Salute,
I’m reviewing Capvt XII of Wheelock and was wondering if there are two possible interpretations of the words between asterisks, since the syntax is flexible:
Ratiōnēs alterīus fīliae heri nōn fuērunt eaedem.
- The other daughter’s reasons/plans (were not the same yesterday)
- The reasons of the daughter of the other (person) were not…
Wheelock, Frederic M.; LaFleur, Richard A.. Wheelock’s Latin, 7th Edition (The Wheelock’s Latin Series) (p. 224). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition.
Thanks in advance to anyone who can help me out with this!
No I dont think it is ambiguous in the absence of any noun other than filiae with which the adjective alterius could agree. Incidentally I see this example on page 101.
Okay, thanks Seneca. I’m not clear on when it’s obligatory to add a noun after istius [viri], alterius [viri] etc. I guess in this construction it would be too ambiguous to omit the noun.
So meaning no. 2 (The plans/reasons of the other man’s daughter) would have to be “Rationes filiae alterius viri…” ? Would “Rationes alterius viri filiae” be acceptable?
About the difference in page nos., it’s probably because I have the Kindle edition (which is practical because I can just cut and paste the sentences and I don’t know how to type macrons)
Although the romans had a tendency to omit as much as possible I doubt that they would have tolerated the kind of ambiguity you have in mind. If there is any ambiguity context will always provide the answer. In the case of a single sentence without context always go for the simplest answer.
As long as “alterius viri” are together I dont think the order in the sentence matters. Rationes alterius viri filiae" has a nice feel to it with alterius viri sandwiched.
As to typing macrons you can get install a keyboard from herehttps://keyman.com/keyboards/sil_euro_latin which enables you to type macrons
you type “-” followed by “a” which gives you ā etc
Excellent answer on all counts, thanks again!