LLPSI - FR Parentes - CAP XX
Not sure what to make of the following sentence: Neminem (Acc.) magis (adv.) amabo (1st pers.fut.) quam (adv.) parvulam filiam (Acc.).
In the absence of a Nominative, would amabo be the subject of this sentence?
I know translations are frowned upon, but please bear with me: No one will love the little girl more than I. As you see I’m not trying to fit the English to the Latin.
@Shenoute: Thanks for posting “Why You’re Frustrated with LLPSI (And How to Use It Better)”. Much appreciated.
Hi Pianophile,
I hope I haven’t given the impression that I reject translation in all cases 
Sometimes it can be useful or practical to translate. It’s just that I think there is often a better way to explain things than give a bare translation.
Also, Latin pedagogy is so heavily tilted towards translation (with the result that many equate ‘reading’ Latin with ‘translating’ it) that I think it useful to sometimes advocate for less translation and more Latin reading.
In your sentence, you correctly identified neminem as Acc. so it cannot be the subject of amabo.
Does the following help?
In other words amabo is the subject as I suspected. Hence: I will love nobody more than the little girl. I really don’t know how I managed to get this sentence so wrong knowing full well that neminem is accusative! 
Maybe Latin is a step too far.
Fingers crossed I got it right.
Many thanks for the pointers.
In other words amabo is the subject as I suspected.
Maybe that’s nitpicking but I wouldn’t say that, no. As I see it, amabo is the verb and there is no expressed subject. I guess one could alternatively say that the subject is contained in the verb and expressed by the ending -o, but I wouldn’t call amabo the subject.
Hence: > I will love nobody more than the little girl> . I really don’t know how I managed to get this sentence so wrong knowing full well that neminem is accusative!
Well, that happens 
What’s the English for that, ‘brainfart’?
On a sidenote: context may call for “[my] little girl” if that’s her parent talking, since obvious possessives are frequently left out.
Glad my (less than stellar) Latin Q&A helped you!
Shenoute has commented on this but I would like to add my own gloss.
Whatever the approach taken by posters to learning Latin or indeed Greek its important to realise that translation is the last step not the first step in understanding a text. People ask “can you translate this for me” or can you help me to translate this" when what they really need is help to understand or identify a construction.
When Wotan (the “Wanderer”) in Act 2 of Siegfried enters Mimes’ house he tells the Nibelung smith that he can pose three questions and if he can’t answer all of them he (Wotan) will forfeit his head. Mime just wants to get rid of his uninvited guest and so asks three questions to which already he knows the answers. After Wotan successfully answers Mime’s questions Wotan says now you will answer my three questions. Mime manages to answer the first two but of course he fails to answer the third question “How can Nothung (the sword) be forged anew”? He had of course been complaining to the audience for some time before this that he couldn’t forge Nothung. So why didnt he ask Wotan the one question he needed to be able to answer, the one question which would have a useful answer.
I often think of this episode (which in Wagner’s opera manages to be very beautiful and at times quite funny) when I see people asking entirely the wrong question about what they need help with. That said its not always easy to frame the right question but at least if posters attempt this they may be able to answer their own questions and if not there is textkit.
Producing a translation is a different process to understanding a text. Unfortunately in most academic contexts a translation is seen as proof of understanding. Often it conceals as much as it reveals. Mostly a sentence can be understood in one way or if it is ambiguous it might have an alternative meaning. Often there is a large number of ways a sentence could be translated into a second language. (Let’s pass over words which might not have a directly comparable meaning in English like fas et nefas). In many ways it is a skill which differs in kind from understanding a sentence. If you understand a sentence you can answer questions about it - who is speaking to whom etc etc. You dont have to translate it to do that.
The most helpful part of translation for those learning a language is from English (or one’s native language) into Latin or Greek. This forces one think about the constructions needed and also makes one focus on the difference between one’s native language and Latin or Greek.
So I dont think that there is much to separate how Shenoute and I think about this despite the difference in basic approach to learning Latin.
This post might seem not to add much but repetition is an important part of teaching.
Thanks Shenoute and seneca for your comments. Very much appreciated as always. Not sure I would have made it up to CAP XX without your invaluable help and support. Vivat Textkit!
Very well put, seneca, thanks!
More LLPSI: FR CAP XX
Stuck over māterne (short e).
Utra infantem (acc.) Aemiliae (gen.) alet (3rd. fut.) materne (short e) (?) an nutrix (nom.)?
Infans a matre aletur. [non a nutrice].
Utra? = which? ref materne an nutrix
māternē = adverb
māterne = adj. m. voc.
If māternē is meant, why pair an adverb with nutrix, a noun? Sorry, if the answer is patently obvious, and I completely misunderstood.
Mater-ne infantem alit?
Nutrix-ne infantem alit?
Utra infantem alit, mater-ne an nutrix?
You know -ne since Cap. I: Est-ne Gallia in Europa?
Oh my god! I had a feeling the answer was patently obvious! Multas gratias tibi ago
You’re welcome! Sometimes we overlook the obvious solution, this can happen to anyone.
I think you were coming pretty close to getting it right when you noticed that pairing an adverb with a noun in this way would not make sense. Another clue is “utra” (which of the two, feminine), which can only refer to a feminine noun.