In Roman there is no preposition. It is simply:
‘Like’ + Dat
(Like is a word in Roman which uses Dat)
(an example in Roman with a different verb: locus idoneus templo)
In english however there is a preposition:
Rule: Prep + to use/fit/like (the same word which in Roman takes Dat but in english
is not important)
however the actual sentence would look like this:
I like to use
‘I’ is the subject
‘To’ is the preposition
‘Use’ is the verb
Correct?
thanks
Like is a word in Roman which uses Dat
No, “like” is not a word in Roman; it is a word in English. // Non latinum est “like” vocabulum, sed anglicum.
It is an animal like a dog. = Animal simile cani est. Dative/dativo casu.
It is more like a dog than a wolf. = Non est lupi instar, sed canis. Genitive/genetivo.
I like dogs. = Canes amo. Accusative // accusativo.
Dogs like to bark. = Latrare canibus placet. Dative // dativo.
I like to use
‘I’ is the subject // subjectum est;
“like” is a verb // verbum est;
‘to’ is a preposition, or subordinator to a verbal phrase (to-infinitival) // est praepositio, seu quod commam verbalem inferiorem facit;
‘use’ is a verb // verbum est.
Only sentence #4 has a preposition in it above. It uses the preposition
‘to’ in ‘dogs like to bark’
The first three sentences do not have a preposition in them.
They also only have 1 verb such as the word ‘like’.
Can you give an example of one of the above sentences using
the dative with the prepostition ‘to’ in it - except with 2 verbs
in the sentence.
The grammatical rules for prepositions in roman should still be
the same whether there is 1 or 2 verbs.
thanks
Hi Blutoon,
I am not sure that you are distinguishing between:
A) two objects being similar to, i.e. being ‘like’, each other, and;
B) the act of enjoying something, i.e. ‘liking’ it.
This is an important distinction to make, without it you will not grasp the grammatical concepts involved.
In terms of Latin, there are various words that can be used for both A) and B), as demonstrated by the four sentences provided above by Adrianus.
As you can also see from Adrianus’ sentences, neither A) nor B) always requires a dative; it depends on the constructions and terms used. The ‘grammatical rule’ which you refer to therefore does not exist in such a general manner, and examples of it cannot readily be provided.
However, if you mean that the Latin word ‘simile’ is accompanied by a word in the dative case, this is correct, regardless of how many verbs occur in the sentence. The same applies for ‘instar’ and the genitive case.
Salvete blutoonwithcarrotandnail Adriumque,
That’s correct, but it’s not a verb, it’s an adjective. There are certain latin adjectives that are accompanied by a noun in the dative case. To quote latin for beginners: “143. Rule. Dative with Adjectives. The dative is used with adjectives to denote the object toward which the given quality is directed. Such are, especially, those meaning near, also fit, friendly, pleasing, like, and their opposites.”. Similis (a root for the english word similar), an adjective expressing an idea of likeness, falls into this rule, and therefore directs a quality toward a noun in the dative, which in your example is templum (temple). A place ideal/suitable/fit for a temple.
I think you are getting confused with the dative relation; that is the translation of the dative case to english. It can be translated in to the english prepositions: to or for or sometimes omit them completely. In english, the dative case mostly evolved into prepositional phrases. Use which ever makes sense when translating from latin to english. In the above example the preposition for (having as a purpose or function) was most suitable.
Not quite. An example of an adjective with the dative relation would be this:
Tempus est simile arenae.
Time is like grains of sand
Time is similar to grains of sand
tempus is the subject, est is the verb, simile is an adjective which modifies the meaning of tempus, and arenae is the noun in the dative case, and the object towards which the given quality similar is directed.
Notice how in the second translation I used the english preposition to? That’s because certain adjectives in english behave like their latin counterparts and need a preposition to express a given quality towards an object. In the first translation it’s unnecessary, as colloquially we just say x is like y. You’ll get the hang of it after a bit of practise.
I hope that helps. It takes a while to get used to the relations of the ablative and dative cases in latin because english has none except for a few vestigial pronouns such as whom.
I think he’s talking about the adjective similis which means like in english, and is accompanied by the dative relation.
I just realised you might be trying to employ a complementary infinitive.
If that is what you are trying to do then, I like (latin: amo) is the main verb, to use (latin: uti) is the complementary infinitive verb. The subject is implied by the verb.
There is a verb mood in both latin and english called infinitive. It looks like this:
To love. To use. To make. To have.
Latin:
amare. uti. facere. habere.
Now we can often combine these infinitive verbs with the main verb of a sentence. Their function is complementary. That is, it completes the meaning of a sentence. Some examples:
I love to use. I am able to come. I am willing to encourage.
amo uti. possum venire. volo hortari.
Salve vastor
Unless I’m mistaken, you don’t say “amo uti”. Using an infinitive like a noun in the accusative is rare in Latin (A&S §453) and “amo” is not a verb that takes a complementary infinitive (A&S 456-458). Rather, you have to say “eo uti mihi in studio est”, “eo uti mihi amicum est”, “eo uti mihi placet”, or something similar, I think.
Nisi fallor, “amo uti” non dicas. Rarò latinè verbum infinitivo modo pro nomine accusativo casu adhibetur (A&S §453) et verbum quod infinitivo complementario servit “amo” non est (A&S 456-458). Immò dicas hoc, ut puto: “eo uti mihi in studio est”, “eo uti mihi amicum est”, “eo uti mihi placet”, vel aliud simile.
Salve adrianum,
No you aren’t mistaken. That was just a general grammar. In some cases we will use the complimentary, in others we’ll utilise other constructions such as:
uti ea qua amo.
To use those whom I love. [infinitive phrase]
uti est amatum.
To use is beloved. [infinitive as a noun in the subjective nominative]
amo ut nostram amicitiam utar.
I love in order that I may enjoy our friendship. [subjunctive of purpose]
Or something along those lines.
Though the facts have not been entirely known (attendant circumstance of concession), the general grammar served to illustrate the usage.
Veritate non absolutissime cognita, grammatica generalis servivit quae modum demonstraret.
Salve vastor
Sorry, but it’s not clear to me what you mean by “that was just a general grammar” or what the connection of the examples is. Me paenitet, non clarum est quod significat “modò grammatica generalis erat” vel cur talia exempla pares.
“Adriane” is vocative. Non “adrianum” sed “adriane” casus vocativus.
Non “uti ea qua amo” pro “to use those whom I love” sed “uti eis quos amo” dicis.
“uti est amans” = “to use is loving/the lover” vel “to use is beloved [?]”. What do you mean? Quid vis dicere?
“ut amicitiâ nostrâ utar” non “ut nostram amicitiam utar”.
Nec “servivit quae [?]” nec “servivit ut” sed “ad demonstrandum usûs/consuetudinis profuit/suffecit”, puto.
I will attempt to elaborate. The the dative relation, and the infinitive was the general grammar which was described .
Clarius demonstrare temptabo. Grammatica generalis narrata, formae dativae infinitaeque erat.
“Adriane” is indeed vocative, however, doesn’t the verb “Salve” govern a noun in the accusative case, not the vocative?
Vero nomen “Adriane” est vocativus, Nonne autem verbum “Salve” in casu accusativo, non in casu vocativo nomini imperat.
The subject “ea” is neuter, not masculine.
Subiectivus “ea” non masculinus, sed neuter est.
The adjective “amans” was a mistake. It now reads uti est amatum.
Adiectivus “amans” erat cupla. Nunc legit “uti est amatum”.
I don’t understand. The noun phrase nostram amicitiam is in the accusative case because the verb utor governs it.
Hunc quem scribis Non intellego. Nomen “nostram amicitiam” est in casu accusativo quod verbum “utar” ei imperat.
The subjunctive of purpose with the relative pronoun “qui” which is the anaphor for the antecedent subject.
I think I see what you’re doing. You’re translating everywhere word for word from English into Latin. I make so many mistakes, too, that way.
Quod facis intellego, puto. Verbatim ubiquè sermones anglicas in latinas vertis. Et ego sic tot scriptorum vitia eiusdem generis facio.
“Salve, Adriane!” = “Be well, Adrian!” (not “Greet/salute Adrian.”)
The verb “utor” in Latin takes the ablative.
Ablativo casui “utor” verbum servit.
The verb “servo”* in Latin takes the dative.
Dativo casui “servo”* verbum servit.
“Whom” in English (as in “whom I love”) excludes the neuter gender.
Anglicè “whom” pronomen relativum (sicut “whom I love”) genus neutrum excludit.
“Quae” is nom. gen. dat. feminine singular and nom. fem. pl. and nom. acc. neuter plural,—but you don’t intend the feminine and your verb “demonstraret” is singular. If you did intend the feminine singular or neuter or fem. plural, you would say “servivit ei quae” or “servivit eis quae”.
Vitioso casu est “quae”. Si casus singulis numeri femininus vel neuter seu femininus pluralis tibi in animo fuisset, meliùs scripsisses ita, ut opinor: vel “servivit ei quae” vel “servivit eis quae”. Nota quoquè: “demonstraret” verbum singulariter scripsisti.
Sadly, I still don’t know what you mean by “the dative relation, and the infinitive was the general grammar which was described” or “uti est amatum”.
Me paenitet, adhùc ignoro his duabus rebus dicendis quid velis dicere.
*Corrigendum: “servio”. Gratias, Imber Ranae, tibi ago.
What dative relation?
Salve is the imperative of an intransitive verb, salveo,-ere.
But why would you use the neuter when referring to persons?
Infinitives cannot typically be modified by adjectives, including participles, in Latin. If you want to use an impersonal construction that means something along the lines of “people in general love to/like to” you can use the impersonal verb libet + infinitive. If you want to indicate that someone in particular loves/likes to do something, just add the dative for the person involved.
Amo + infinitive is occasionally used in post-classical Latin, so it isn’t necessarily an incorrect usage, but perhaps it’s not the preferred one.
In the classical period utor,-i is intransitive and must take the ablative case. The exceptions are that it may take a neuter accusative pronoun as a direct object (this is true for many intransitive verbs in Latin), and that it may be used transitively in the gerundive construction (as also with the other deponent verbs that take the ablative: fruor, fungor, and vescor, all of which were originally transitive).
Relative clauses of purpose are not indiscriminately interchangeable with typical purpose clauses that use ut. I’ve never seen it used when the subject of the purpose clause is the same as the subject of the main clause, for example.
You mean servio. The verb servo,-are is transitive, but that’s not what we’re talking about anyway. Easy to mistake the two.
You are of course correct about servio taking the dative case, but is this even a correct translation of the English idiom “serve for” in the sense of being an example of something? I would expect simply the copula and either dative of purpose of pro + ablative: grammatica generalis pro exemplo consuetudinis est. “the general grammar serves for an illustration of the usage.” (whatever that means)
“Servio”, yes // ut dicis.
I don’t think so either. In the phrase I use ‘Dativo casui “servio” verbum servit’, it means “takes” or “serves” in English: “The verb servio takes the dative”. I earlier recommend to vastor that he doesn’t use it at all:
"Nec “servivit quae [?]” nec “servivit ut” sed “ad demonstrandum usûs/consuetudinis profuit/suffecit”, puto.*
Tecum concurro. Grammaticè hâc in sententiâ (“Dativo casui “servio” verbum servit” videlicet) “takes” anglicè significatur. Priùs dixi alium verbum quàm “servio” optandum esse.
** Corrigendum corrigendi
Thanks, cb. I should have written “scribere oportuit”.
Gratias, cb, tibi ago. Me “scribere oportuit” scribere oportuit!
By the time I got to the end of this thread my head was hurting and I couldn’t remember what it was about anymore. Just a note, Imber Ranae. Latin does typically use adjectives, and less frequently, participles, to modify infinitives. errare est humanum. In these situations, the infinitive is treated as a neuter, singular, noun. Typically this is only in the accusative or nominative cases, gerunds being used elsewhere.
hi adrian, off topic, i saw that you wrote above “scripsisse oportuit”. this goes against the rule that the present inf, not the perf inf, should be used with OPORTVIT: see woodcock’s syntax page 93, section 123 note (i):
http://books.google.fr/books?id=WmT6mS5v4dAC&pg=PA93#v=onepage&q=&f=false
in fact, woodcock’s rule isn’t absolute where the inf is passive: I’ve seen some e.g.s of OPORTVIT with passive perf infs, especially FACTVM ESSE, as here:
catiline 1.5.10: “VERVM EGO HOC QVOD IAM PRIDEM FACTVM ESSE OPORTVIT CERTA DE CAVSA NONDVM ADDVCOR VT FACIAM”
however, where the inf is active (as in your sentence), i haven’t seen any exceptions to woodcock’s rule in golden prose, but if you have, i’d be grateful if you could let me know, thanks, chad 
Discuss things first sober, then drunk. Things don’t have to be about anything for us all to be having a lovely time.
Sobrii primò, tunc ebrii disputemus. Non necesse modo significato disputare habemus ut nobis benè sit.
Thanks, cb. I should have written “scribere oportuit”. —You have "Nonnè oportuit praescisse me ante?" in Terence, An. 238, alongside "An sedere oportuit domi virginem tam grandem…? Terence, Ad.672., according to OLD, but I go with what you’re saying.
Gratias, cb, tibi ago. Me “scribere oportuit” scribere oportuit! Secundum OLD, apud Terentium “oportuit praescisse” habes, at quod dicis audio.
many thanks adrian for the terence ref, cheers, chad
According to L&S (§486b), if the action in question is, or should have been, already completed, it’s OK to use the perfect infinitive with “oportuit”, which is fine for the Terence example, “Shouldn’t I have found out beforehand?”, but not (as you pointed out) for what I said. That’s neat. Thanks again.
Secundum grammaticam de L&G (§486b), si jam completa est (vel complenda erat) actio dubitata, licet cum “oportuit” te modo infinitivo praeterito uti. Quod ad exemplum Terenti citatum, “Nonnè oportuit praescisse me ante?” enim, non autem ad illud meum (ut monstrasti), pertinet. Quàm nitidum. Iterum gratias.
I think i get this: ‘Like’ in all the above cases is a verb. Unless it is an ‘Adj’ the second noun does not take the dative.
Would the following be examples of ‘Like’ as an adj:
The dog moved like a cat
The building looks like a barn
In this case ‘like’ would trigger the dative in the second noun of the sentence which is not bound
to the verb?
The Dog (nominative) moved like (agreement with dog) a cat (dative)
Dog is masc/fem so ‘like’ is masc/fem
Cat is in dative
thanks
’