Which is the subject?
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:49 pm
- Location: Bergenfield, NJ
Which is the subject?
In the following sentence:
VIR SERVOS LABORARE DESEDERO
the book i am using says that 'SERVOS' is the subject
in the accusative. Isn't VIR also the subject? Are they
both the subject?
the best i can make of this:
SERVOS is the direct object
VIR is the subject
Thanks.
VIR SERVOS LABORARE DESEDERO
the book i am using says that 'SERVOS' is the subject
in the accusative. Isn't VIR also the subject? Are they
both the subject?
the best i can make of this:
SERVOS is the direct object
VIR is the subject
Thanks.
cuts like ice cream fast like a razor blade
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
If you meant "desidero", blutoonwithcarrotandnail, it can take a subject accusative with the infinitive. "[As] a man, I require servants to work." Otherwise, I don't get the future perfect of "desideo" or "desido" with a subject accusative and infinitive: "[As] a man, I will have settled down servants to work". I didn't know you could use that there, but lots I don't know as a learner, of course.
Si "desidero" scripsisse voluisti, canorcaerulecarotâclavoque, hoc verbum casus accusativum cum infinitivo accomodat. Eo casu, verto: "[As] a man, I require servants to work."
Aliter, verbum ut "desideo" vel " desido", tempore praeterito futuro, cum accusativo infinitivoque me confundit: "[As/when] a man, I will have settled down servants to work(?)". Multa autem quae nescio qui adhùc discipulus sum, certé.
Si "desidero" scripsisse voluisti, canorcaerulecarotâclavoque, hoc verbum casus accusativum cum infinitivo accomodat. Eo casu, verto: "[As] a man, I require servants to work."
Aliter, verbum ut "desideo" vel " desido", tempore praeterito futuro, cum accusativo infinitivoque me confundit: "[As/when] a man, I will have settled down servants to work(?)". Multa autem quae nescio qui adhùc discipulus sum, certé.
Last edited by adrianus on Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:49 pm
- Location: Bergenfield, NJ
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
Clause = clausula, princeps, principis (genitive) = main, subsidiarius -a -um = subsidiary
Ego (qui vir sum) desidero: servos laborare. "I, a man, require servants to work" or "I, as a man, require servants to do work" or "A man such as I requires servants to do work" (I recommend this translation/quam traductionem tibi commendo).
Ego = vir = casu nominativo = principis clausulae vel sententiae subjectivum est.
Servos = casu accusativo = cum infinitivo, OBJECTIVUM sententiae vel clausulae principis AT/SED subsidiariae clausulae SUBJECTIVUM est.
Ego (qui vir sum) desidero: servos laborare. "I, a man, require servants to work" or "I, as a man, require servants to do work" or "A man such as I requires servants to do work" (I recommend this translation/quam traductionem tibi commendo).
Ego = vir = casu nominativo = principis clausulae vel sententiae subjectivum est.
Servos = casu accusativo = cum infinitivo, OBJECTIVUM sententiae vel clausulae principis AT/SED subsidiariae clausulae SUBJECTIVUM est.
Last edited by adrianus on Sat Sep 06, 2008 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 280
- Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:36 pm
- Location: Hafnia, Denmark
Do you know the term 'nexus'? It is a term invented by some old, Danish linguist to denote the relation between the action and the agent (i.e. the one doing the action) of a clause.
For example, vir desidero is a nexus relation in that vir does the action denoted by the verb.
You can imagine both a finite nexus (with a finite verb, i.e. conjugated in person, tense, mood and number), as the above example, and an infinite nexus (i.e. with a verb in the infinitive), such as servos laborare, where servos is agent of the action denoted by laborare.
Servos laborare is the object of the nexus relation vir desidero, and is in turn also a nexus in itself.
For example, vir desidero is a nexus relation in that vir does the action denoted by the verb.
You can imagine both a finite nexus (with a finite verb, i.e. conjugated in person, tense, mood and number), as the above example, and an infinite nexus (i.e. with a verb in the infinitive), such as servos laborare, where servos is agent of the action denoted by laborare.
Servos laborare is the object of the nexus relation vir desidero, and is in turn also a nexus in itself.
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
-
- Textkit Fan
- Posts: 263
- Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 2:49 pm
- Location: Bergenfield, NJ
What does 'CASU' mean in english?adrianus wrote:Clause = clausula, princeps, principis (genitive)...
Ego = vir = casu nominativo = principis clausulae...
Servos = casu accusativo = cum infinitivo, OBJECTIVUM...
What you are talking about is labeling the principal clause, the nominative
clause and the accusative clause? Yes?
Or are you saying that EGO replaces VIR in the sentence and is in the
nominative 'Case' (a possible translation for CASU) and that likewise
SERVOS is in the accusative case (subordinate clause)?
The rule in my book is 'An objective infinitive always has a subject
in the accusative.' If EGO in your replacement is labeled officially
the nominative case does that mean that:
An objective infinitive always has a subject in the accusative but it
may also have a subject in the nominative (EGO)?
Thanks.
-
- Textkit Neophyte
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:30 am
- Location: Australia
LOL, Adriane, responsa latina non semper ab omnibus comprehenduntur...
Let me try to help out since I'm procrastinating (exams, sigh)...
blutoonwithcarrotandnail: casu is the ablative of casus, which means case in grammar...
VIR SERVOS LABORARE DESIDERO
Basically, using Adrianus's terminologies, there are two clauses... My English translation would be: I, a man, require slaves to work.
The main clause is VIR DESIDERO, "I, a man, want" while the subsidiary clause is SERVOS LABORARE, "slaves to work". Can you see that the subject of the main clause is "I, a man" while the subject of the subsidiary clause is "slaves"? So in this one sentence there are 2 different subjects and 2 different verbs, 1 verb belonging to its own subject.
The sentence could go EGO, VIR, DESIDERO SERVOS LABORARE but EGO is unnecessary because of the personal ending in the verb DESIDERO implies the first person. VIR just clarifies that the person speaking is a man (compare this to: ave caesar, morituri te salutamus!).
Your book is right in this case though, because the 'objective infinitive' takes an accusative 'SERVOS' as its subject i.e. 'slaves to work'. The nominative 'VIR' belongs to 'DESIDERO' not 'LABORARE'.
I hope I haven't made a mess of this all, haha...
Let me try to help out since I'm procrastinating (exams, sigh)...
blutoonwithcarrotandnail: casu is the ablative of casus, which means case in grammar...
VIR SERVOS LABORARE DESIDERO
Basically, using Adrianus's terminologies, there are two clauses... My English translation would be: I, a man, require slaves to work.
The main clause is VIR DESIDERO, "I, a man, want" while the subsidiary clause is SERVOS LABORARE, "slaves to work". Can you see that the subject of the main clause is "I, a man" while the subject of the subsidiary clause is "slaves"? So in this one sentence there are 2 different subjects and 2 different verbs, 1 verb belonging to its own subject.
The sentence could go EGO, VIR, DESIDERO SERVOS LABORARE but EGO is unnecessary because of the personal ending in the verb DESIDERO implies the first person. VIR just clarifies that the person speaking is a man (compare this to: ave caesar, morituri te salutamus!).
Your book is right in this case though, because the 'objective infinitive' takes an accusative 'SERVOS' as its subject i.e. 'slaves to work'. The nominative 'VIR' belongs to 'DESIDERO' not 'LABORARE'.
I hope I haven't made a mess of this all, haha...
-
- Textkit Zealot
- Posts: 3270
- Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 9:45 pm
It's true not everyone will get an answer in Latin, tienyew, but I was just posing a puzzle I thought was doable. Maybe that was a mistake. I didn't mean to frustrate.tienyew wrote:LOL, Adriane, responsa latina non semper ab omnibus comprehenduntur...
Rectè dicis, tienyew. Problema posui quod intellegi potuit, ut credi. Fortassè erravi. Vexare nolui.