RA XXXVII Pensum A
Aedes castoris sacrata est diis Castori et Polluci, Jovis filiis geminis, qui saepius Romanis auxilio venerunt.
Is “auxilio” ablative on account of “saepius”, or is it dative of whatever, perhaps dative of purpose?
Graeci (nom,pl), quibus (dative) dii (nom.pl) favere videbantur, nemini (dative) parcebant.
Completely stuck. The Greek gods ??? seemingly favouring ??? hadn’t spared anyone.
Dative of purpose combined with the dative of reference Romanis for the “double dative” construction.
Graeci (nom,pl), quibus (dative) dii (nom.pl) favere videbantur, nemini (dative) parcebant.
Completely stuck. The Greek gods ??? seemingly favouring ??? hadn’t spared anyone.
Graeci is substantive as the subject, “the Greeks.” Videbantur is a finite verb in the relative clause, quibus is dative as the complement to favere. “The Greeks, whom the gods seem to favor, were sparing (imperfect) no one.” Parco also takes a dative complement.
Many thanks, Barry. The double dative construction is a new one for me.
As to the second query: I had wanted the sentence to mean exactly the way you put it. “Quibus is dative as the complement to favere”, I got that bit, but the “Graeci” and “dii” both being nominative had me wondering what “quibus” referred to – probably looking for an Accusative/Direct Object. I’ll obviously have to give this some more thought.
Quibus is a relative pronoun, its antecedent is Graeci. As a relative clause, it contains it’s own subject and verb. Dii is nominative because it’s the subject of videbantur. Remember that a relative pronoun gets its number and gender from its antecedent, but its case from how it’s used in the clause.
Hi Pianophile,
You seem not to know how relative clauses work. A sentence that goes “Graeci, quibus dii …” will not mean “The Greek gods …”! Try parenthesizing the relative clause (quibus dii favere videbantur, “whom the gods seemed to favor”). That leaves the main clause (Graeci nemini parcebant), which makes sense on its own. I repeat: the main clause makes sense on its own.
And in your reply to Barry you say you were uncertain what quibus referred to. In a sentence beginning “Graeci, quibus …” you had no reason to be uncertain about that! You might well have wondered what case quibus is, and why, but those are secondary questions. First things first.
Spot on! 
I bet it was discussed somewhere in Familia Romana - I’d better retrace my steps and try and get to grips with that. If not in FR then I’m bound to find it discussed in one of my grammar books.
Thanks mwh - and again Barry.
Paras. 303 – 310 in A&G seem to cover Relative Pronouns and 279 subordinate clauses. Any other useful reference books?
It’s just the same as in German, which you say you know.
And you shouldn’t need more than one reference book.
My grammar in any of the above languages (and in English) is as good as non-existent. But good to know that A&G should suffice. Thanks, mwh.
“My grammar in any of the above languages (and in English) is as good as non-existent.”
“My grammar” is the subject of that sentence. There, now your grammar is no longer non-existent.
Another example: “I am ignorant of grammar.” “I” is the subject—it’s nominative. (We say “I” not “me”—think about it.) “ignorant” here is also nominative. In Latin: “Ego (sum) nescius.”
So now you know even more grammar—quite a lot, in fact.
Another sentence: “The Greeks, whom the gods seemed to favor, spared no-one.”
“The Greeks” is the subject of the sentence—that’s why in Latin it’s nominative, Graeci.
“whom the gods seemed to favor” (quibus dii favere videbantur) is a relative clause. You can parenthesize it, or even ignore it or cut it out, and the sentence still makes sense without it, “The Greeks (…) spared no-one.”
You will find Latin a whole lot easier—and will be infinitely less likely to get “completely stuck”—if you get how relative clauses work. (You already know, in fact; you just don’t know that you know.)
Any questions?
It is introduced in chapter III, line 69:
Quis est puer qui ridet? Puer qui ridet est Marcus. … Marcus, qui puellam pulsat, puer improbus est. ….
There seems to be a recap for all gender and cases, sg. and pl., in the grammar part of Chapter VIII:
Quis saccum portat? Servus saccum portat. Qui servus? Servus qui saccum portat est Syrus. …
Iulius servis mala dat. Quibus servis? Servi quibus Iulius mala dat sunt Syrus et Leander. ….
Thanks for the additional advice, mwh. Back to the A & G drawing board to get the ins and outs of relative clauses sorted.
Shenoute, Thanks for looking up this topic in Familia Romana - much appreciated. At the time I didn’t parse words, but had no difficulty understanding those sentences – yet managed to get “completely stuck” over the above phrase.
My main difficulty seems to be getting out of a dead end once trapped, like Graeci . . . dii = two nominatives and not knowing how relative clauses work. Help – not waving but drowning! Maybe I should stop parsing every word when reading a Latin passage. (Joke)
Hi
I think its good to keep in mind that when you are tackling the Pensa that the sentences will have occurred in some form in your previous reading.
Aedēs Castoris cōnsecrēta est diīs Cāstorī et Pollūcī,… quī saepius Rōmanīs (in proeliīs auxiliō) vēnerunt. appears as line 138-140. CAP. XXXVI You should also take note of the heading of Pensum A “Dē casū datīvō”
I can’t see “Graeci, quibus dii favere videbantur, nemini parcebant” But parcere was introduced in chapter XXIX as a verb taking the dative. The sense of the last part of the line seems to be line 355-6 in XXXVII.
I can’t remember whether you are also tackling the Exercises. My approach (with Familia Romana) is to ask students to do the exercises that are relevant to the reading passage they are looking at and only once all the exercises and readings are completed to do the Pensa as a form of revision.
However many times you read an explanation of how relative clauses work I think the only reliable way of fixing it in your mind is to read many examples (as given in Familia Romana) and conscientiously doing the exercises.
Michael has already shown how much grammar you already know. Indeed you couldn’t communicate with us as reliably as you do if you did not. Relative clauses are not especially difficult and they are very common not only for subordinate clauses but as a means of connecting sentences together. You really have to get to grips with them and I would advise pausing Roma Aeterna until you have complexly revised them using Familia Romana and the accompanying exercises.
Perhaps not what you wanted to hear just before Christmas.
Happy Christmas ( and saturnalia etc) to one and all.
It’s always good to have your input, Seneca – Many thanks!
As I said I wanted the sentence to mean the same as Barry’s. It was parsing the words and being confronted with two nominatives in close proximity which made me freeze up and panic, and for whatever reason unable to see that relative clause which was staring me in the face.
It’s taken me about two years to get through FR and I really would like to continue with RA while revisiting FR, as well as paying more attention to the grammar in A&G.
Merry Christmas and a Covid-free Happy New Year to everyone!