Industria (N) agricolis (D pl) Britanniae (G) est causa (N) gloriae (G). - Not sure why agricolis is Dative unless the phrase translates as: The industry of Britain is cause of glory for the farmers.
If the translation were: The industry of Britain’s farmers is a cause of glory, I would have expected farmers to be Genitive.
I’m sure I’ve gone wrong somewhere. Any help would be much appreciated.
Gratias in antecessum.
Edit: I wonder if this is the correct translation: Industry is a cause of glory to the farmers of Britain.
Your emended translation is the right one. Agricolīs is dative, so you want “to” or “for” in this context. Has your textbook gotten around to telling you what kind of dative this would be?
I believe what you are looking at here is what is sometimes called the dative of possession. The dative with a form of to be is sometimes used to indicate possession.
It could also be thought of as a dative of reference, i.e. ‘For farmers of Britain, industry is a cause of glory.’
I would also add that as Latin is not our native language, things are often said in ways we would not have expected.
Barry H and Ronolio - Many thanks for your most helpful responses. I’m a total beginner and haven’t come across the different kinds of Dative yet. In fact, that sentence was my first encounter with the Dative.
Then no need to worry about the different usages just yet. The English glosses “to” and “for” tend to cover the majority of those uses. But just as a sneak preview of coming attractions, it’s a dative of reference (not possession).
Barry, many thanks for mentioning dative of reference. Was on the point of asking you What on earth is that, when I remembered Latintutorial which is such a valuable resource! I wonder if you have heard of it. (Not that you need it!!). Have today started on Familia Romana by Hans H. Ørberg.
No, I hadn’t heard of it, but I’m always looking for resources for students, so thanks! I just this year switched to Ørberg for my Latin 1’s. Favorite sentence so far Mama! Mama! Marcus mē pulsat!
Barry,
Special uses of the dative have always been a trouble spot for me. I went with possession first because of the to be. Of course, the dative of possession could, in a sense, be viewed as a form of reference. All that being said, for my personal reading, I have stopped worrying about the various terms for grammar formations, such as dative of reference, etc., and tried to focus more on meaning and understanding. In other words, trying to learn to read more as a native speaker would read. I have found this approach to be much more rewarding and enjoyable.
Not a bad approach at all. Still, it’s helpful to have a grasp of at least the basic categories, especially at the beginning. It doesn’t take a lot of “real” Latin to realize that the language is a bit messier than the grammars. But you can’t appreciate that flexibility unless you have a sense of the framework.
Oh, absolutely. I did my due diligence with the grammar framework, and I would certainly not be able to read it in that way without having those foundations. Were I still teaching Latin regularly, I would place emphasis on that for my students, i.e. that knowledge of those elements are essential to appreciate the language.
I really dislike the labelling that obsesses some people here. I misread the title of this thread as the dative of confusion which just about sums it up.
There are no special uses of the dative. Usages surely all coalesce around a general idea of interest and advantage. I don’t think it’s right to burden students with this category approach.
I like it. Can we add ablative of uncertainty, genitive of incongruity and accusative of discombobulation? Lets throw in the perplexive nominative, also. I, too, have really come to dislike the labeling. Is that part of the process of reading for anyone in their native language? I should think not.
