Bennett's New Latin Grammar (this link will take you to appropriate section) offers several helpful rules of thumb for the agreement of an adjective with multiple nouns.
Although I recommend reading the above entry, which is fairly short, the basic principles are:
Attributive adjectives agree with the nearest noun in both gender and number, e.g. "Filius ...
Doubtful. In 860 of the same play, we get:
stat chaos densum tenebraeque turpes
Chaos here is neuter (because of densum). Lewis and Short says that Chaos is masculine when personified as a god rather than as the underworld or the formless, primordial matter, but I don't see that in the OLD, and none of the examples they give (two from Vergil, one from ...
In my opinion, the most likely translation of the sentece is:
Our sea has many docks
Mare Nostrum was a common name given by the Romans to the Mediterranean Sea around the I century AD, since the empire possesed all of its coast by that time.
Regarding your question in the title, yes adjectives and pronouns must agree in gender, number and case with the ...
I think I understand the root of your confusion, and the simple answer to your question:
Why don't both sides of the quam agree?
Is this: They do agree.
I am more like you than he.
A first point is that similis usually takes the genitive (though it can also take the dative), e.g. "similis eius" = "similar to him." When in doubt with quam, you can ...
In Latin, an adjective always agrees with the (pro)noun it modifies in gender, number, and case. Since Latin is inflected, position is not an important deciding factor, though it can be relevant.
Let's first parse the two nouns in your sentence:
coronas: feminine, plural, accusative
filia: feminine, singular, nominative
All that's left to do is find out ...
Adjectives always agree with the noun they are modifying in case, gender, and number. Since mea is the nominative feminine singular form of meus, mea, meum ("my" or "mine"), it goes with filia and parva which are also in the nominative feminine singular. Mea thus could not go with coronas pulchras, which is in the accusative feminine plural form.
If the adjective is plural and it refers to words of several genders, I seem to recall the masculine is used by default. But I believe a Roman author would indeed recast a sentence like this, especially because it also refers to a neuter word.
If the adjective is singular, it should agree with the last noun mentioned.
The adjective maesto determines the noun clamore and is therefore in a masculine form.
The corresponding neuter form is also maesto.
The thing that reveals the connection to clamore is case: both maesto and clamore are in ablative, whereas chaos is nominative (the subject of the clause).
This literal translation might not be idiomatic English, but it should ...
Indeed, the Greek borrowing was mostly used an a neuter noun in Latin but occasionally we see examples of chaos used as a masculine noun (one source claims that there is only one use of chaos in Latin as a masculine noun - Vetus Latina Luca 16.26 but I couldn't verify this). We need to look it up in TLL.
Quite often, we can't easily tell whether it was used ...
I actually think you are spot on! For this usage of the genitive, there is little need to match the genders of the nouns. Both Aurora and votum are their own, separate entities, so they do not need to match. Votum Aurorae is therefore a good translation.
Now, I can't really make too much of a comment on how poetic it is. I, personally, think it is fine. But ...
Take a look at this older question for gender and number of an adjective referring to several nouns.
There are two basic cases.
The adjective can be attributive or predicative.
If you want to say "The senate and people of Rome did this and that", the adjective "of Rome" is attributive.
If you say "The senate and people are Roman", then the adjective is ...
The form of suus (and meus and others) only depends on the noun it modifies.
The gender, number, or other details of the owner do not matter at all.
It might be helpful to think of suus as an adjective.
In particular, one should not consider it as a form of se/sibi, but as a related adjective.
Then the right form comes more automatically.
This adjective ...
Pubes, genitive pubis means (as the dictionary tells us) "the signs of manhood, i.e. the hair which appears on the body at the age of puberty". It does not mean a single pubic hair, but - like the English word "hair" - it is a collective noun for the whole hairy covering of the body. That is why it stays in the singular even after a plural noun like montes.
Sometimes, especially with neuter nouns, when there are two subjects, an adjective or verb will agree with the closest subject and not the whole subject. This is listed under Allen and Greenough § 286.a:
With two or more nouns the adjective is regularly plural, but often agrees with the nearest (especially when attributive):—
Caesaris omni et ...
The two parts of the exercise are two different statements.
The first holds the speaker (the subject) to be more like the addressee than someone else is. This becomes obvious if you add ‘is’ to the end of the sentence: ‘I am more like you than he is’.
The second holds that he (the speaker) is more like the addressee than he (the speaker) is like someone ...
Since visio is feminine, nova fits while novus does not. So:
does the trick as well as:
But remember that in Latin word endings change according to the grammatical function of the word. Since in the comments you mention that the idea is to lead the reader towards a new vision. You may want to ad endings:
Nisi fallor, vespere in casu ablativo et in omnibus casibus mane simpliciter 'mane' scribitur. Qua de causa forsitan Hieronymus scripsisset duobus casibus ablativis hac in sententia:
Die secundo in duobus partibus (id est, vespere et mane) [omne?] factum est.
Allen & Greenough, New Latin grammar, states (§317, d):
A collective noun commonly takes a verb in the singular; but the plural is often found with collective nouns when individuals are though of...
The corresponding rule in Gildersleeve & Lodge, Latin grammar, states (§211, Remark 1, a):
Substantives of multitude often take the predicate in ...
It appears that the noun can be singular or plural but the ordinals should be singular.
That is, you'd need capitulum or capitula with primum et secundum.
If you go with capitula prima et secunda, it sounds like there are several first chapters and several second chapters as in a collection of books.
(At least I found no evidence to support this possibility ...
Militiae is the genitive singular of militia, which is grammatically singular, but which (like other collective nouns) designates a plurality. Laudantium and dicentium are genitive plural. They agree with militiae ad sensum, but not ad litteram. It is like when you say in English “the whole class are doing their homework”. “Class” is grammatically singular, ...
In my interpretation, multitudo is accompanied by two discrete genitive constructions: the partitive genitive militiae caelestis (so, not the whole heavenly host but just much of it), and then a genitive indicating the contents of the multitude, the substantives laudantium and dicentium: a multitude of the heavenly host, consisting of beings who are praising ...
It is true that this may be considered an example of constructio ad sensum et non ad litteram.
Nevertheless I prefer another perspective: if laudantium and dicentium are substantivized participles that indicate the composition of the militia, we could even translate as follows
"...a large multitude of the heavenly militia of those who praised God..."
The genitive, in this case, functions like the prepositional phrase "of ..." in English, so the object of the preposition is independent with respect to number. Although the genitive describes or qualifies similar to the way that adjectives do, there is no requirement for numerical agreement as there is with adjectives.
For example, in English, we might ...