Now, I realize that language is like a living organism that changes and adapts, and that even a so-called dead language like Latin can adapt to form new words, but I am having a lot of trouble accepting the idea that the gender of the noun doesn't matter in passive periphrastics. The default should not be the feminine.
The immediate cause of my aggravation is a new "delenda est" applied to the noun "Islam" at Pacificus Inclined to Peace blog.
P. Gainsford has kindly written to confirm what I thought, which is that "Islam" should be treated as a neuter noun, so the passive periphrastic that would go with it (and without getting into the absurdity of this or any of the other propositions) is delendum est, NOT delenda est.
Passive Periphrastics
In his Laudator Temporis Acti, Michael Gilleland blogs references legitimating our use of the famous passive periphrastic ("Carthago delenda est") of Cato who thought that "Carthage must be destroyed." Gilleland says further that "Unio Europaea delenda est" (the E.U. must be destroyed -- to save Europe) is also fine and a good effort at applying the rules about the gerundive and the "to be" verb.
Carthago delenda est
Latin
Comments
At least in German, ‘Islam’ is treated as a female noun.
but of course in English (long descended from Germanic Anglo-Saxon roots but now interestingly almost entirely inflectionless, but to whom do I address this observation, other than fellow linguists?), the gender of nouns is close to irrelevant, except perhaps the for odd shepherdess, brewster, baxter, and actress. So we do not really mind except technically, that English recognises masculine, feminine, and neuter. (But I suppose reference to an ‘actress’ as ‘she’ will be with us for the forseeable future. And thus a pronoun must agree with its noun in gender – altho some actresses prefer ‘actor’ nowadays.) So why anyone should co-ordinate across other languages is beyond me.
If you’re referring to what I wrote 4 years ago, I think I was writing about the fact that people incorrectly assumed if a noun ends in -a it’s feminine.
Like you, I’ve long had a feeling that Latin should be used correctly. Way back in 1959, I was on a team, whose captain wanted to send a telegram with the words “Veni, Vidi, Vici” to our college president after we’d won on a TV quiz. I succeeded in impressing upon everyone the fact that since were four people, not one, it should be “Venimus, Vidimus, Vicimus.” And this correction even got written up by a newspaper reporter!
Thanks for reading my blog post and commenting.
How nice! Last time I tried to make a suggestion on that order in person no one would listen, so I don’t (in person) any longer.
“I am having a lot of trouble accepting the idea that the gender of the noun doesn’t matter in passive periphrastics.”
I really enjoyed this brief article, appreciate your linguistic talents, and am also a huge fan of Michael Gilleland; nevertheless, I find this quote very amusing.
You might rephrase it thusly: “Ugh, like, I just totally hate it when you guys think that the gender of the noun doesn’t matter in passive periphrastics! GOD!”
Thanks for your pleasant and all-too-brief paragraphs
Ian-
I need a colloquializer. Care to volunteer? (And I do mean volunteer.)
If you’re serious, I’m in. Send me an email.
If you’re referring to what I wrote 4 years ago, I think I was writing about the fact that people incorrectly assumed if a noun ends in -a it’s feminine.
Is this an actual problem? Aside from a handful of exceptions from Greek such as “nauta” or “thema” and some personal/place names, first-declension nouns are all feminine as far as I know, and the only other nouns that end with “a” that I can think of are neuter plurals, which doesn’t seem to be the issue here (and of course “delenda” would still be the correct form in such a case).
Not necessarily a widespread problem. Since Islam was considered a neuter singular noun, delenda didn’t work.
the literal translation of the phrase would be ‘it is requiring to be destroyed to (or at) Carthage’, hence ‘Carthage must be destroyed’ – delendum:neuter singular, the thing must destroyed, esse, be, Carthago to/at/for Carthage: the gerundive does not agree in any way with Carthage, but indicates ‘the thing’ or ‘things’
Midas: Which phrase?
Are you thinking of a gerund rather than a gerundive?
‘Delendum est Carthago
Where does that come from?
“P. Gainsford has kindly written to confirm what I thought, which is that “Islam” should be treated as a neuter noun, so the passive periphrastic that would go with it (and without getting into the absurdity of this or any of the other propositions) is delendum est. “
Literally, Islam is a gerund “submission to god”, so yes, it IS a neuter noun.
I’m still baffled about what exactly your problem with the two phrases you mentioned is. You said yourself that the construction is correct. Sounds like we have another academic who is looking for an excuse to be self-important.
This is from a long time ago, so it doesn’t appear to be possible any longer to see the posts I referred to, although I’m not willing to spend the time seeing if I can find them on the wayback machine. Islam delenda est is not correct if Islam is neuter. If Islam is neuter, it would be islam delendum est. It is about as incorrect as saying in English “My father, she is eating dinner.”