Textkit Logo

nullam pacem or nihil pacis?

Are you learning Latin with Wheelock's Latin 6th Edition? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback.

nullam pacem or nihil pacis?

Postby phil » Mon Dec 22, 2003 12:58 am

I was doing an English -> Latin exercise and the phrase '.. we were able to have no peace' popped up. The answer on the Wheelock forum says nullam pacem. But is nihil pacis also correct?
phil
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Postby klewlis » Mon Dec 22, 2003 3:10 am

as the object of "have", it should naturally be accusative. I don't know any reason why it would be nominative...

?
User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Postby benissimus » Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:12 am

Different nuances there... and there is no nominative there, klewlis ;) "nihil" is going to be accusative (or nominative) and "pacis" is a genitive.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Postby klewlis » Mon Dec 22, 2003 5:12 am

oops, pax, pacis...

:oops:

(this is why phil is so far ahead of me now... )
User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Postby phil » Mon Dec 22, 2003 6:33 pm

benissimus wrote:Different nuances there

So, both are correct?
phil
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Postby MickeyV » Fri Jan 02, 2004 12:25 am

Both seem correct, yes.

Compare:

1. Pater ei non pecuniam dedit. (His father didn't give him money. [denying, neutrally and dispassionately, the truth of the opposite: His father gave him money. So, strictly, this leaves open the possibility that "father", for instance, paid him money, or that "father" gave him something else, or that "mother" gave money, etc])

2. Pater ei nullam (= non ullam) pecuniam dedit. (His father didn't give him any money. [in this case, there is not, in the first place, a denial (although "non" is, as said, implicated in "nullam"), but a statement, a positive assertion. So, in the case of 1., it is said: "it is not true, that father gave him money", whereas in 2. it is said: "it is true, that father gave him no money". Indeed a nuance, for in 1. the process of giving something is, as such, denied, while in 2. it is asserted, although the object of giving is nothing ])

3. Pater ei nihil pecuniae dedit. (His father gave him nothing in the way of money. [what was stated under 2. is m. m. applicable here as well]).
MickeyV
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands


Return to Wheelock's Latin

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests