Zumpt’s Latin Grammar -- By: Charles Siedhof

Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 004:16 (Nov 1847)
Article: Zumpt’s Latin Grammar
Author: Charles Siedhof

Zumpt’s Latin Grammar

Charles Siedhof

§ 622. It is here said that contingit mihi is frequently used with the infinitive. This is true in general, but not in regard to Cicero, who had but once used this construction, viz. in the passage quoted from pro Arch. III. Stükenburg, therefore, endeavored to correct the reading. Cf. his Latin edition, p. 45-50, and his first edition of de Officiis, preface, p. 9, 10. Yet he has returned in the German edition of the oration to the authority of the manuscripts. Also Lambinus thought the construction not classical. Although it is common with poets and later writers yet it is not used by any good prose writer.

§ 623. Our author has in § 600 explained the regular construction of necesse est; thus necesse should here either be stricken out, or at least it should be said, that it, as being very rare, is not to be imitated.

In the passages with verisimile est, ut, it is to be observed, that in all of them non is added. Further are two of a hypothetical nature, as the imperfect tenses, by which it is followed, show.

§ 625. The subjunctive after necesse est (and oportet) is not to be put in the same category with the accusative and infinitive, unless with some restrictions; for although the present follows those phrases, yet the imperfect is entirely against the use of Cicero. Necesse est me facere and necesse estfaciam are both equally good, but necesse erat facerem is not good Latin; we must always say in this me facere.

But the expression mihi necesse est with the infinitive, so frequent with Cicero, ought to have been quoted. Cf. ad Famm. II. 16. 2: mihi necesse est esse; de Fat. IX: homini necesse est mori.

§ 626. The difference between quod and the accusative before the infinitive is particularly clear in Cic. pro Sext. XXXVIII. 80: An haec ipsa vis est non posse emori? an illa, quod Tribunus plebis tern plum cruentavit? an, quod, quum esset ablatus, primumque resipisset, non se referri jussit? The first sentence expresses a general thought, both the following refer to a certain person and event.

§ 629. There are still other different constructions which often occur, of which we only mention si and cur after miror and mirum est (as the Greek θαυμάζω εἰ). Cf. Cic. pro Sext. I.1: miretur potius, si quern—viderit (in the beginning of the chapter there is: si quis mirabatur, quid esset, quod —); de Senect. XI. 35: quid mirum igitur in senibus, si ...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()