Dative of the Possessor
NealGlnnn
Moreland and Fleischer seem to have upped the difficulty quotient 100% in just
one Unit.
When translating (sum + dative), should one always presume that a dative of the
possessor is intended, unless prohibited by context? For example:
"invenimus civibus quantum audaciae tantum satis esse."
This appears to be either "we discovered that such boldness was enough for the
citizens," or "we discovered that such boldness as was the citizens' was
enough;"
although for the latter I might expect "invenimus civibus quantum audaciae esse
tantum satis."
Are there any guidelines? Of (sum + dative), my text says only that it
"sometimes" indicates possession.
Many thanks, as always.
Lem Novantotto
>When translating (sum + dative), should one always presume that a dative of the
>possessor is intended, unless prohibited by context?
Hi!
*No*. You have to use your 'gray stuff' (your brain, I mean), to
discover which solution does sense. ;)
See: 'mihi consilium captum iamdiu est'.
That is: I've taken my decision already (the decision has been already
taken by me)
and not: the taken decision is already mine. ;)
>"invenimus civibus quantum audaciae tantum satis esse."
As I understand:
we find_(found) / see_(saw) as much boldness as is (was) [just? - it
depends on the context] enough for citizens.
Try also to re-order the words in the sentence:
quantum civibus satis esse tantum audaciae invenimus
or
quantum audaciae civibus satis esse tantum invenimus.
I think the original order is so Latin... may be *really* *too* *much*
Latin. ;)))
--
Bye.
Lem
'CLOCK is what you make of it: partecipa ad un progetto diffuso'
Distributed computing: www.nyx.net/~kpearson/distrib-projects.html
Robert Stonehouse
>Many thanks to the group for your help with the Ovid (as it turns out).
>Moreland and Fleischer seem to have upped the difficulty quotient 100% in just
>one Unit.
>
>When translating (sum + dative), should one always presume that a dative of the
>possessor is intended, unless prohibited by context?
construction is to be defended in the last ditch!
>For example:
>
>"invenimus civibus quantum audaciae tantum satis esse."
>
>This appears to be either "we discovered that such boldness was enough for the
>citizens," or "we discovered that such boldness as was the citizens' was
>enough;"
>although for the latter I might expect "invenimus civibus quantum audaciae esse
>tantum satis."
This does seem very difficult. The infinitive 'esse' must surely go
with the verb 'invenimus': 'we found that it was'. So 'invenimus
tantum satis esse' will mean 'we found that such a quantity was
sufficient'.
That leaves us with 'civibus quantum audaciae' which looks
unpromising. Perhaps we should understand 'erat'? 'Civibus quantum
<erat> audaciae' would mean 'the quantity of boldness that the
citizens possessed'.
Then we get, say, 'We found that the quantity of boldness the
citizens possessed turned out to be sufficient'.
The point of 'turned out to be' is that 'invenimus esse' implies
some kind of discovery (probably) not just looking and seeing.
Perhaps we were not impressed at first sight, but in fact they
managed to defend the city successfully, or something of the kind.
Additional support for this kind of interpretation: it is much more
usual to find 'tantum ... quantum' than the other way round.
'Quantum ... tantum' should be making some kind of special point.
So this comes out with your second version, with a longer
justification in case you are asked for an essay!
>
>Are there any guidelines? Of (sum + dative), my text says only that it
>"sometimes" indicates possession.
It generally indicates an interest of some kind, not always
possessive. Try to get the feel of it! A few examples from
Gildersleeve and Lodge 349 ff.:
Fons aquae dulcis, cui nomen Arethusa est (Cicero Verres 4.53.118)
'A spring of fresh water which is named Arethusa'
Tuo viro oculi dolent 'Your husband's eyes ache'
(almost Terence Phormio 1053)
Si quid peccat, mihi peccat (Terence Adelphoe 115)
'If he does wrong, he does wrong to me'
Est oppidum primum Thessaliae venientibus ab Epiro (Caesar B.C.
3.80) 'It is the first town in Thessaly for those coming from
Epirus'
Mihi res tota provisa est (Cicero Verres 4.42.91)
'I have had the whole matter provided for'
ew...@bcs.org.uk
Musca Volitans
NealGlnnn wrote in message <20010701091234...@ng-cg1.aol.com>...
>Many thanks to the group for your help with the Ovid (as it turns out).
>Moreland and Fleischer seem to have upped the difficulty quotient 100% in just
>one Unit.
>
>When translating (sum + dative), should one always presume that a dative of the
>possessor is intended, unless prohibited by context? For example:
>
>"invenimus civibus quantum audaciae tantum satis esse."
>
>This appears to be either "we discovered that such boldness was enough for the
>citizens," or "we discovered that such boldness as was the citizens' was
>enough;"
>although for the latter I might expect "invenimus civibus quantum audaciae esse
>tantum satis."
>
We found the citizens were as bold as they had to be.
(We found (or find) that to the citizens was (or is) as much of boldness
as was (or is) sufficient.)
Are you sure that the quantum and the tantum have not been reversed?
Allen and Greenough have a couple of pages on the dative of possession.
Regards,
M.V.
enan
> with the verb 'invenimus': 'we found that it was'. So 'invenimus
> tantum satis esse' will mean 'we found that such a quantity was
> sufficient'.
> That leaves us with 'civibus quantum audaciae' which looks
> unpromising. Perhaps we should understand 'erat'? 'Civibus quantum
> <erat> audaciae' would mean 'the quantity of boldness that the
> citizens possessed'.
Or could it be that civibus is a dative wich goes with satis esse in the
same way datives go with satisfacere and sufficere (with the datives
referring to the person for whom something is suffucent)
> Then we get, say, 'We found that the quantity of boldness the
> citizens possessed turned out to be sufficient'.
Or could it be (very literal) : we found so much boldness as was sufficient
to the citizens