[Grammar] without a "cives"

[sitifan]

The belief that liberalism could achieve modus vivendi by encouraging privatism has culminated in the nearly complete disassociation of the governing class and a citizenry without a cives. (Patrick J. Deneen)

https://books.google.com.tw/books?i...ECAUQAQ#v=onepage&q="without a cives"&f=false

Why did the author use the indefinite article "a" before the plural noun "cives"?

 

[GoesStation]

Setting the word in italics means it's foreign. Look up the Latin "cives".

 

[sitifan]

Setting the word in italics means it's foreign. Look up the Latin "cives".

It's still plural in Latin.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/cives
cīvēs

nominative plural of cīvis
genitive singular of cīvis
accusative plural of cīvis
vocative plural of cīvis

 

[GoesStation]

Except when it's the "genitive singular of cīvis". Look up "civis" in Latin.

 

[sitifan]

Except when it's the "genitive singular of cīvis". Look up "civis" in Latin.

How is it possible to use a genitive case as the object of the preposition "without"?

 

[GoesStation]

How is it possible to use a genitive case as the object of the preposition "without"?

It's a genitive in Latin. Foreign words are often adopted without regard to exactly how they're used in their own language.

 

[SoothingDave]

I looked here and it says its plural.

http://latindictionary.wikidot.com/noun:civis

I have no idea what this writer is trying to say. I know he likes to impress with Latin

 

[Tdol]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Deneen_(author)

Maybe his Latin is not perfect- he studied English Lit and Political Science.

 

[jutfrank]

It's certainly far from clear, but as far as I understand, the writer means to contrast the modern notion of citizenry as it exists in liberal societies with the original model (based on the ancient Roman republican one). He's basically saying that precisely what was originally considered desirable about liberalism has come to be considered its major problem. That's what I get, anyway!

He uses cives as a singular noun. You can translate this into modern English with a similarly singular noun—citizenry. The fact that the word is plural in Latin is irrelevant.

 

[SoothingDave]

I browsed through his introduction. I think he's trying to say that with increasing of what is "private" versus what is part of the "civic body," citizens increasingly have no "civic thing" that they belong to. And the election of legislators and president is largely for show as the real power is in bureaucracy, so there is disassociation of citizens from the people actually ruling.

But that's just my best guess.