9

One can split up the process of finding the case to three steps: Find all possible cases a word could possibly be. Also bear in mind that there might be several options for the base word, like supplici coming from either supplex or supplicium. Check the declension tables if you don't remember them by heart. Analyze the grammatical context. Does the word go ...


9

In all Indo-European languages that I know, copulae are intransitive and normally take the nominative. So everything below will apply to other Indo-European languages, too. It is important to distinguish between objects and other complements. A direct object, which you mean, is always a kind of complement, accompanying a transitive verb; but there are other ...


9

Venetiarum is the genitive plural of the first-declension noun Venetia, -ae. Venetiae, -arum (plural) is Latin for English Venice (singular). Patriarchatus Venetiarum thus means "The Patriarchate of Venice." Why is Venetiae plural? We have a parallel situation in English, since we refer to one country as "The Maldives" (plural). The plural refers in both ...


9

Here's a short answer so far - no one knows. Brandenburg 2013 writes that "In non-technical contexts, ptôsis refers among other things to the ‘falling of dice’ (Pl. Resp. 10,604c6; Aristot. Eth. Eud. 9,1247a21-23). In the grammatical terminology it refers to the forms of nominal declension. This, however, renders the metaphor of falling unintelligible, ...


8

Accusative + Subjective Infinitive seems to be grammatical Longmans' Latin Course: part III. Elementary Latin Prose, by W. Horton Spragge, says that a subjective infinitive takes an accusative subject, and gives an example using "esse": That you are happy is agreeable to me Te beātum esse mihi est gratum (p. 17) ("Te" is the subject, ...


7

This is called a nominativus cum infinitivo, which is possible with intellegitur because the finite verb is passive. Debeo normally has a mere infinitive with it, so there is no indirect statement there either. There is no indirect speech, no accusativus cum infinitivo. An a.c.i. cuts through the sentence, separating main clause from indirect statement, such ...


6

It appears that you are correct that a casus is seen as a kind of metaphor for a noun "falling into place." Maurus Servius Honoratus (4-5th century AD) has an important quote that makes two points that bear on your question: Casus plerique quattuor esse dicunt, auferentes nominativum et vocativum, qui similis est nominativo. ideo autem auferunt ...


6

My suggestion is that both phrases are most properly set in the accusative: Hominem esse me delectat. Finnum esse est canere. I will break my argument into two steps: The accusativus cum infinitivo (AcI) can be used as a subject: this proves that the accusative case is not an "accidental" consequence of the fact that it is the object of such ...


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 ...


5

Yes; when the nominative servus can be construed as the subject of videtur, (or dicitur, cognoscitur ) The slave seems to be carrying a letter. The slave is seen to be carrying the letter. then 'It seems that the slave is carrying the letter.' is Nominative and infinitive.


5

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 ...


4

The answer in Classical Latin is, not at all. No preposition can be followed by the nominative, and no preposition has quite the same meaning as one of the other cases. Something like *ex domus is simply ungrammatical; apud domus is grammatical but doesn't mean what you intend (the second word would have to be domūs, accusative plural). However… Much later,...


4

In (most? all?) Indo-European languages the verb "to be" is called copulative because it joins words that represent the same thing -- in your case, "Nile" and "river." In English, Jane might answer a phone caller's question, "Is this Jane?" with the grammatically correct "Yes, this is she" -- though, since about 1600, by analogy with the general run of post-...


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

First, if you say "good fortune", the two words must have same case, number and gender. Therefore bona fortunam is always wrong. (This may have been a typo, but I wanted to make sure.) The question is choosing between nominative (bona fortuna) and accusative (bonam fortunam). When you wish something, accusative is more common than nominative. Think of them ...


4

The accusative is correct. Allen and Greenough, section 452, note 2, say: An Appositive or Predicate noun or adjective used with an infinitive ín any of these constructions is put in the Accusative, whether the infinitive has a subject expressed or not. Thus, nōn esse cupidum pecūnia est (Par. 51), to be free from desires (not to be desirous) is money in ...


3

As there has been no answer so far, I would say that it is not attested. I have never encountered it in texts or grammars — and I would be glad to hear whether more experienced Latinists share my experience. It seems consistent in Latin that a verb can be treated as a noun, which uses the infinitive for nominative and accusative (without prepositions) ...


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 ...


3

Sum looks like a transitive verb in that there is a subject and an "object" (which isn't really an object). However, it is not a transitive verb. One way that it is often explained is that sum, esse acts like an equals sign ("="). Both sides of the equals sign have to match in case. When you say that Nilus fluvius est, you are saying that the Nile is a river,...


3

Yes, your supposition is correct about the two singular nominatives agreeing with a plural verb: 317. Two or more singular subjects take a verb in the plural. Pater et avus mortuī sunt. His father and grandfather are dead. (Allen and Greenough, Latin Grammar) However, the sense of pareo is to submit to: Fame and glory submit to riches. To answer your ...


3

A Latin adjective can sometimes be read either as a mere attribute or more broadly. For example, consider these two translations: Homo conscius intelligit. 1. A conscious man understands. 2. A man, being conscious, understands. In the first translation conscius is a mere attribute, describing what kind of a man is in question. In the second one there ...


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

A less-technical answer that could help the less technical (although it could be less precise): This happens in most (if not all?) languages with declensions. One way to see it, put in simple words, is that a so-called copulative verb (like to be) is not a proper action with an object, a recipient and a number of complements/modifiers. It is instead a way ...


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

Not sure if this is a satisfactory answer, but given that no one has answered in a few days, I think I can write a few ideas. The explanation is not ontological at all. If you ask how that came to happen, I do not know the answer. Possibly it is out there, and someone else can give it to us, but probably it is lost in the fog of time. If you ask how is it ...


1

In having a principal verb with a subordinate clause, and short as it is, what you propose is technically a complex sentence. We seem, in @Brianpck's answer and subsequent comments, to have tied ourselves in a Gordian knot over the way to proceed. I should like in this answer of my own to cut away the tangle by pointing out that there is, as ever, no single ...


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