Several questions: P60Ex145, P65Ex155, etc.

[lgsoltek]

[Bretonus]

Non solum forma sed etiam superbia reginae erat magna.

I do not know exactly what you're asking about it, but I get the impression you're seeing reginae as a plural when it is a singular genitive.

Not only the beauty but also the pride of the queen was great.

Diana eos inimicos Latonae delebit.

I am not in anyway an expert or fluent or even literate in Latin, but I do not see a problem with this, it seems to just carry more emphasis on inimicos than the key's example. Can any Latinist on here this up?

Mei finitimi consilio tuo non favebunt, quod bello student.

I also would have translated like how you did.

Mind you I know little Latin and the little help I offer I could be mistaken in.

[thesaurus]

[lgsoltek]

Non solum forma sed etiam superbia reginae erat magna.

I do not know exactly what you're asking about it, but I get the impression you're seeing reginae as a plural when it is a singular genitive.

Not only the beauty but also the pride of the queen was great.
.....

Actually my question is, for "non solum... sed etiam...", what determines the gender and number of this phrase? The first part or the second part? Or both? That is, for example, if I say "non solum Sextus sed etiam Marcus", so is it treated as singular or plural? ("Non solum Sextus sed etiam Marcus pulcher est" or "Non solum Sextus sed etiam Marcus pulchri sunt"?). And what about "non solum Sextus sed etiam Diana"? Should it be "Non solum Sextus sed etiam Diana pulcher est", or "pulchri sunt", or "pulchra est", etc.?

[thesaurus]

Non solum forma sed etiam superbia reginae erat magna.

I do not know exactly what you're asking about it, but I get the impression you're seeing reginae as a plural when it is a singular genitive.

Not only the beauty but also the pride of the queen was great.
.....

Actually my question is, for "non solum... sed etiam...", what determines the gender and number of this phrase? The first part or the second part? Or both? That is, for example, if I say "non solum Sextus sed etiam Marcus", so is it treated as singular or plural? ("Non solum Sextus sed etiam Marcus pulcher est" or "Non solum Sextus sed etiam Marcus pulchri sunt"?). And what about "non solum Sextus sed etiam Diana"? Should it be "Non solum Sextus sed etiam Diana pulcher est", or "pulchri sunt", or "pulchra est", etc.?

You'll use the singular, because in each case the construction is disjunctive ("but"). You could reword it as "Sextus pulcher est, atque/et quoque Diana pulchra est." Regarding gender, if there are mixed genders always use the masculine. If they are only feminine, use the feminine. "Non solum Iulia sed etiam Diana pulchra est."

[timeodanaos]

One interesting quetion: if a feminine and a neuter are paired, what gender do they make?

Femina templumque pulchr-** sunt

This has been bugging me. Not that the sentence right here is something I need to write.

[benissimus]

One interesting quetion: if a feminine and a neuter are paired, what gender do they make?

Femina templumque pulchr-** sunt

This has been bugging me. Not that the sentence right here is something I need to write.

Thank you for your very interesting question. It has led me to review a rare but intriguing situation which my mind had become hazy about. For more on these constructions, see Gildersleeve's grammar, §290.

To avoid ambiguity, the adjective may be repeated with each noun:
femina pulchra templumque pulchrum est

Otherwise, the adjective will most often agree with the nearest noun in gender, and may be singular in number:
pulchra est femina et templum

or plural:
femina templumque pulchra sunt

The final construction is common with inanimate objects of any gender. However, at least in prose, I would strive to avoid neutering beautiful ladies. Does anyone known of an example with a personal object accompanied by a neuter nominative outside of poetry?

[lgsoltek]

It's clear now. Thank you guys for all your help!

[vastor]

"Non solum forma sed etiam superbia reginae erat magna."

I have a question here; why isn't solum declined as feminine 1st declension? If I parse the grammar here, I create a model thus:

A=Adverb;AD=Adjective;N=Noun. Word classes are modified from bottom to top with forma being at the head of the nominal phrase.

Code: Select all

                     <N> forma
                    /
          <AD>solum   
        /
<A>Non 


It seems to me that solum should agree with forma in gender, case, and number as it functions as an adjectival modifier in this nominal phrase.

[spiphany]

I think 'solum' is an adverb here. (As it is in the corresponding English expression "not only...but also").

[vastor]

I think 'solum' is an adverb here. (As it is in the corresponding English expression "not only...but also").

That would explain the form, but not the usage. I have never seen an adverb modifying a noun before.

[thesaurus]

I think 'solum' is an adverb here. (As it is in the corresponding English expression "not only...but also").

That would explain the form, but not the usage. I have never seen an adverb modifying a noun before.

It's not modifying the noun but the verb and sentence in general. Don't let the specificities of the word order through you off. Adverbs can come anywhere in the sentence. For example, you could say "I only speak Latin" and the 'only' is an adverb. And you could rewrite the above sentence (with awkward Latin) to make the adverb match the phrasing of this English sentence: "non solum erat magna forma reginae sed etiam superbia." The important word order in this sentence is the order of "non solum" and "sed etiam," and the rest can shift about.

[vastor]

It's not modifying the noun but the verb and sentence in general. Don't let the specificities of the word order through you off. Adverbs can come anywhere in the sentence. For example, you could say "I only speak Latin" and the 'only' is an adverb. And you could rewrite the above sentence (with awkward Latin) to make the adverb match the phrasing of this English sentence: "non solum erat magna forma reginae sed etiam superbia." The important word order in this sentence is the order of "non solum" and "sed etiam," and the rest can shift about.

I understand now, thanks.

[Didymus]

or plural:
femina templumque pulchra sunt

The final construction is common with inanimate objects of any gender. However, at least in prose, I would strive to avoid neutering beautiful ladies. Does anyone known of an example with a personal object accompanied by a neuter nominative outside of poetry?

An interesting challenge. In addition to one's natural disinclination to neuter beautiful ladies, the situation is unlikely to occur in general. However, here is an example for you:

Liv. 32.33.5: legatus [sc. postulabat] naues captiuosque, quae nauali proelio capta essent ... restitui.

Given the entire corpus of Latin literature, one can find just about any oddity.