Exercise 111 Part II #1 and #7

[jsc01]

I was wondering if someone could explain some grammer in these two sentences.

#1 - English: "The men of all Germany are preparing for war". My translation: Viri totus Germaniae bello parant. Is it correct to use bello here (dative singular since the men are preparing "for" war) or bellum (accusative singular), which is what is in the key? Why?

#7 - English: "Among the Romans (there) is no lack of grain". My translation: Apud Romani nulla inopia frumenti est. Is it correct to use Romani here (nominative plural) or Romanos (accustative plural), which again is in the key? Why? Also, is my postitioning of est ok?

Thanks,

[Episcopus]

1. Viri totius Germaniae because -ius is the irregular genitive ending across all genders of the 9 irregular adjectives.

2. Apud Romanos nulla est inopia frumenti.

Apud = +acc, there shouldn't be confusion there

Also to say "there is" the "est" should come first i.e. Apud Romanos est nulla...

You could also start the sentence therewith: "Non est apud Romanos ulla frumenti inopia" etc.

[Ulpianus]

English: "The men of all Germany are preparing for war". My translation: Viri totus Germaniae bello parant. Is it correct to use bello here (dative singular since the men are preparing "for" war) or bellum (accusative singular), which is what is in the key? Why?

Accusative singular. Because although we translate paro as "prepare" it is fully transitive in Latin. In Latin one does not so much prepare for a war as prepare a war, as one might prepare a meal or plan a war. The war is not the indirect, but the direct object of the preparations.

The equal but opposite trap is with verbs like pareo (I obey), which are transitive in English but intransitive in Latin, and therefore take an indirect object which is in the dative.

[Ulpianus]

I was writing my previous post while Episcopus was writing his, so I didn't see his answer. Of course he's right about totius. I've edited my own post to cut out some stuff which it turned out had already been said.

On word order in the second quotation, I respectfully and diffidently disagree with Episcopus. For me at least nulla est seems idiomatic, not est nulla. I think we both agree that putting the verb right to the back of the sentence doesn't feel right in this case (it often doesn't with esse). Perhaps the point is that when one says that something isn't one is not saying that something called nothing is. Perhaps it's just a matter of idiom, or a tendency for negative particles (which is what nulla is really functioning as here) to come before the word they modify.

[Episcopus]

Yes, nulla est is better latin if you like, but for some one learning it was an example of esse meaning "there is" going to the front as it often does.