic). I would bet on the latter, though I don't know what the classical Greek usage is regarding the plural οὐρανοί.

*I mean the plural already existed in classical Latin but its change from very rare to very common was probably due to foreign influence.

 

[Dantius]

Aulus Gellius 19.8 has an interesting discussion on singularia tantum and pluralia tantum nouns, in which we are told that Caesar's De Analogia criticized the use of caelum in the plural.

 

[kurwamac]

Btw. about how many heavens are there (not like I should be an expert on that, an atheist as well), but the ancient pre-Christian Jewish angeology(?) had several very precisely described heavens (precisely described locations of them). There was the space under the Moon, which was the firmament, it was a perfect copy of this world (with ground, trees, rivers, waters, rocks... and everything!), there angels would fight the demons/the satan, the hell would be somewhere in that place as well (not under the ground). Above all of that, as you had the planets on the night sky etc., you would have other levels of heaven: first to seventh, the lower levels largely inhabited by angels of different importance, based on the level. The seventh would be likely situated in what we consider "the space" today... The God-creator (and later on Jesus by his side) would reside in the Seventh.

Pre-Christian precisely described heavens? Sounds fascinating. Have you got a link?

 

[Godmy]

Pre-Christian precisely described heavens? Sounds fascinating. Have you got a link?

I would recommend for example the text Ascension of Isaiah.

(it also contains some later Christian additions which seem to change the meaning of the original somewhat, but that's just a little fraction of the work)

 

[kurwamac]

That is a Christian work written in the Christian era. Undoubtedly it drew on earlier traditions, but it seems bizarre to use it as an example of pre-Christian 'precisely described heavens', particular in light of the lack of agreement amongst scholars as to what exactly it is.

 

[Godmy]

^ Indeed, but maybe as early as 70 AD I believe ...

I will confess I'm out of my depth here (as I said I would). Most of what I read on it was from the peer reviewed book by Richard Carrier, On the Historicity of Jesus. He states usually around 30-60 primary & secondary sources for each chapter, so it's little bit thick for me now to return to (just for the purposes of the thread). The concept of Seven Heavens should be drawing on a pre-Christian, perhaps even pre-Jewish tradition. But I will end probably this 'contribution' of mine with simply recommending the book (it's very thorough, very thick)!

Sorry, if I mislead anyone!

 

[Clemens]

The idea of multiple heavens in the Abrahamic religions derives from Mesopotamian cosmology. Even the account of creation in Genesis is a modified version of a Mesopotamian creation story.