Word Order

by **mariek** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 3:37 pm

I've just started learning about the Declension of Nouns and I understand that this is what clues you in to whether the word is Nominative, Genitive, or Accusative. So I understand now that word order isn't such a big deal as in English. The example in the book says all of the following mean "The lady loves her daughter" : 1. Domina Filiam amat 2. Filiam domina amat 3. Amat filiam domina 4. Domina amat filiam. My question is this ... although all four sentences above mean the same thing, is there a preferred way to say this ? Is one form more commonly said or preferred for stylistic reasons ? I also noticed that not all combinations are given (such as "filliam amat domina", etc), so word order must matter somewhat.

by **Magistra** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 5:45 pm

When you have a subject-verb-direct object type of sentence the most common sentence pattern is nominative-accusative-verb: Domina filiam amat. The verb usually comes at the end of a clause thereby signaling the end of a complete thought. The ancient Romans did not have punctuation as we do. Placing the words in a different order usually indicates emphasis of some sort: Filiam domina amat. The emphasis is on the fact that the lady loves her_daughter_ (as opposed to someone else). Amat filiam domina. Here the emphasis is on the action. In poetry the word order further "messed up" due to the constraints of meter. Magistra

by **Magistra** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 6:46 pm

You may find this website helpful: http://www.cambridgelatin.org/scoseq5.html It is geared to the Cambridge Latin Course, but it gives a listing of sentence patterns on the left (with examples). You can continue to more examples by clicking on Units 2-4 at the bottom of the page. Magistra

by **mariek** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 7:40 pm

Thank you very much for the explanation, I really appreciate it. Sounds like word order is something I will get the hang of with more practice. That's very interesting how you can change the emphasis by placing the word closer to the front of the sentence.

by **mariek** » Wed Jul 09, 2003 7:47 pm

[quote author=Magistra link=board=3;threadid=229;start=0#1142 date=1057776393] http://www.cambridgelatin.org/scoseq5.html[/quote] I just looked at this site. Wow ! This is really great. I don't understand a lot of it yet, but I am bookmarking it for future reference.

Website · by **benissimus** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 1:05 am

There actually are hardly any "incorrect" word orders. "Filiam amat domina" is perfectly acceptable and fairly common. Just wait until you start having multi-line sentences with words strewn all around. Now that is where the fun part comes in!

by **mariek** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 6:46 am

[quote author=benissimus link=board=3;threadid=229;start=0#1156 date=1057799100] Just wait until you start having multi-line sentences with words strewn all around. Now that is where the fun part comes in!

[/quote] OK, you're scaring me now...

But I'm sure my erudite friends here will help me disentangle any enigmas I happen to stumble upon during my adventures in Latin... This makes me think of something someone was telling me about German... I think it was something about how the verb end up at the end of the sentence ... so you get this long sentence that you're not sure in which direction it's heading until you get to the end. Of course I be smoking crack cuz my memory is fuzzy on the specifics...

by **vinobrien** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 4:21 pm

I in the middle of the University College London Summer School in Latin which consists of unprepared viva voce translation of Vergil in a very small group. While this is probably not legal in some states of America, it is regarded as a valid and educative passtime here. Whilst waiting for my turn at the whipping post, it struck me that Latin word order really is completely aleatoric (oh, God, the Latin is infecting me) and that Vergil obviously determines his word order by simply randomising the order of words. I wonder if archeologists have discovered the "Vergil Compostion Machine", a bag into which the author put the words he was going to use and drew them out at random. Seriously though, Latin word order is important. Any language can only be expressive in some of three areas; lexis, morphology and syntax. As its morphology is pretty limited, Latin goes for syntax to be expressive. Greek, on the other hand, has "easier" syntax but a far more complex morphology and lexis.

by **Episcopus** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 6:37 pm

yeah ok what is morphology and syntax ;D hic hoc hanc

by **mariek** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 6:58 pm

[quote author=vinobrien link=board=3;threadid=229;start=0#1172 date=1057854118]Any language can only be expressive in some of three areas; lexis, morphology and syntax.[/quote] [quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=229;start=0#1176 date=1057862255] yeah ok what is morphology and syntax[/quote] Whew, glad I'm not the only one with questions.

Um... what's morphology ?

by **Episcopus** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 7:06 pm

vere, multas lacrimas habeo

by **mariek** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 7:53 pm

[quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=229;start=0#1180 date=1057863996] vere, multae lacrimae habeo[/quote] :-\ I'm not that advanced. Have no idea what this says. I'm guessing : indeed, i have many tears ???

by **ingrid70** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 8:46 pm

Morphology is about word-formation: declensions, conjugations and the like. Syntax is about how those words forms a sentence, or how the forms are used. So: the fact that filiam is the accusative of filia is morphology; the fact that the accusative is used as the direct object is syntax. Ingrid

by **Episcopus** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 8:52 pm

[quote author=mariek link=board=3;threadid=229;start=0#1184 date=1057866817] [quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=229;start=0#1180 date=1057863996] vere, multas lacrimas habeo[/quote] :-\ I'm not that advanced. Have no idea what this says. I'm guessing : indeed, i have many tears ??? [/quote] Advanced! :-\ eheu! /habere is with .acc damn just embarrassed myself again... multas lacrimas habeo quia miser non laetusque sum! stupidus sum inopia ludo in meo oppido ;D

by **Episcopus** » Thu Jul 10, 2003 8:59 pm

[quote author=ingrid70 link=board=3;threadid=229;start=0#1187 date=1057869977] Morphology is about word-formation: declensions, conjugations and the like. Syntax is about how those words forms a sentence, or how the forms are used. So: the fact that filiam is the accusative of filia is morphology; the fact that the accusative is used as the direct object is syntax. Ingrid [/quote] O! Ingrid! Esne dea eius fori an alterius? cogito te esse dea. sed mea mater dea non est, quia ea alium virum mulcebat, ubi meus pater erat in mea casa!

Website · by **benissimus** » Fri Jul 11, 2003 4:04 am

O Episcope.... Syntax- grammatical rules. Morphology- the ways in which words mutate. Lexis- the meanings behind words. Marie, you were write on with that translation of Episcopus'

by **mariek** » Fri Jul 11, 2003 7:17 am

[quote author=ingrid70 link=board=3;threadid=229;start=0#1187 date=1057869977] Morphology is about word-formation: declensions, conjugations and the like. Syntax is about how those words forms a sentence, or how the forms are used.[/quote] Thanks for explaining morphology. So that's what it's called ! I sorta knew what syntax was from programming languages.

by **mariek** » Fri Jul 11, 2003 7:23 am

[quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=229;start=0#1188 date=1057870347]multas lacrimas habeo quia miser non laetusque sum! ... stupidus sum inopia ludo in meo oppido ;D [/quote] Sigh... one of these days I will understand what you write. I've only made it as far as Lesson IV in D'Ooge ... doing all the exercises, and then making up extra "drill" exerrcises by writing all the singular/plural nom/gen/acc forms for all the nouns that have been presented so far which is tedious but I'm hoping this will all sink in someday.

by **mariek** » Fri Jul 11, 2003 7:30 am

Beniss >>> A very concise explanation of each. Thanks ! And I can't tell you how much your comment (about my attempt to translate "vere, multas lacrimas habeo") means to me; it's really encouraging.

by **Episcopus** » Fri Jul 11, 2003 11:29 am

/bangs the table D'OOGE IS THE MAN. I am said that he is dead. I wanted to thank him. I know when I finish his book I will be at least decent. Mariek, don't worry about doing your own exercises! He presents the first principles in about 35 pages, which is alot. Although relatively little is covered in this section compared to the rest of the book you will get a feeling for the language and all nouns are first declension, so He pushes nouns such as "agricola" and "luna" into your mind. All cases bar vocative which is just "Agricola" anyway - He will make you know 1st declension with minimal effort! And once the 2nd declension comes by you will be used to the cases and will adapt. People should talk more in the Agora...but it's not busy so I have to come up with random Latin here to practise. But beniss will go all pluperfect subjunctive on us

by **mariek** » Fri Jul 11, 2003 7:52 pm

[quote author=Episcopus link=board=3;threadid=229;start=15#1207 date=1057922976]People should talk more in the Agora...but it's not busy so I have to come up with random Latin here to practise. Well I'll practice with you in the Agora when I get up to speed ... though it may take me a few lifetimes at the rate I'm going !!! :-\ How much time do you devote to each lesson in his book ? [/quote]

Website · by **benissimus** » Fri Jul 11, 2003 8:46 pm

I agree. The Agora needs more action. Illi Graeci totum forum dominant! Est scelus quod faciunt!

by **Milito** » Fri Jul 11, 2003 9:10 pm

Bene sane! Ibi igitur loquamur! De qua re? Kilmeny (Translation way below for Mariek, if you'd like......) "Bene sane" = "Very good" "Ibi" = "There" "Igitur" = therefore "Loquamur" = "Let us speak" (This is a third conjugation deponent verb - meaning that it looks like it's in passive tense, but is actually active - in a subjunctive mood. See, it didn't hurt that much!) "De qua re" - "About what subject" ("Res" is one of those very rare 5th declension nouns that Benissimus mentioned. It's one of those wonderful words that means "thing", and pretty much anything else you can think of.....)

Website · by **benissimus** » Fri Jul 11, 2003 9:28 pm

Of shoes and ships, of ceiling wax, of cabbages and kings!

by **Milito** » Fri Jul 11, 2003 9:32 pm

"Calceorum et navium, cerae sigillorum et regum!" What a mouthful! Kilmeny

by **annis** » Sat Jul 12, 2003 2:21 am

[quote author=Milito link=board=3;threadid=229;start=15#1226 date=1057959152] "Calceorum et navium, cerae sigillorum et regum!" What a mouthful! [/quote] Indeed. My delicate poetic sensibilities would feel much calmer if you put the complex phrase at the end of this utterance: calceorum et navium, regum et cerae sigillorum. (And I might suggest moving the calceorum before the comma, just for parallel sounds. Anyway.) This is a standard part of the early poetic traditions of the entire Indo-European sphere, popping up in the Rg Veda, Homer, Ovid (probably via Homer) and the Irish bards. It's call the "law of increasing members." When you list 3+ things, the very last thing needs to be longer somehow, usually by adding an adjective or a genitive. "Snaggle-toothed A, B and C." Ack! No good. "A, B and snaggle-toothed C." Ah. Isn't that better?

by **Magistra** » Sat Jul 12, 2003 1:53 pm

Let's not forget the cabbages: brassicarum Magistra

by **Episcopus** » Sat Jul 12, 2003 5:11 pm

[quote author=benissimus link=board=3;threadid=229;start=15#1218 date=1057956383] I agree. The Agora needs more action. Illi Graeci totum forum dominant! Est scelus quod faciunt! [/quote] Graeci sunt mei amici quia patria sua est finitima meae patriae Armeniae. (dont hurt me if its wrong i SUCK) (tricksy subjunctivseses)

by **Magistra** » Tue Jul 15, 2003 12:12 am

I have moved this reply to this thread since it is more appropriate here. benissimus dixit: Therefore, it would be Filia agricolae bonam cenam parat, as you put it, or to be a little bit clearer, Filia bonam cenam parat agricolae. Both of course being equally acceptable, though the latter is easier to translate. Both would be understood, but probably with the wrong interpretation by some. Your first sentence means "The farmer's daughter prepares a good dinner." OR "The daughter prepares a good dinner for the farmer." Depends on context. Your second sentence moves the farmer after dinner thereby indicating that it is his dinner: "The daughter prepares the farmer's good dinner." You'll find this kind of mixed-up word order (hyperbaton) in poetry, but not often in prose. The usual pattern for this sort of sentence is Nom. Acc. Dat. Verb. The Gen word usually follows the noun it is associated with. Magistra

by **mariek** » Tue Jul 15, 2003 1:52 am

[quote author=Magistra link=board=3;threadid=229;start=15#1385 date=1058227945]The usual pattern for this sort of sentence is Nom. Acc. Dat. Verb. The Gen word usually follows the noun it is associated with.[/quote] And this is why I got confused. The GEN word usually follows the noun. So in "Bona filia agricolae cenam parat", I thought that the word "agricolae" was the GEN of the word "filia". So as I understand it, and according to BLD, the word order is usually this : subject -- modifiers of the subject -- indirect object -- direct object -- adverb -- verb Of course this is not set in stone. It varies depending on what word/action you want to emphasize and how the planets line up. I'm sure I'll get a better hang of this with more practice. ;D

by **Milito** » Tue Jul 15, 2003 2:23 pm

[quote author=William Annis link=board=3;threadid=229;start=15#1252 date=1057976487] My delicate poetic sensibilities would feel much calmer if you put the complex phrase at the end of this utterance: calceorum et navium, regum et cerae sigillorum. (And I might suggest moving the calceorum before the comma, just for parallel sounds. Anyway.) This is a standard part of the early poetic traditions of the entire Indo-European sphere, popping up in the Rg Veda, Homer, Ovid (probably via Homer) and the Irish bards. It's call the "law of increasing members." When you list 3+ things, the very last thing needs to be longer somehow, usually by adding an adjective or a genitive. "Snaggle-toothed A, B and C." Ack! No good. "A, B and snaggle-toothed C." Ah. Isn't that better? [/quote] You're right all round. It is better. And I appreciate the comment on the poetical sensibilities. Sooner or later I'll get beyond just gasping/grasping for meaning, and actually get presentation in there too..... (And Magistra.... I do apologize for forgetting the cabbages!) Kilmeny

by **Episcopus** » Tue Jul 15, 2003 4:55 pm

I don't really follow word order when I attempt to write Latin! I slap down whatever feels right emphasis wise :-X

by **mariek** » Tue Jul 15, 2003 5:59 pm

I'm still learning the basics but I'm sure I'll learn the finer points of Latin and better writing style in the future. But it makes so much sense now that you've pointed out how much better it sounds when the longer words are at the end.

by **Episcopus** » Tue Jul 15, 2003 6:20 pm

what does "sigillum" mean? I saw someone on IRC cum eo username

by **Magistra** » Tue Jul 15, 2003 8:40 pm

Sigillum is usually used in the plural as you can see from earlier posts here. Posted by: benissimus Posted on: July 11, 2003, 05:28:03 PM Of shoes and ships, of ceiling wax, of cabbages and kings! Posted by: Milito Posted on: July 11, 2003, 05:32:32 PM "Calceorum et navium, cerae sigillorum et regum!" This is the entry form the Lewis & Short Dictionary found at the Perseus Project. sĭgilla , ōrum (sing.: SIGILLVM VOLKANI, Inscr. Marin. Fratr. Arv. p. 357; v. also infra, II.), n. dim. [signum] . I. Little figures or images: apposuit patellam, in quā sigilla erant egregia, Cic. Verr. 2, 4, 22, § 48 : Tyrrhena sigilla, Hor. Ep. 2, 2, 180 : parva, Lact. 2, 4, 19 : perparvula, Cic. Verr. 2, 4, 43, § 85 ; Plin. 36, 24, 59, § 183; Ov. A. A. 1, 407: quattuor certamina brevibus distincta sigillis, woven or wrought in, id. M. 6, 86.-- Of the figures on seal-rings: sigilla anulo imprimere, Cic. Ac. 2, 26, 86 .-- b. Transf., a seal, Hor. Ep. 1, 20, 3; Vulg. Apoc. 5, 1; 6, 1 et saep.-- _ast; II. In the sing. for signum, a sign, mark, trace, Ven. Vit. S. Mart. 2, 326. Here's the address for the entry. If you go there, you'll see that more information is given. http://perseus.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2344190 Magistra

Website · by **benissimus** » Tue Jul 15, 2003 11:15 pm

I think you're all getting a bit ahead of yourselves! of cabbages and kings... that's not a genitive "of"! You must use DE+Abl.! Sorry to burst your poetic bubble

by **Magistra** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 2:05 am

You're absolutely right!! I think everyone keyed off of the word "of" which the genitive case represents. However, in the original context the "of" = "about" which is "de". Maximas gratias! Magistra

by **Magistra** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 2:36 am

Just for fun -- more Lewis Carroll in Latin. http://www.gmu.edu/departments/fld/CLASSICS/iabervocius.html Word order?? Are most of these "real words"? Magistra

by **Milito** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 5:21 pm

Yes, Benissimus is right (again).... It should be "de". And Magistra is right, too - I was the keying on the word "of" which triggered so many genitives.... I'll stand by the 'sigillorum', though, as part of "wax of seals" = sealing wax! And on Jabberwocky (the English version......) Apparently only 2 words in that whole poem are not "real". One is 'vorpol' (as in - "He took his vorpol blade in hand" (I think I spelled it wrong....), and I don't remember the other, although it might be 'snicker-snack', as in "what the vorpol blade went"..... I can't speak for the accuracy of the Latin words, though...... Kilmeny

by **mariek** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 5:41 pm

Since words ending in -a are predominantely feminine ... does this mean "Magistra" is a feminine noun? And if it were to be masculinized, would it be "Magistrus" (like domina vs dominus)?

Who is online