It's pretty much arbitrary.
There are some standard patterns: first-declension nouns tend to be feminine, second-declension masculine/neuter, third-declension abstract concepts, fourth-declension collectives and states, fifth-declension feminine. But there's an exception to each and every one of these rules.
Historically speaking, the declensions derived ...
A quick web search shows that the phrase 'Diabolus enim et alii Daemones' (without the contra) appears to originate from the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215). The full sentence is Diabolus enim et alii daemones a Deo quidem natura creati sunt boni, sed ipsi per se facti sunt mali, which I would translate as something like, 'For the Devil and other demons ...
Virgil is imitating a Greek construction here, or rather two Greek constructions: the middle voice and the accusative of respect.
Greek had a "middle" voice, which in most tenses was formally identical with the passive, but did not have passive meaning; rather, it expressed actions in which the doer was also somehow affected by the action. It's hard to ...
Yes, the grammar of this sentence is perfectly fine. It's a very simple sentence composed of subject, object and verb.
Subject: Sola dea - The subject needs to be nominative here. Remember that even though two Latin words may be translated with the same English words (so dea and deam are both translated "goddess"), that does not mean that ...
Christus Apostolos misit ... illis Evangelii nuntiandi praebens mandatum
Praebens is a participle modifying Christus: "Christ sent the apostles ... giving...". All the other words you marked depend on praebens.
The dative illis is the recipient of praebens: "giving them".
The neuter past participle mandatum is used as a noun and is the object of praebens: ...
Both are conjugated in the present tense, passive voice, and indicative mood, from the same verb: muto. The difference is that mutamur is conjugated in the 1st person (plural) (“we change”), while mutantur is conjugated in the 3rd person (plural) (“times change”).
Owen is quoting a well-known Latin adage meaning, “Times change, and we change with them.”
I suspect that your friend misremembered the phrase.
Concerning the actual phrase that Julius Caesar said, the biographers offer conflicting evidence. Suetonius tells us that Caesar died in silence, though he admits the tradition that Caesar said in Greek: "καὶ σὺ τέκνον;" Cassius Dio echoes Suetonius, claiming that the "truest account" ...
Your translation "he proved to them that completing these efforts was done very easily" is good.
To express such things in Latin the supine is a good choice.
The supine ablative (like factu) is an ablative of respect.
Hoc responsum facile est scriptu.
= This answer is easy with respect to writing.
= This answer is easy to write.
Futurum est is a future active periphrastic form. It is built from futurum, the future active participle of sum (here in the neuter), which by itself means "going to be, about to be". With the addition of est, it means "It is going to be", or in the translation you quote, "It will come to pass".
Sola dea is the subject, and the subject must be nominative.
Fatum is in the accusative, and not the nominative, and must be, since sola dea is in the nominative. It's the direct object, and the accusative is the case for direct objects. I think you just had your terminology mixed up.
Finally, novit is perfect, not infinitive, of noscere, which is the ...
In classical Latin, the ablative of comparatives could end on -i, although -e is probably more common. Here are a few quotations that I think must be conceded to contain ablatives:
Cornelius Nepos, Vitae Ca. 2.2.2:
… ibi cum diutius moraretur, P. Scipio Africanus consul iterum, cuius in priori consulatu quaestor fuerat, uoluit eum de prouincia depellere …...
"Art for the Sake of Art"
This phrase, quite conveniently, uses the same word order in both English and Latin.
Ars, artis (artium) is a third-declension feminine noun. It can mean "art" in the sense of paintings and sculptures, but can also be more abstract, like the "art" of writing (i.e. the skill and experience required to be ...
Indeed, it means [he] eats; it is a contracted form. It's not very common, nor extremely rare. Lewis & Short even call it "very frequent", which I think is an exaggeration:
The contr. forms es, est, estis, etc., are very freq. in prose and poetry: "est", Vergil, Aeneid 4, 66; 5, 683; Horace, Satires 2, 2, 57
Perfacile factu means "easy to do." Factu is a supine, and this construction—supines coming off of certain adjectives—is pretty much where you will always see its ablative form. Other common examples are:
Mirabile dictu, "Amazing to say";
Difficilis latu, "Difficult to bear";
Optimum factu, "Best [thing] to do;
A relatively common construction in Latin is to use the verb curare.
If "I do this" is hoc facio, then "I have someone do this" is "hoc faciendum curo".
To my knowledge this construction is impersonal in the sense that you cannot indicate who you make do the job.
There is a way to indicate who has to do something, and it is called the passive periphrastic ...
The sentence, absent any context (could you provide some?), would ordinarily be translated
The Goddess alone knows [their, or his, or her, etc.] fate.
Let's break it down word by word:
Sola: Nominative singular, first declension, feminine; agreeing with dea.
dea: Nominative singular; it's the subject (in this case, the actor) of the sentence.
You have several excellent answers here. I just want to add a few words about C. M. Weimer's suggestion that scit might be better than novit.
Scire (scit) and noscere/novisse (novit), two Latin words for "know," have cognates in many Romance languages (perhaps all of them; certainly all those I'm familiar with): savoir/connaître in French, sapere/cognoscere ...
The present stem is persequ-: this can be found by removing -or from the end of the first person active singular persequor. It is a consonant stem, which gets an -e- in present participles: persequens. The same applies to the gerundive: persequendus.
The supine stem is persecut-: this can be found by removing -um from the end of the supine persecutum. The ...
Here is the stub of an answer. Many conjunctions can be used in two or more different ways. And I've only given an example for each category, not an exhaustive list. But this should be enough for you to be able to categorise other conjunctions.
Copulative/Additive: connects two clauses without indicating any specific kind of relation between them: et.
I don't think there are any really clear uses in Greek; the elliptical dual is an archaic Indo-European construction which is no longer productive in Greek, and the elliptical interpretation of Αἴαντε (and the parallel Μολίονε) is based on the usage of other IE languages, mainly Sanskrit.
In Sanskrit, however, the usage is pretty clear. Basically, the idea ...
Your analysis is correct: this is fīlia "daughter" + -ne "?".
The trick is, -ne can attach to any word, not just verbs. In fact, it usually attaches to either the first word, or the most emphatic word, whatever that might be. Since nōn often comes at the beginning, nōn-ne became common enough that you'll often see it analyzed as a word of its own, rather ...
It should indeed be Brute, not Brutus, and the vocative form seems to be far more common if you make an internet search.
The person who told that the last words came with Brutus appears to be slightly misinformed, perhaps due to knowing that the name is Brutus but being unaware of the Latin vocative case.
The nominative Brutus would make sense if it was the ...
Lewis & Short have hidden this in their entry for qui/quae/quod (and not, as I would have thought, in the dedicated entry for quo) – II,E,2,b:
Quo, abl. neutr., with compp. (with or without hoc, eo, or tanto): quo … eo, by how much, by so much, the … the: “quo difficilius, hoc praeclarius,” Cic. Off. 1, 19, 64.
So the construction is quo + comparative. ...
The word quod probably means 'therefore' (or 'in respect of which').
(My dictionary mentions this meaning but gives no examples.)
This would imply that Prometheus was dissatisfied with the situation described before the semicolon and therefore took action.
Another possibility is that quod is a relative pronoun referring to ignis.
That would make quod the ...
Ἐγγύα πάρα δ' ἄτη appears to have been a proverb; it is apparently quoted (see fn. 3) in a fragment of Cratinus, an Attic comic playwright (though Cratinus's version seems to have been different, ἑγγύα δ' ἄτας θυγάτηρ "a pledge is the daughter of recklessness"), and also in a fragment of Thales (scroll down to ἄτη II.2) in the Doric form ἐγγύα, πάρα δ' ἄτα. ...
A good question.
Assimilation (voice): * tagto > * takto. This is a common phenomenon,
cf. scribo-scripsi, veho-vixi etc. (see e.g. Weiss, p. 188, I.1);
With dico, there's nothing unusual: diksi, dikto;
With struo: k was inserted there analogically. Verbs ending in a
labiovelar (kw, gw) follow this pattern:
"the labial element of a labiovelar is ...
The form structum seems to have "c" by analogy to stems that had labiovelar consonants in Proto-Indo-European, as Alex B. says.
In frūctus (from fruor) the Indo-European present stem ended in a labio-velar gʷ, but various analogies no doubt account for strūctus, flūxus, old flūctus, uīctum (from struo, fluo, uīuo)
(Vox Latina, W. Sidney Allen, Second ...
Quae refers to sapientia.
This is a relative clause, and it (mostly) only makes sense if the relative pronoun refers to something mentioned before.
I'm not a native speaker, but I get the impression that English doesn't allow second person relative clauses like the one in the question: "Come here, you who do this and that."
I'm guessing you are confused ...
Unfortunately, you need to know both.
The declension of a noun determines what forms the noun itself takes. Since poēta "poet" is first declension, the nominative singular is poēta, the accusative singular is poētam, and the nominative plural is poētae.
The gender of a noun, on the other hand, determines what forms adjectives take to agree with it. Even ...