N&H Prose Composition, preliminary exercises

Latin Learning Latin
61

Thanks anew for your reply.

Yes, in the active voice they govern two accusatives. But in the passive rephrasing, sometimes both objects which used to be in the accusative turn into nominatives, as in the above examples. Other times, one object stays accusative. Sorry, I should have quoted these other cases from the exercise as well:





These are passive sentences with nouns in the accusative (gladium, linguam). Following these examples, one could write analogously consulem creatus sum, bonum imperatorem habebatur, etc. Or why not?

Forget the agent. But if I understand correctly, in the subordinate clause qui is the subject. There cannot be two subjects. Why not qui/is consulem creatus est? Likewise in 4: the subject is supposed to be “he” (implicit), and not bonus imperator.

I hope this makes my issue clear.

62

Not all the verbs in this exercise can take two accusatives in the active and then two nominatives in the passive.

I hope the following extract from Allen and Greenough’s New Latin Grammar will make the grammar clear>

  1. Some transitive verbs take a second accusative in addition to their Direct Object. This second accusative is either (1) a predicate accusative or (2) a secondary object.

Predicate Accusative

  1. An accusative in the predicate referring to the same person or thing as the direct object, but not in apposition with it, is called a predicate accusative.

  2. Verbs of naming, choosing, appointing, making, esteeming, showing, and the like, may take a predicate accusative along with the direct object.

ō Spartace, quem enim tē potius appellem? (Phil. 13.22)
O Spartacus, for what else shall I call you (than Spartacus)?

Cicerōnem cōnsulem creāre
to elect Cicero consul

Mē augurem nōmināvērunt. (Phil. 2.4)
They nominated me for augur.

cum grātiās ageret quod sē cōnsulem fēcisset (De Or. 2.268)
when he thanked him because he had made him consul
(supported his candidacy)

Hominem prae sē nēminem putāvit. (Rosc. Am. 135)
He thought nobody a man in comparison with himself.

Ducem sē praebuit. (Vat. 33)
He offered himself as a leader.

Note— The predicate accusative may be an adjective.

hominēs mītīs reddidit et mānsuētōs (Inv. 1.2)
has made men mild and gentle

a. In changing from the active voice to the passive, the predicate accusative becomes predicate nominative (§ 284).

Rēx ab suīs appellātur (B. G. 8.4)
He is called king by his subjects.
[Active: suī eum rēgem appellant.]

https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/double-accusatives

  1. A Predicate Noun or Adjective after the copula sum or a copulative verb is in the same case as the Subject.

Pācis semper auctor fuī. (Lig. 28)
I have always been an adviser of peace.

Quae pertinācia quibusdam, eadem aliīs cōnstantia vidērī potest. (Marc. 31)
What may seem obstinacy to some, may seem to others consistency.

Êius mortis sedētis ultōrēs. (Mil. 79)
You sit as avengers of his death.

Habeātur vir ēgregius Paulus. (Cat. 4.21)
Let Paulus be regarded as an extraordinary man.

Ego patrōnus exstitī. (Rosc. Am. 5)
I have come forward as an advocate.

Dīcit nōn omnīs bonōs esse beātōs.
He says that not all good men are happy.

a. A predicate noun referring to two or more singular nouns is in the plural.

Cōnsulēs creantur Caesar et Servīlius. (B. C. 3.1)
Cæsar and Servilius are elected consuls.

b. Sum in the sense of exist makes a complete predicate without a predicate noun or adjective. It is then called the substantive verb.

Sunt virī fortēs.
There are (exists) brave men.

Cf. Vīxēre fortēs ante Agamemnona (Hor. Od. 4.9.25)
Brave men lived before Agamemnon.

https://dcc.dickinson.edu/grammar/latin/agreement-nouns

In the examples you quoted rogare and docere do not take two accusatives “of the same person or thing” (as Gildersleeve puts it). “You teach someone a language” is different from “electing someone to be Consul.”

Does this answer the original question? (I think it also explains how the relative clause you quote works.)

If you have Gildersleeve you can also look on page 216 340. double accusative and double nominative p 145 206.

63

Yes, that clears it up. You’re been very helpful and kind. These are really points I could and should review for myself. I got me Woodcock, Gildersleeve, and Allen & Greenough for now, to refer to in case I get stuck again.

64

Woodcock is excellent, I tend to use that in conjunction with Gildersleeve. I hope you continue posting stuff here or in a new thread as its very helpful for all of use to review the grammar in this way.

65

Don’t say it twice! Could you please check the following observations?



I understand the relative clause of characteristic (A&G $534), but is the subjunctive in the main clause necessary as well? I couldn’t find such examples. The main clause expresses a fact, so unless the context demands a subjunctive there, I’d keep it in the indicative (present, possibly future).

Isn’t it preferable to use laudatione/laudari rather than laude?

Castris, not campis.

I know it’s given in the hints, but parvo contentus sounds like contented with a little one. I would write pauca = few things = little instead.

Officiis tuis.

66

I don’t think this sentence is a relative clause of characteristic. Or rather I don’t think that’s the intention of the authors. These are simple sentences which do not require the use of the subjunctive. Are we saying that all states which have a good king enjoy peace? Is it a characteristic of states with good Kings? You might think so, but there are countless examples of perfectly good kings who were attacked and so their states did not enjoy peace. It is of course always difficult with single sentences without context to decide these distinctions. I take the the context of these sentences to be as set out in the introduction. In this book where a more complex construction is required rules are provided to aid the solution.

The OP is I think trying too hard.

I think the point of this sentence is to recognise that fruor takes the ablative.

“frŭor, fructus … Constr. with abl.; less freq. with acc. or absol.” L&S https://logeion.uchicago.edu/fruor

I understand the relative clause of characteristic (A&G $534), but is the subjunctive in the main clause necessary as well?

No. you are right.

Isn’t it preferable to use laudatione/laudari rather than laude?

I dont see why. Laude seems to occur quite frequently see laus https://logeion.uchicago.edu/laus It is also the word glossed in the book for praise.

Castris, not campis.

The previous posters were all too busy airing their knowledge to notice this elementary mistake. Well spotted.

I know it’s given in the hints, but parvo contentus sounds like contented with a little one. I would write pauca = few things = little instead.

It’s a fine distinction. But one could have many little things which did not add up to a lot or few things which added up to a great deal. I dont read it as a little one, although parvi can mean children (little ones).

Officiis tuis.

Yes fungor takes the ablative, in classical Latin but not in Plautus.

67

After a short break here goes the next exercise:



  1. At the house of Caius.
    Domī Caiī.

I don’t think you can use the locative here, as you’re talking about someone’s specific house. So e.g. Caius domī (est), but Titus in Caiī domo est.

  1. He was sent to him with gifts.
    Cum dōnīs eī missus est.

Ad eum would be clearer than eī.

  1. For so great a service.
    Pro meritō majōre.

I wrote prō tam magnō meritō. Tam magnō prō meritō sounds even more professional. Ob + acc. should work too, albeit with a different meaning.

  1. Instead of horses.
    Ob equōs.

Prō…

  1. On the nearest hill.
    In colle proximō.

Super…

  1. Against Antiochus.
    Adversum/contrā Antiochum.

Adversus…

  1. About a thousand men.
    Circā mille virī.

…virōs.

BTW how do you add macrons in Windows? Did you set up a latin keyboard?

68

This is an exercise about prepositions so it is unlikely that the locative would feature.

Apud domum Caiī is the simplest answer.

Ad eum would be clearer than eī.

ad eum is correct here not eī

I wrote prō tam magnō meritō. Tam magnō prō meritō sounds even more professional. Ob + acc. should work too, albeit with a different meaning.

ob looks good too, I found a parallel in Livy. quamquam quod ob meritum nostrum suscensuistis, patres conscripti, nobis aut suscensetis? 25.6.4.2 25.6.5.1

  1. Instead of horses.
    Ob equōs.
    Prō…

How about Loco, adverbially, in the place of, instead of, for.

  1. On the nearest hill.
    In colle proximō.
    Super…

super means above or on top of. Somebody or something could be on the hill but not necessarily at the top.



  1. Against Antiochus.
    Adversum/contrā Antiochum.
    Adversus…

L&S
adversus or adversum (archaic advor-) (like rursus and rursum, prorsus and prorsum, quorsus and quorsum), adv. and prep., denoting

  1. About a thousand men.
    Circā mille virī.
    …virōs.

Yes circa should take accusative

BTW how do you add macrons in Windows? Did you set up a latin keyboard?

I dont use windows but I have installed the Latin keyboard from Keyman which when selected makes the insertion of macrons easy. see here https://keyman.com/keyboards?q=latin

69

Suggestions and corrections noted, thank you. Now on to K:

cōram tuō or cōram tē? Tuī would work if the preposition took the genitive, which is not the case.

  1. The camp is on the side of the river, the army is beyond the city.
    Castra iūxtā flūmen est, exercitus suprā urbem est.

Castra cis flūmen est, exercitus trāns urbem est.

  1. He was brought by the soldiers into the presence of the king.
    Ā mīlitibus cōram rēge adlātus est.
    (“into the presence” seems a bit awkward to me, I tried to translate it as such.)

Isn’t adlātus for objects, adductus for people?

  1. They sailed past the island in a boat.
    Prope insulam rate nāvigāvērunt.

Isn’t there a better alternative than prope (near)? Does rate/lintre take the preposition in or not, in this situation?

  1. We sailed as far as Spain.
    Tenus Hispaniā nāvigāvimus.

Hispaniā tenus…

70

OLD gives cōram sē so perhaps cōram tē is best.

Apparently coram as adverb with genitive is possible but rare “With gen. (very rare): coram noxae prehensus, in the very act, Ap. Met. 9, 21, 12.—So in coram with gen. in Ap. = coram: omnium, Ap. Met. 7, p. 197, 21 (not found) Oud.; so id. ib. 9, p. 221, 17 (not found); 9, p. 223, 32 (not found); 10, 9, 18.—” L&S

Castra cis flūmen est, exercitus trāns urbem est.

I think you are trying to change the sense of the English to “the camp is on this side of the river,..” The camp, army and town could be on the same side of the river.

Suprā doesn’t seem right according to OLD . It has the connotation of above, at a higher level etc rather than beyond.

Trans is according to OLD “b (without idea of motion across) on the other side of, beyond.” which fits well.

Isn’t adlātus for objects, adductus for people?

Yes, you are right.

Isn’t there a better alternative than prope (near)? Does rate/lintre take the preposition in or not, in this situation?

I think we would need more context to come up with an alternative. Sailed past at a great distance would mean we would have to come up with an alternative, but “sailed past” implies that the island is near?

Hispaniā tenus…

Yes Gildersleeve 417 14 Tenus is always postponed.

71

Nice find!

I think you are trying to change the sense of the English to “the camp is on > this side > of the river,..”

My edition (9th impression, 8th edition) of N&H has precisely that wording, so I was primed for the usage of cis/trans. I didn’t notice the previous commenter had the instead of this. I had noticed a couple discrepancies before.

“sailed past” implies that the island is near?

Undoubtedly. I was aiming for a more specific term conveying the sense of “motion past”. How about praeter?

I’m not familiar with OLD, what does it stand for?

72

OLD= Oxford Latin Dictionary

Here is part of the entry for praeter. The reference to Tacitus seems to be a precedent. " simul Domitium impositum triremi vitare litorum oram praeterque insulas lato mari pergere
in Syriam iubet. (2.78.6)

praeter prep., adv. and con}. [prae-; for term. cf. INTER1]

A (as prep. w. acc.)

1 Passing or so as to pass by, past, across.
► mustela murem apstulit - pedes Pl. St. 460; ita fugias
ne - casam, quod aiunt Ter. Ph. 768; iens domum -
matris deum aedem Var. Men. 149; fluuius Eurotas, is qui

  • Lacedaemonem fluit Cic. Inv. 2.96; - castra Caesaris
    suas copias traduxit Caes, Gal. 1.48.2; - castra .. sua fuga
    praelati Liv. 7.24.8; ea ipsa (uia) - hostes erat 10.35.4; -
    oram Etruriae Ltgurumque ** peruenit Massiliam 21263; -
    Armeniam penetrat ad Tigrin Curt. 4.9.14; Parnasi frondea
  • colla tenebat iter Stat. Theb. 9.643; — .. insulas lato mari
    pergere Tac. Ann. 2.78;    — (w. oculos or sim.) — oculos Lolli
    haec omnia ferebant Cic. Ver. 3.62; dona.. cum uideat — sua
    lumina ferri multa Ov. Fast 3.635; nec furtiua iam scelera
    sunt: - oculos eunt Sen. Dial. 4.9.1; qualis (sc. fax) .. - ora
    populi meridiano transcucurrit Plin. Nat. 2.96; Tac. Hist.
    4.30;— (fig.) quia uerentur ne .. — eos (i.e. ‘over their heads’)
    ad alium res transferatur Cael. Fam. 8.10.2.
73

Perfect. Thanks a lot for your help on these preliminary exercises. I’ll now move on to the main ones.