In LLPSI Cap XLII Orberg Scribit:
Cum iam viribus suis satis confideret, Tullus Sabinis bellum indixit, genti ea tempestate secundum Etruscos opulentissimae viris armisque.
…genti ea tempestate secundum Etruscos opulentissimae viris armisque = Sabini genti opulentissimae in viris armisque (ablativi) ?
opulentus regularly takes the ablative without in.
http://perseus.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.13:1303.lewisandshort
Many thanks.
Just to be clear - notwithstanding that it takes ablative - opulentissimae is dative to agree with genti and Sabinis, right?
opulentissimae agrees with genti – dative complement of the prefix in- of indixit.
of the verb rather than of the prefix?
of the verb rather than of the prefix?
Yes, I should have been more accurate. Prefixed verbs frequently have dative complements, but the complement must be the complement of the verb, not the prefix.
What’s the difference whether it is the dative complement of the in in in-dixit as opposed to the whole verb indixit? - or do I have the wrong end of the stick?
I’ve been taking it that the underlined words are all dative: genti ea tempestate secundum Etruscos opulentissimae viris armisque. - to agree with genti. He declared war on them - after the Etruscans - the richest people in men and arms…
Do I have it right?
The point is that it’s the verb that takes a dative complement, not the prefix.
opulentissimae viris armisque – opulentissimae is dative and agrees with genti. viris armisque are ablative complements of opulentissimae: richest “in manpower and weaponry”.
You can look at it this way: Indico, like many other verbs (including uncompounded dico), takes a direct object (bellum) and optionally what we can think of as an indirect object (Sabinis). An indirect object is always dative. in in itself doesn’t take dative, so technically it’s more correct to speak of the dative as governed by the verb rather than by the prefix itself. It’s a very small and picky point.
genti … opulentissimae is in apposition to Sabinis, and as such agrees with it in case, therefore likewise dative.
viris armisque is ablative, governed by the adjective opulentissimae.
So your underlinings are wrong, though your understanding seems to be right.
OK - thanks. That seems to make sense. Richest in men and arms