please critique my construction

[hlawson38]

I was baffled by the genitive singular "muneris".

Context: An amazing transformation occurs: Iolaus, a grown man long before, appears, miraculously restored to first young manhood. Asterisks mark the problematic words.

hoc* illi dederat Iunonia muneris* Hebe
victa viri precibus.

Iuno's daughter Hebe, won over by the pleading of the man [Hebe's husband Hercules], had performed this [deed] of service for him [Iolaus, I think]

Here is my construction of "hoc . . . muneris":

"hoc": pronoun, accusative singular neuter; the antecedent is the wondrous transformation just witnessed. "Hoc" implies some word such as "factum" or "actum". "muneris" is the genitive singular complement of "hoc".

What kind of genitive is this?

[Qimmik]

It's a kind of partitive genitive, with munus treated here (by poetic license) as a "mass" or "innumerable" noun: literally "this of gift," "this of service," i.e., "this as a gift or service."

It's the construction described in in Allen & Greenough sec. 349b:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ythp%3D346

b. The poets and later writers often use the partitive genitive after adjectives, instead of a noun in its proper case:—

1. “sequimur tē, sāncte deōrum” (Aen. 4.576) , we follow thee, O holy deity. [For sāncte deus (§ 49. g. N.)]

2.“nigrae lānārum” (Plin. H. N. 8.193) , black wools. [For nigrae lānae.]

3.“expedītī mīlitum” (Liv. 30.9) , light-armed soldiers. [For expedītī mīlitēs.]

4.“hominum cūnctōs ” (Ov. M. 4.631) , all men. [For cūnctōs hominēs; cf. e.]

Munus would not scan here, so Ovid has resorted to this somewhat strained construction.

[hlawson38]

Thanks Qimmik for another erudite comment. Your previous suggestion that poets sometimes make the accusative plural was the first time I'd apprehended this idea, but I believe I've spotted one or two more instances since then. That's the great thing about personal instruction; for me it sticks in memory better.

Can you describe how you find Allen and Greenough citations? Is there a search system for this? I consult the printed version, but I haven't found a way to use the Perseus online version.

[Qimmik]

"Can you describe how you find Allen and Greenough citations?"

If you know the section number, you can type it in the box on the right-hand side after "AG" and hit enter. Otherwise, you can hit "Part" in the box labeled "View text chunked by:" on the left-hand side. That will usually, after a considerable delay, bring up a list of topics. Clicking on the topics will narrow them down until eventually specific section numbers will show, and clicking on a section number will take you there. It's a very awkward and frustrating system, and, as I mentioned earlier, it's best to work from the print edition.

[hlawson38]

Thanks Qimmik for the comment on the Perseus presentation of A&G.

The takeaway for me is this: use the print A&G as a finding aid for the Perseus presentation. Then cut and paste from the the online version, as you most helpfully do.

[Qimmik]

You don't need to use the online version of A&G unless you want to discuss a section online. Better just use the print version to find information for yourself. The online version of Lewis & Short is easier to use on the University of Chicago site, but the abridged version is even easier and will have most of the words you will need in reading classical authors. The big Lewis & Short is still better than the online version. Although it's not cheap, it's still a bargain in my view if you want to proceed to an advanced level in Latin. The Oxford Latin Dictionary is in many respects better than Lewis & Short, especially for subtle distinctions in word meanings, but it's much less convenient that the big Lewis & Short, which is still a very good dictionary and very useful dictionary despite having been compiled 135 years ago or so.

For Greek, the online versions of Smyth's grammar and the Liddell & Scott lexicon are next to impossible without the print versions. The Intermediate Liddell & Scott is pretty comprehensive, though.

Keep the Ovid questions coming! I love the Metamorphoses, and I've read it three times. It just gets better and better. Same with Vergil--every line of him. Ovid isn't as carefully crafted as Vergil at the level of the individual line--here, I think, we see him using a dodge to fit the meter--but Ovid's facility with writing Latin verse is astounding. He must have dreamed in hexameters and elegiac couplets.

[hlawson38]

Keep the Ovid questions coming! I love the Metamorphoses, and I've read it three times. It just gets better and better. Same with Vergil--every line of him. Ovid isn't as carefully crafted as Vergil at the level of the individual line--here, I think, we see him using a dodge to fit the meter--but Ovid's facility with writing Latin verse is astounding. He must have dreamed in hexameters and elegiac couplets.

Thank you Qimmik for the generous encouragement to ask questions. I'll be sure to call for help.