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.
Post Reply
phil
Textkit Fan
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

nullam pacem or nihil pacis?

Post by phil »

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?

User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1668
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis »

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

?

User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California
Contact:

Post by benissimus »

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
klewlis
Global Moderator
Posts: 1668
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Contact:

Post by klewlis »

oops, pax, pacis...

:oops:

(this is why phil is so far ahead of me now... )

phil
Textkit Fan
Posts: 254
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 2:01 am
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Post by phil »

benissimus wrote:Different nuances there
So, both are correct?

MickeyV
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:29 pm
Location: The Netherlands

Post by MickeyV »

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]).

Post Reply