How is the subject of the verb identified in this verse of the Vulgata?












2














In 2 Kings 4:4 we read:




Erat autem Jonathae filio Saul filius debilis pedibus : quinquennis enim fuit, quando venit nuntius de Saul et Jonatha ex Jezrahel. Tollens itaque eum nutrix sua, fugit : cumque festinaret ut fugeret, cecidit, et claudus effectus est : habuitque vocabulum Miphiboseth.




The English translation has:




And Jonathan the son of Saul had a son that was lame of his feet: for he was five years old when the tidings came of Saul and Jonathan from Jezrahel. And his nurse took him up and fled: and as she made haste to flee, he fell and became lame: and his name was Miphiboseth.




I highlighted the part that confuses me. It is unclear to me how we are to know that the individual who "fell and became lame" is the son of Jonathan and not his nurse. Both are third person singular so it could well be that cecidit, et claudus effectus est applies to the nurse. Is this identification purely based on context? Or am I missing a linguistical clue somewhere else in the verse helping out in the identification of the subject to which the verbs apply?










share|improve this question


















  • 1




    Translation could be "and when she (Nutrix) hurried so as to escape, she fell; and he became lame: and his name was M." But it must be "he became lame," as TKR says.
    – Hugh
    3 hours ago
















2














In 2 Kings 4:4 we read:




Erat autem Jonathae filio Saul filius debilis pedibus : quinquennis enim fuit, quando venit nuntius de Saul et Jonatha ex Jezrahel. Tollens itaque eum nutrix sua, fugit : cumque festinaret ut fugeret, cecidit, et claudus effectus est : habuitque vocabulum Miphiboseth.




The English translation has:




And Jonathan the son of Saul had a son that was lame of his feet: for he was five years old when the tidings came of Saul and Jonathan from Jezrahel. And his nurse took him up and fled: and as she made haste to flee, he fell and became lame: and his name was Miphiboseth.




I highlighted the part that confuses me. It is unclear to me how we are to know that the individual who "fell and became lame" is the son of Jonathan and not his nurse. Both are third person singular so it could well be that cecidit, et claudus effectus est applies to the nurse. Is this identification purely based on context? Or am I missing a linguistical clue somewhere else in the verse helping out in the identification of the subject to which the verbs apply?










share|improve this question


















  • 1




    Translation could be "and when she (Nutrix) hurried so as to escape, she fell; and he became lame: and his name was M." But it must be "he became lame," as TKR says.
    – Hugh
    3 hours ago














2












2








2







In 2 Kings 4:4 we read:




Erat autem Jonathae filio Saul filius debilis pedibus : quinquennis enim fuit, quando venit nuntius de Saul et Jonatha ex Jezrahel. Tollens itaque eum nutrix sua, fugit : cumque festinaret ut fugeret, cecidit, et claudus effectus est : habuitque vocabulum Miphiboseth.




The English translation has:




And Jonathan the son of Saul had a son that was lame of his feet: for he was five years old when the tidings came of Saul and Jonathan from Jezrahel. And his nurse took him up and fled: and as she made haste to flee, he fell and became lame: and his name was Miphiboseth.




I highlighted the part that confuses me. It is unclear to me how we are to know that the individual who "fell and became lame" is the son of Jonathan and not his nurse. Both are third person singular so it could well be that cecidit, et claudus effectus est applies to the nurse. Is this identification purely based on context? Or am I missing a linguistical clue somewhere else in the verse helping out in the identification of the subject to which the verbs apply?










share|improve this question













In 2 Kings 4:4 we read:




Erat autem Jonathae filio Saul filius debilis pedibus : quinquennis enim fuit, quando venit nuntius de Saul et Jonatha ex Jezrahel. Tollens itaque eum nutrix sua, fugit : cumque festinaret ut fugeret, cecidit, et claudus effectus est : habuitque vocabulum Miphiboseth.




The English translation has:




And Jonathan the son of Saul had a son that was lame of his feet: for he was five years old when the tidings came of Saul and Jonathan from Jezrahel. And his nurse took him up and fled: and as she made haste to flee, he fell and became lame: and his name was Miphiboseth.




I highlighted the part that confuses me. It is unclear to me how we are to know that the individual who "fell and became lame" is the son of Jonathan and not his nurse. Both are third person singular so it could well be that cecidit, et claudus effectus est applies to the nurse. Is this identification purely based on context? Or am I missing a linguistical clue somewhere else in the verse helping out in the identification of the subject to which the verbs apply?







verbs subject






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 3 hours ago









luchonacho

4,43031049




4,43031049








  • 1




    Translation could be "and when she (Nutrix) hurried so as to escape, she fell; and he became lame: and his name was M." But it must be "he became lame," as TKR says.
    – Hugh
    3 hours ago














  • 1




    Translation could be "and when she (Nutrix) hurried so as to escape, she fell; and he became lame: and his name was M." But it must be "he became lame," as TKR says.
    – Hugh
    3 hours ago








1




1




Translation could be "and when she (Nutrix) hurried so as to escape, she fell; and he became lame: and his name was M." But it must be "he became lame," as TKR says.
– Hugh
3 hours ago




Translation could be "and when she (Nutrix) hurried so as to escape, she fell; and he became lame: and his name was M." But it must be "he became lame," as TKR says.
– Hugh
3 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2














Claudus effectus est is masculine, so it can't be the nurse. And the previous sentence stated that it was the son, not the nurse, who was lame.



ETA: as Hugh and Cerberus point out, this doesn't apply to cecidit, which could refer to either one: "she fell [and dropped the child] and he was made lame", or "he fell [out of the nurse's arms] and was made lame". The latter seems more likely to me, but the grammar is ambiguous.






share|improve this answer























  • Even so, do we know who it was that fell, the nurse or the boy? Contextually, it could be either or both. Perhaps she fell and crushed him as she was holding him. Or he fell from her hands as she was hurrying. Or they both fell together, if she dropped him out of a reflex as she was falling.
    – Cerberus
    50 mins ago










  • @Cerberus Good point, I've added an edit. (I don't think it can be both though or we'd have a plural verb.)
    – TKR
    41 mins ago










  • Yes, or it would be...what is that figure of speech or syntactic construction called again? I think there was a Greek name, although perhaps I am thinking of something different.
    – Cerberus
    22 mins ago











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "644"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8807%2fhow-is-the-subject-of-the-verb-identified-in-this-verse-of-the-vulgata%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2














Claudus effectus est is masculine, so it can't be the nurse. And the previous sentence stated that it was the son, not the nurse, who was lame.



ETA: as Hugh and Cerberus point out, this doesn't apply to cecidit, which could refer to either one: "she fell [and dropped the child] and he was made lame", or "he fell [out of the nurse's arms] and was made lame". The latter seems more likely to me, but the grammar is ambiguous.






share|improve this answer























  • Even so, do we know who it was that fell, the nurse or the boy? Contextually, it could be either or both. Perhaps she fell and crushed him as she was holding him. Or he fell from her hands as she was hurrying. Or they both fell together, if she dropped him out of a reflex as she was falling.
    – Cerberus
    50 mins ago










  • @Cerberus Good point, I've added an edit. (I don't think it can be both though or we'd have a plural verb.)
    – TKR
    41 mins ago










  • Yes, or it would be...what is that figure of speech or syntactic construction called again? I think there was a Greek name, although perhaps I am thinking of something different.
    – Cerberus
    22 mins ago
















2














Claudus effectus est is masculine, so it can't be the nurse. And the previous sentence stated that it was the son, not the nurse, who was lame.



ETA: as Hugh and Cerberus point out, this doesn't apply to cecidit, which could refer to either one: "she fell [and dropped the child] and he was made lame", or "he fell [out of the nurse's arms] and was made lame". The latter seems more likely to me, but the grammar is ambiguous.






share|improve this answer























  • Even so, do we know who it was that fell, the nurse or the boy? Contextually, it could be either or both. Perhaps she fell and crushed him as she was holding him. Or he fell from her hands as she was hurrying. Or they both fell together, if she dropped him out of a reflex as she was falling.
    – Cerberus
    50 mins ago










  • @Cerberus Good point, I've added an edit. (I don't think it can be both though or we'd have a plural verb.)
    – TKR
    41 mins ago










  • Yes, or it would be...what is that figure of speech or syntactic construction called again? I think there was a Greek name, although perhaps I am thinking of something different.
    – Cerberus
    22 mins ago














2












2








2






Claudus effectus est is masculine, so it can't be the nurse. And the previous sentence stated that it was the son, not the nurse, who was lame.



ETA: as Hugh and Cerberus point out, this doesn't apply to cecidit, which could refer to either one: "she fell [and dropped the child] and he was made lame", or "he fell [out of the nurse's arms] and was made lame". The latter seems more likely to me, but the grammar is ambiguous.






share|improve this answer














Claudus effectus est is masculine, so it can't be the nurse. And the previous sentence stated that it was the son, not the nurse, who was lame.



ETA: as Hugh and Cerberus point out, this doesn't apply to cecidit, which could refer to either one: "she fell [and dropped the child] and he was made lame", or "he fell [out of the nurse's arms] and was made lame". The latter seems more likely to me, but the grammar is ambiguous.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 41 mins ago

























answered 3 hours ago









TKR

13.5k2755




13.5k2755












  • Even so, do we know who it was that fell, the nurse or the boy? Contextually, it could be either or both. Perhaps she fell and crushed him as she was holding him. Or he fell from her hands as she was hurrying. Or they both fell together, if she dropped him out of a reflex as she was falling.
    – Cerberus
    50 mins ago










  • @Cerberus Good point, I've added an edit. (I don't think it can be both though or we'd have a plural verb.)
    – TKR
    41 mins ago










  • Yes, or it would be...what is that figure of speech or syntactic construction called again? I think there was a Greek name, although perhaps I am thinking of something different.
    – Cerberus
    22 mins ago


















  • Even so, do we know who it was that fell, the nurse or the boy? Contextually, it could be either or both. Perhaps she fell and crushed him as she was holding him. Or he fell from her hands as she was hurrying. Or they both fell together, if she dropped him out of a reflex as she was falling.
    – Cerberus
    50 mins ago










  • @Cerberus Good point, I've added an edit. (I don't think it can be both though or we'd have a plural verb.)
    – TKR
    41 mins ago










  • Yes, or it would be...what is that figure of speech or syntactic construction called again? I think there was a Greek name, although perhaps I am thinking of something different.
    – Cerberus
    22 mins ago
















Even so, do we know who it was that fell, the nurse or the boy? Contextually, it could be either or both. Perhaps she fell and crushed him as she was holding him. Or he fell from her hands as she was hurrying. Or they both fell together, if she dropped him out of a reflex as she was falling.
– Cerberus
50 mins ago




Even so, do we know who it was that fell, the nurse or the boy? Contextually, it could be either or both. Perhaps she fell and crushed him as she was holding him. Or he fell from her hands as she was hurrying. Or they both fell together, if she dropped him out of a reflex as she was falling.
– Cerberus
50 mins ago












@Cerberus Good point, I've added an edit. (I don't think it can be both though or we'd have a plural verb.)
– TKR
41 mins ago




@Cerberus Good point, I've added an edit. (I don't think it can be both though or we'd have a plural verb.)
– TKR
41 mins ago












Yes, or it would be...what is that figure of speech or syntactic construction called again? I think there was a Greek name, although perhaps I am thinking of something different.
– Cerberus
22 mins ago




Yes, or it would be...what is that figure of speech or syntactic construction called again? I think there was a Greek name, although perhaps I am thinking of something different.
– Cerberus
22 mins ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Latin Language Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flatin.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f8807%2fhow-is-the-subject-of-the-verb-identified-in-this-verse-of-the-vulgata%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

Puebla de Zaragoza

Musa