10

Actually, your quote from the Vulgate isn't an example of audire + dative! Though auditis is spelled the same as the present 2nd person plural ("You [pl.] hear"), it is actually an ablative perfect participle. A clue to this is that there would be an unexplained shift from tu to vos. In your sentence, auditis sermonibus is an ablative absolute forming a ...


9

Since the word comes from male dico, it traditionally took the dative for the same reason that dico takes it. The dative expresses to whom something is spoken or for whom the speech is beneficial (or, in this case, harmful). According to Lewis and Short, the dative was normally used in the classical period, but later the accusative came into usage: ...


7

There aren't any special uses involved here; your incorrect assumption is that embolum (navis) aeneum is accusative -- in fact it's the nominative subject of finiebat. Literally, "one part of which a sort of (quasi) bronze beak of a ship completed". The Latin idiom is different here from how we'd say it in English, which is what makes this clause confusing, ...


6

As L&S put it, in their classic textwall style (entry for in, II.C.2): Of the object or end in view, regarded also as the motive of action or effect: “non te in me illiberalem, sed me in se neglegentem putabit,” Cic. Fam. 13, 1, 16: “neglegentior in patrem,” Just. 32, 3, 1: “in quem omnes intenderat curas,” Curt. 3, 1, 21: “quos ardere in proelia vidi,...


6

The answers given by Tony, Kingshorsey, and Joonas are correct and should be enough for learners of Latin. However, it is true (and interesting!) that, from a linguistic/philological point of view, the apparently innocent question raised above by Imc ("If liber is a direct object, then why not put it in accusative?") is more complex if one considers, for ...


6

The L&S entry is pretty clear, in my opinion. Per takes the accusative, but it has mistakenly been used with the ablative. It cites two examples from later inscriptions: Inscr. Miseni Repert. ex a. p. Chr. n. 159 Inscr. Orell. 3300 After some tracking down, I found it in Campania tardoantica (284-604 d.C.). Here is a relevant image from pg. 283:


4

The gerundive is a passive entity: it (whatever it is)-ought-to-be-done. Here: "The book: it-ought-to-be-read". So, "book" is the subject and is therefore nominative, by definition; not "he read the book" in which case "book" would be in the accusative. This confusion can arise in other areas: remember, "consul fieret"; was convinced that it should be "...


4

If "ergativity" is to be (mis)understood à la Burzio (1986), i.e., as "unaccusativity" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzio%27s_generalization ), yes, Latin has been claimed to present so-called "split intransitivity", whereby the typical distinction within intransitive verbs (the one between unergatives vs. unaccusatives/Burzio’s ergatives) can be claimed ...


3

I'm not going to use the term "ergative" because I don't understand its exact definition and when it is appropriate (and as the comments mention, it has another definition, so it can be confusing to use this terminology). Passive in form "verba communia" Something that seems to match what you describe on the surface level is something called "verba ...


3

As in English, the presence of a direct object seems to commonly be treated as evidence that a -ns word is a verbal participle rather than a departicipial adjective. "The use of the present participle in Livy", by Alice E. Johnson (1915) gives this as a criterion (pp. 4-5). Johnson ultimately defines the distinction between participle and adjective in ...


2

My favourite animal is a dog. Dog will be canis, nominative because 'is' isn't a transitive verb, it's a copular. However (just to confuse you) Animal mihi gratiosum, the subject, is also nominative; the nominative ends in -um because animal is neuter. I want a dog. This is a straightforward transitive verb; the subject if it is stated, will ...


2

Comparison to English might help here. (English is often misleading for Latin, but here it can at least illustrate the same phenomenon.) English distinguishes between nominative and accusative for personal pronouns, for example "he" vs. "him". Therefore the best analogue is found with pronouns instead of nouns. Consider the sentence: Ille amandus est. Why ...


2

Hugh is absolutely right, but just to add a bit more explanation… Nominative is the "default case" in Latin. If all else fails, use the nominative. It's also, conveniently, the form listed in dictionaries, and the form people will use when talking about the word itself ("The Latin word for 'lord' is dominus"). Accusative is used when it's the direct object ...


1

Hugh's answer is good and correct, but let me offer you a different point of view. English makes a distinction between nominative and accusative only for some pronouns. The nominatives (I, he, she) are used in different situations than accusatives (me, him, her). Latin and English use the two cases quite similarly, and in simple sentences like your examples ...


1

I think the confusion, here and on the previous question regarding degrees of comparison, stems from conflating syntactical and semantic approaches. Syntax focuses on structural relationships. In syntax, something is called adjectival if it modifies a noun. That modification can be either attributively (within the noun phrase) or predicatively (in a ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible