Is this an example of the use of the ablative of respect, LLPSI, CAPITULUM TERTIUM DECIMUM, p95, l.1

Latin Learning Latin
1

Salvete,

Could someone please tell me wether the phrase ‘quibus haec sunt nomina:’ is an example of the use of The dative of respect? I’m also wondering if this an example of the use of the dative of possession.

2

I think the first thing to ask yourself is do you understand what the structure of the whole sentence?

Annus in duodecim menses dividitur, quibus haec sunt nomina: Ianuarius, mensis primus; Februarius, etc

Quibus is a relative pronoun which has to agree in number and gender with the noun it refers to but takes its case from its function in its own clause.

I think you mean the ablative of respect rather than the “dative” of respect see p 92 of the Companion if you have it. This was introduced in chapter XI. The ablative of respect answers the question “in what respect?”

Does that give you enough of a clue to understand the structure here? Ask again if not.

3

Thanks for replying. I think I understand the meaning of the sentence. I’m still unsure as to wether it’s an ablative of respect or a dative of possession?

I do have the ‘Companion’ (so my apologies for suggesting it may be a dative of respect) but I must be missing something.

4

I think there is a real problem of over labelling in studying Latin.

It could be a dative of possession on the model of:

Fīliīs nōmina sunt “Mārcus Iūlius Balbus” et “Quīntus Iūlius Balbus.” (ll.12–13) Ch. XII

My guess is that Ørberg intended a dative of possession.

I was going to write a more complicated answer about how Ørberg naturally simplifies his presentation of the dative of the possessor but its not really appropriate at this stage. (If interested see Gildersleeve 349 or Woodcock 63 p.45-6).

I can see why you wondered about the ablative of respect but I don’t think that the author intended it to be taken in this way. Whichever interpretation you choose it doesnt alter how you would translate the sentence so don’t worry. Sometimes there is in these grammatical discussions a distinction without a difference.

If anyone thinks there is more to this please weigh in.