Salvete!
I am (still and probably for some time) transcribing/proofreading Adler’s exercises contained in his Practical Grammar (and the Key prepared by the author himself).
There seems to be what appears to me to be an obvious error, but I wanted to run this by you before changing it (I do not want to introduce errors of mine).
- Has he as much tea as coffee? Estne ei tantum theae (note: feminine), quantum coffeae (note: feminine)?
- He has more of the latter than of the former.|Est ei plus de hoc (note: masculine) quam de illo (note: masculine).
This change of gender most certainly is a mere oversight, isn’t it? I would suggest the following correction:
- Estne ei tantum theae, quantum coffeae? (same as in original)
- Est ei plus de hac quam de illa. (changed)
Valete,
Carolus Raeticus
Perhaps they are neuter, which is acceptable, although with the referents so close in mind one would expect grammatical gender to remain. For example, if one were holding a book either vis hunc? or vis hoc? would be fine, in addition to the simple vis?
Salve Calvinist,
your reasoning might be correct. On page 105 of his Practical Grammar does introduce this construction as follows:
He also introduces a similar construction but this time goes out of his way to note feminine gender:
More of these than of those.–Plus horum(harum, horum) quam illorum (illarum, illorum). [and] Plus (plures, plura) ex (de) his quam ex (de) illis.
Still, shouldn’t in the above example plus de hac quam de illa be equally correct (if not entirely the construction Adler had in mind)? If it is correct, it might be best to add a respective note.
Vale,
Carolus Raeticus
Yes, the feminines would be correct as well.