I'd like some clarification on which cases are appropriate during the use of the word "quam" with comparatives. I'm teaching Jenney's First-Year Latin (1990).
In Lesson 37 (page 426 of the 1990 edition), the book tries to explain the use of the comparative adjective with quam. The "quam" section follows the partitive genitive with comparatives/superlatives and precedes the section on ablative of degree of difference with comparatives/superlatives.
The "quam" section explains that the words on either side of the "quam" need to have the same case. It provides a couple of examples:
- Nullius virginis pulchrioris quam illius memini. (I remember no maiden more beautiful than she.)
- Regi multo clariori quam tibi paret. (He obeys a king much more famous than you.)
In the first example, the verb takes a genitive object, which explains why "pulchrioris" and "illius" are both genitive. In the second example, the verb takes a dative object, which explains why "clariori" and "tibi" both need to be dative.
The Jenney text doesn't explain the format, and thus my students immediately assumed that any time "quam" shows up, the neighboring words will be dative or genitive. The clever ones even tried to connect the "quam" section with the preceding partitive genitive section, which is not appropriate in either of the given sentences.
Thus, my perplexation began. Not two pages later, the Lesson 37 Practices ask us to translate into Latin these two sentences:
The book's questions:
1. I am more like you than he.
2. I am more like you than him.
My hypothesized translations:
1. Similior tu quam is sum.
2. Similior te quam eum sum.
I would suspect that the "you" would need to be a predicate nominative in the first sentence.
I would also suspect that the "you" in the second sentence be a predicate nominative that switches to match the "eum" due to the "both sides of quam need to match" rule.
However, here are the answer-key's translations:
1. Similior tui quam ille sum.
2. Similior tui quam illius sum.
Why are they using the genitive? Why don't both sides of the "quam" agree?