And another question regarding Hillard and Botting’s elem. exercises.

Here you can discuss all things Latin. Use this board to ask questions about grammar, discuss learning strategies, get help with a difficult passage of Latin, and more.
Post Reply
Propertius
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:33 am

And another question regarding Hillard and Botting’s elem. exercises.

Post by Propertius » Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:37 am

Section XLVII, Exercise CCCVII, Sentence IV

Caesar determined to send help to our allies.

Answer key says:

Caesar auxilium sociīs nostrīs mittere constituit.

Section XLVII, Exercise CCCIX, Sentence III

This state had determined to send help to our enemies.

Answer key says:

haec cīvitās auxilium ad hostēs nostrōs mittere cōnstituerat.

Now for my question: why does the first sentence use the dative case for the indirect object but the second sentence is expressing place to which for the indirect object when each sentence is practically the same with the exception of the main verb (1st sentence uses perfect tense; 2nd sentence uses pluperfect tense). Is that what makes the difference here on whether the indirect object will be in the dative case or expressed as place to which? The infinitive is the same in both sentences; and so is the direct object. Or did the answer key get one answer wrong?

Aetos
Textkit Fan
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 6:04 pm

Re: And another question regarding Hillard and Botting’s elem. exercises.

Post by Aetos » Fri Aug 02, 2019 10:19 am

I think you can write it either way, i.e. using the simple dative or with the prepositional phrase ad + obj. Here is the pertinent part of the entry in Lewis & Short for ad:


With verbs which denote a giving, sending, informing, submitting, etc., it is used for the simple dat. (Rudd. II. p. 175): litteras dare ad aliquem, to send or write one a letter; and: litteras dare alicui, to give a letter to one; hence Cic. never says, like Caesar and Sall., alicui scribere, which strictly means, to write for one (as a receipt, etc.), but always mittere, scribere, perscribere ad aliquem

Here is a link to the full article:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... entry%3Dad

You'll see that ad has many uses in addition to its spatial use.

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: And another question regarding Hillard and Botting’s elem. exercises.

Post by Barry Hofstetter » Fri Aug 02, 2019 12:37 pm

We should always be a little skeptical exegeting exercises from textbooks... :) But in this case, I think the first example looks at it as help in the abstract, sending help is the equivalent of giving help, and so the dative of indirect object. The second sentence views it as concrete, either the people or the resources being sent (or both), so that mittere is used literally of motion, and so ad + accusative.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

Aetos
Textkit Fan
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat May 19, 2018 6:04 pm

Re: And another question regarding Hillard and Botting’s elem. exercises.

Post by Aetos » Fri Aug 02, 2019 1:56 pm

Para. 363 in Allen & Greenough explains it as occurring with verbs implying motion:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ythp%3D363

This supports Barry's 'exegesis' :wink: of using ad instead of the dative when physical motion is implied. For the use of the dative read sub para. 2:
"On the other hand, many verbs of motion usually followed by the Accusative with ad or in, take the Dative when the idea of motion is merged in some other idea."

Propertius
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:33 am

Re: And another question regarding Hillard and Botting’s elem. exercises.

Post by Propertius » Fri Aug 02, 2019 9:28 pm

Barry Hofstetter wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 12:37 pm
We should always be a little skeptical exegeting exercises from textbooks... :) But in this case, I think the first example looks at it as help in the abstract, sending help is the equivalent of giving help, and so the dative of indirect object. The second sentence views it as concrete, either the people or the resources being sent (or both), so that mittere is used literally of motion, and so ad + accusative.
So what you’re saying is that there was no way of knowing whether the original sentence (in English) meant for it to be help in the abstract sense or in the concrete sense until I looked up the answer? That is, unless it specified that (which it doesn’t in this case though).

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: And another question regarding Hillard and Botting’s elem. exercises.

Post by Barry Hofstetter » Fri Aug 02, 2019 9:58 pm

Propertius wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 9:28 pm

So what you’re saying is that there was no way of knowing whether the original sentence (in English) meant for it to be help in the abstract sense or in the concrete sense until I looked up the answer? That is, unless it specified that (which it doesn’t in this case though).
This is the sort of thing that would be taken care of by context in a Latin author, but you have no context for exercises in a book. Just keep in mind that both constructions are possible and that they have a somewhat different sense.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: And another question regarding Hillard and Botting’s elem. exercises.

Post by seneca2008 » Fri Aug 02, 2019 10:55 pm

Propertius wrote:Is that what makes the difference here on whether the indirect object will be in the dative case or expressed as place to which? The infinitive is the same in both sentences; and so is the direct object. Or did the answer key get one answer wrong?
I think there has been a misunderstanding here.

In the first sentence surely “sociīs nostrīs” means “for our allies” and is the dative of interest and has nothing to do with movement? This is the sense I understand the English.

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: And another question regarding Hillard and Botting’s elem. exercises.

Post by Barry Hofstetter » Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:05 am

seneca2008 wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 10:55 pm
Propertius wrote:Is that what makes the difference here on whether the indirect object will be in the dative case or expressed as place to which? The infinitive is the same in both sentences; and so is the direct object. Or did the answer key get one answer wrong?
I think there has been a misunderstanding here.

In the first sentence surely “sociīs nostrīs” means “for our allies” and is the dative of interest and has nothing to do with movement? This is the sense I understand the English.
See the OP above. The issue is how the "original English" was written, on which the Latin was based.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: And another question regarding Hillard and Botting’s elem. exercises.

Post by seneca2008 » Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:52 pm

@barry

Perhaps my contribution was not as clear as it could have been.
propertius wrote:why does the first sentence use the dative case for the indirect object but the second sentence is expressing place to which for the indirect object when each sentence is practically the same with the exception of the main verb
The second sentence does not have an indirect object. The dative case is used to express the indirect object not a preposition and the accusative case. The Op is not comparing like with like. I can't find any reference to a distinction between concrete and abstract in grammar books.

As you say out of context and from the English it is clearly not possible to know for certain what is intended. Surely the other exercise sentences give some clue? I don't know this book but most prose composition books have exercises preceded by the grammar which is being tested. Does this not give the Op some clue?

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: And another question regarding Hillard and Botting’s elem. exercises.

Post by Barry Hofstetter » Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:22 pm

seneca2008 wrote:
Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:52 pm
@barry

Perhaps my contribution was not as clear as it could have been.
propertius wrote:why does the first sentence use the dative case for the indirect object but the second sentence is expressing place to which for the indirect object when each sentence is practically the same with the exception of the main verb
The second sentence does not have an indirect object. The dative case is used to express the indirect object not a preposition and the accusative case. The Op is not comparing like with like. I can't find any reference to a distinction between concrete and abstract in grammar books.

As you say out of context and from the English it is clearly not possible to know for certain what is intended. Surely the other exercise sentences give some clue? I don't know this book but most prose composition books have exercises preceded by the grammar which is being tested. Does this not give the Op some clue?
Pointing out that the book itself should provide the rationale for the translation used is certainly helpful. I found this interesting comment:

https://tinyurl.com/y4h2c8ht

Scroll down to the footnote. I don't think we can always say that the dative with mitto, fero, and the like are "surely" datives of interest. I think context is needed to resolve how the usage might have been read. As for the difference between concrete and abstract, that is my own observation dependent on the semantic range of auxilium, which can refer both to the specific referent of the help (people, money, goods) or to help in a more abstract sense. Without taking the time to verify, it struck me that auxilium dare always or at least frequently implies simply the idea of help, where as auxilium mittere frequently implies the concrete elements of which the help consists. I'm simply looking for an overall rationale with regard to the constructions in general. We rarely have a problem interpreting them when we see them in the full context of a Latin author. As for the original question asked, I'm sure he got more than he bargained for. But that's par for the course on this forum.
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

User avatar
seneca2008
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 1:48 pm
Location: Londinium

Re: And another question regarding Hillard and Botting’s elem. exercises.

Post by seneca2008 » Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:46 pm

Barry wrote:Scroll down to the footnote. I don't think we can always say that the dative with mitto, fero, and the like are "surely" datives of interest.
I couldn't get the link to work so can't read the footnote. Thanks for fleshing out your thinking on abstract/concrete.

I am not someone who gets overly excited about dividing up exactly what sort of dative a particular construction is, although if one is teaching or trying to explain something it is probably necessary. The Op seemed to think of the first sentence as an example of what Gildersleeve describes as the local dative (358) "the place wither" which is of course a poetic use.

Its useful for all of us to think about these things from time to time. Thanks

User avatar
Barry Hofstetter
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1038
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 12:22 pm

Re: And another question regarding Hillard and Botting’s elem. exercises.

Post by Barry Hofstetter » Mon Aug 05, 2019 9:24 pm

seneca2008 wrote:
Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:46 pm

I couldn't get the link to work so can't read the footnote. Thanks for fleshing out your thinking on abstract/concrete.

I am not someone who gets overly excited about dividing up exactly what sort of dative a particular construction is, although if one is teaching or trying to explain something it is probably necessary. The Op seemed to think of the first sentence as an example of what Gildersleeve describes as the local dative (358) "the place wither" which is of course a poetic use.

Its useful for all of us to think about these things from time to time. Thanks
Agreed, and very well stated. The link is to a free Latin Grammar by Hale and Buck (that's Carl Darling Buck of The Greek Dialects fame). You can easily find it using Google. If nothing else finding a free Latin grammar was worth the discussion... :D
N.E. Barry Hofstetter
The Jack M. Barrack Hebrew Academy
καὶ σὺ τὸ σὸν ποιήσεις κἀγὼ τὸ ἐμόν. ἆρον τὸ σὸν καὶ ὕπαγε.

Propertius
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:33 am

Re: And another question regarding Hillard and Botting’s elem. exercises.

Post by Propertius » Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:08 pm

Scroll down to the footnote. I don't think we can always say that the dative with mitto, fero, and the like are "surely" datives of interest.
So would auxilium with ferre be help in the abstract sense or concrete sense? It seems to me to be in the abstract. The first sentence with auxilium and ferre just popped up last night. It seems to me to be in the abstract sense so I used the dative case for whom aid is borne. But the answer key uses the accusative case. Here’s the sentence:

You and I cannot bear aid to the wounded soldiers.

My translation:

Et ego et tu auxilium militibus vulneratis ferre non possumus.

The answer key:

Et ego et tu auxilium ad milites vulneratos ferre non possumus.

My answer sounds more correct to me. And by the way, it’s an old book. It’s Hillard and Botting’s Latin Compendium compiled by one Nigel Wetters Gourlay. The answer key is out of print so he had to translate the sentences himself. I’ve been finding little mistakes here and there now towards the end of the book (I’m almost done with it). He emailed me the answer key, which he was going to publish, but it doesn’t seem as if he’s going to because he said that he’s been busy with other projects. I found him over at latindiscussion(.)com.
Without taking the time to verify, it struck me that auxilium dare always or at least frequently implies simply the idea of help, where as auxilium mittere frequently implies the concrete elements of which the help consists.
This makes complete sense to me. I couldn’t agree with you more. I never thought of it that way.
As for the original question asked, I'm sure he got more than he bargained for. But that's par for the course on this forum.
[/quote]

I didn’t think a simple question would have become a big deal either. But it’s good to learn everything to the minutest detail, and this in particular especially holds true with Latin. It’s these endless little things that make it such a difficult language which we just have to learn in order to truly understand it.

mwh
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3253
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:34 am

Re: And another question regarding Hillard and Botting’s elem. exercises.

Post by mwh » Tue Aug 06, 2019 2:16 am

It so happens that Nigel Wetters Gourlay, who wrote the answers, is a parish councillor for Chapel en le Frith, where I used to live. He may be a good Tory but I wouldn’t care to interrogate his Latin too closely.

The difference between dative and ad+acc. in these sentences is simply the difference between indirect object and ad+acc., regardless of verb or direct object. That’s all there is to it. As Aetos said at the outset, either construction could be used in these context-deficient sentences.

I suggest moving on.

Post Reply