I am a bit confused by the way Adler uses the partitive relation denoted by the English "of" in Latin, specifically why he switches the order of the words in the answer.
In the above example from Adler's "Key to the Exercises contained in Adler's Practical Grammar" (Lesson 23, Exercise 31) the order female/neuter in the question is changed to neuter/female in the answer. Another example (same Exercise):
- Suntne amici tui filio tot togae quot indusia?
- Sunt ei quot alterorum, tot alterarum (illarum).
Again a switch of the order of the words between question and answer. However, later on (in Exercise 77) he uses the same order in question and answer:
- Habemusne tam multas caligas quot calceos?
- Habemus vero quot alterorum, tot alterarum (illarum). [Reversing order]
- Plures habemus alterarum quam alterorum (de alteris or unis, quam de alteris).[Keeping same order as in question]
Again, in Exercise 82, he uses the same order in question and answer.
- Accipiuntne Scoti tam multos libros, quam multas epistolas?
- Accipiunt vero tam multos ( or tot) alterorum, quam multas (quot) alterarum.
When Adler introduces this topic in his Practical Grammar (Lesson 23, p. 103), he gives the following example, maintaining the order of the question in the first answer and reversing it in the second. [By the way, is "tam multas illorum" in the first answer really correct? Why feminine "multas" combined with the masculine "illorum"?]
- Conficitne sutor tuus tot caligas quot calceos?
- Plus unarum quam alterorum conficit.
My question: is there any system (and reason) for reversing the word order in the answer or can one choose to do so as one wants?
- Habesne tot pileos quot togas?
- Tot (tam multas) illorum, quot (quam multas) harum habeo.
- Habeo tam multas (tot) ex unis, quam multos (quot) ex alteris.
Valete,
Carolus Raeticus