Is this sentence classical-Latin-gramatically acceptable?
"Mori stans quam genuflectens melius est."
"Mori stans quam genuflectens melius est."
Genuflectere/Stare/Mori
- Thread starter Hermes Trismegistus
- Start date
"stans" and "genuflectens" should be accusative: "mori stantem quam genuflectentem melius est." The subject of an infinitive (or a predicate complement, or anything modifying the subject) needs to be accusative. In this sentence, the accusative-and-infinitive phrase "mori stantem" is the subject of "est". This is why, for instance, Cicero uses puerum rather than puer in "Nescire quid antequam natus sis acciderit, id est semper esse puerum."
If it is the subject of est then it should be in the nominative? The infinitive here is nominative neuter. The adjectives are therefore in agreement, surely?
Edit: Regarding the Cicero quote, I always thought the case is dictated by Id?
Last edited:
The Cicero example in my opinion, calls for ACI because the infinitive directly extends "est". Which is not the case here.
On the second look, since "melius est" is just a mere copula here (like videtur e.g.) + complement, I tend to agree with @Notascooby that the nominative should be here. It's not the infinitive (mori) that binds to the copula here, it's the stans (as if it was a real adjective which you would expect to be in nominative, to be in a case agreement with the complement), and the infinitive (mori) is just extending/modifying stans, it doesn't bind itself to the copula directly.
You would have ACI if there was e.g. Mori senem melius est [quam mori puerum]. (I made that up)
Because there the infinitive binds directly to the copula.
Any thoughts on that, Pacifica?
Edit: I changed my mind on this later! It's as Dantius says.
On the second look, since "melius est" is just a mere copula here (like videtur e.g.) + complement, I tend to agree with @Notascooby that the nominative should be here. It's not the infinitive (mori) that binds to the copula here, it's the stans (as if it was a real adjective which you would expect to be in nominative, to be in a case agreement with the complement), and the infinitive (mori) is just extending/modifying stans, it doesn't bind itself to the copula directly.
You would have ACI if there was e.g. Mori senem melius est [quam mori puerum]. (I made that up)
Because there the infinitive binds directly to the copula.
Any thoughts on that, Pacifica?
Edit: I changed my mind on this later! It's as Dantius says.
Last edited:
Unlike e.g.
or
... where it is the infinitive* which binds directly to EST (unlike in the previous case) and the infinitive then triggers the accusative. And it is the other way around in the original example...
*an alternative analysis is that both the infinitive and its subject create a group that binds to EST, or that both bind to it simultaneously... but stans itself is finite, albeit it can create subclause just like an infinitive. If someone finds some examples that could elucidate this better, I'll be glad
- the graphs were generated by this tool -
Last edited:
There's no difference between mori stantem and mori senem. Are you saying that stans in your analysis would also be neuter to agree with melius?
Certainly you couldn't say "stans melius est quam genuflectens"; "mori stantem" has to be a unit that is collectively the subject of est.
Certainly you couldn't say "stans melius est quam genuflectens"; "mori stantem" has to be a unit that is collectively the subject of est.
The adjectives aren't modifying the infinitive, but rather the implied subject of the infinitive ("that [someone] die standing is better than...")
The complement agrees in CASE with the subject, not gender or number.
But it is in the syntax, I sent a pictures showing the difference.
Yes, but your pictures don't make sense — both of them should be graphed like you graphed mori senem.
In "mori stans" the "mori" doesn't create a syntactic pair with "est", it acts like an adjective. Stantem, yes, that acts as a verb. But why would that be preferred if it's not necessary? No idea. I tried to show the differences.
That is not possible. "Mori stans est melius" <- "mori" and "est" simply don't create a pair there. They don't talk to each other.
That's my point!
Mori stans est melius is ungrammatical, for the exact same reason that mori senex est melius is ungrammatical. That's my point.That is not possible. "Mori stans est melius" <- "mori" and "est" simply don't create a pair there. They don't talk to each other.
The latter is ungrammatical, because "mori" creates a pair with "est" and "senex" creates a pair with "mori" ... which is not allowed.
"Mori stans est melius" <- different pairing, therefore the rule you state doesn't apply.
senex can go with est, but can't go with infinitive at the same time.
Edit: I changed my mind on all of this later in the thread, but I supposed I took "mori" there as some sort of weird adverbial to the stans (don't ask me how...), faulty reasoning altogether, but for a moment it made all sense like that, haha.
I suppose I get your point @Dantius, but I don't see that as a refutation of what I say. I would be glad if we had more data on this! Thanks for the debate & good night for today!
Last edited:
Do you mean "mori stantem is an analogue to mori senem"? But I get that mori stantem est melius and mori senem est melius are both grammatical. My point is that mori stans est melius is not grammatical, because saying that mori somehow modifies stans just doesn't make sense.
Anyway, I thought about it some more, I think that "melius est" would really require an analogue of infinitive subclause, since the disagreement in gender is simply weird; previously I completely ruled that out of my reasoning (yes, I know you pointed that out, but we didn't go further with that).
It could also be understood as if "melius est" were an analogue to "id melius est... " and then an analogue to ACI is indeed required.
Ok. I changed my mind, sorry for keeping you busy tonight, @Dantius, you were right!
But I at least forced myself to fix that syntax picture tool here http://linguax.com <- it hadn't been working since 2018. I suppose it would still get useful!
It could also be understood as if "melius est" were an analogue to "id melius est... " and then an analogue to ACI is indeed required.
Ok. I changed my mind, sorry for keeping you busy tonight, @Dantius, you were right!
But I at least forced myself to fix that syntax picture tool here http://linguax.com <- it hadn't been working since 2018. I suppose it would still get useful!
Last edited: