The word vis does not have singular genitive and dative forms. This makes it difficult to use vis. (I was reminded of this difficulty by this Star Wars question.)

Can you suggest methods of working around the missing forms of vis when writing Latin? What should I do when syntax seems to require genitive or dative? The easiest way would be to use a substitute word for these cases or to coin new forms for vis, but both feel like a disservice to legibility and style. I am open to any suggestions.

For concrete examples, you can consider replacing robur with vis in the following sentences:

  1. Terror roboris magnus erat apud senatores.
  2. Haud multum roboris remanet.
  3. Vir quidam roboris nuclearis peritus acroasem praeparaverat.
  4. Marcum miseret roboris mei.
  5. Roboris Marci causa abire constitui.
  6. Haec potio magica robori meo prodest.
  7. Caesar non pietati sed robori vivebat.
  8. Voluntas robori dissimilis est.

Singular genitive and dative forms of vis exist but are very rare, according to the Gaffiot, which provides some examples:

vis in Gaffiot

Or in Calonghi:

enter image description here

enter image description here

So it may be possible to use those forms when needed (vis and vi).

  • Thanks! (+1) It's good to know that the forms exist. I wonder if they are safe to use in the sense that readers would actually understand. – Joonas Ilmavirta Nov 23 '16 at 12:28
  • 1
    Interesting how L/S and Gaffiot have exactly the same citations, quoted in exactly the same order (though with different sigla). These old dictionaries are obviously all copied from each other. – fdb Nov 23 '16 at 23:51
  • 1
    @fdb Is this not more a consequence of the rarity of the singular genitive and dative forms of vis? – Luc Nov 24 '16 at 10:09
  • 1
    I'm having one of those senior moments. What do you call a non-existent word put in a dictionary on purpose to track possible copyright infringement? – Alex B. Nov 24 '16 at 17:32
  • Both Gaffiot and Calonghi refer to the words . . . 'animum advertit,equitibus suis hostium vi oppositis sarcinas legionarios in acervum iubet comportare . . . ' — 'opposed by the force of the enemy' (b. afr. 69, period 2). Surely not dative, but ablative? – Tom Cotton Nov 25 '16 at 10:40

To find the singular forms of vis is, I believe, fairly rare though perfectly valid. The more prevalent way of 'working round' is to use the plural, usually interpreted as 'strength', etc., though in either a physical or moral sense. The plural is found in all cases — except, of course, the vocative — and any good dictionary will give examples.

You might consider alternatives such as potestas and potentia, though care is needed to ensure that either is exactly apposite to the case in hand, rather as English speakers must choose precisely between puissance and pouvoir in French.

I wonder where you found your concrete examples using [robur], some of which have unusual syntax; are they, perhaps, your own constructions?

  • Thanks! The examples are indeed my own constructions. I used robur merely as a placeholder for vis to make the sentences clear. I tried to go through uses of genitive and dative that are hard to express with other cases. – Joonas Ilmavirta Nov 25 '16 at 15:46

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.