- Source
- Digesta Iustiniani Augusti. Mommsen, Theodor & Krueger, Paul, editors. Berlin: Weidmann, 1870.
- Translation
- AI-generated (gemini-3.5-flash) — machine translation; may contain errors
- Languages
- 日本語 · English · 简体中文 · 한국어
- CTS URN
- urn:cts:latinLit:phi2806.phi002.humanitext-lat1:8.3.24.pr
- Generated
- Humanitext Reader · reader.humanitext.ai · 2026-11-14
On whether water from an aqueduct can be lent to a neighbor, Labeo's affirmative opinion and Proculus's negative opinion are contrasted, with Proculus's view being deemed more correct.
[POMPONIUS libro trigensimo tertio ad Sabinum.]
[POMPONIUS, On Sabinus, Book 33]
Ex meo aquae ductu Labeo scribit cuilibet posse me uicino commodare: Proculus contra, ut ne1 in meam partem fundi aliam, quam ad quam seruitus adquisita sit, uti ea possit.2 Proculi sententia uerior est.
Labeo writes that I can lend water from my aqueduct to any neighbor I like. Proculus, on the contrary, holds that it cannot be used on any other part of my land than that for which the servitude was acquired. Proculus’ opinion is more correct.
- 8.3.24.prProculus contra, ut ne
A verb of saying or thinking (such as scribit or censet) is omitted after contra, and the following ut ne clause functions as a noun clause expressing Proculus's opinion or decree.
- 8.3.24.pruti ea possit
The verb possit is in the third person singular, creating a mismatch with the preceding first-person reference meam. This reflects a shift from the concrete hypothetical case ('my aqueduct') to a general rule ('no one/the owner cannot use it'), or it can be understood as an impersonal expression ('it cannot be used').