Salvete,
I am a bit confused by the way Adler uses the partitive relation denoted by the English “of” in Latin, specifically why he switches the order of the words in the answer.
- Suntne amici tui filio tot > togae > quot > indusia> ?
- Sunt ei quot > alterorum> , tot > alterarum > (> illarum> ).
In the above example from Adler’s “Key to the Exercises contained in Adler’s Practical Grammar” (Lesson 23, Exercise 31) the order female/neuter in the question is changed to neuter/female in the answer. Another example (same Exercise):
- Habemusne tam multas > caligas > quot > calceos> ?
- Habemus vero quot > alterorum> , tot > alterarum > (> illarum> ). [Reversing order]
- Plures habemus > alterarum > quam > alterorum > (de alteris or unis, quam de alteris).[Keeping same order as in question]
Again a switch of the order of the words between question and answer. However, later on (in Exercise 77) he uses the same order in question and answer:
- Accipiuntne Scoti tam multos > libros> , quam multas > epistolas> ?
- Accipiunt vero tam > multos > ( or tot) alterorum, quam > multas > (quot) alterarum.
Again, in Exercise 82, he uses the same order in question and answer.
- Conficitne sutor tuus tot > caligas > quot > calceos> ?
- Plus > unarum > quam > alterorum > conficit.
When Adler introduces this topic in his Practical Grammar (Lesson 23, p. 103), he gives the following example, maintaining the order of the question in the first answer and reversing it in the second. [By the way, is “tam multas illorum” in the first answer really correct? Why feminine “multas” combined with the masculine “illorum”?]
- Habesne tot > pileos > quot > togas> ?
- Tot (tam multas) > illorum> , quot (quam multas) > harum > habeo.
- Habeo tam > multas > (tot) ex unis, quam > multos > (quot) ex alteris.
My question: is there any system (and reason) for reversing the word order in the answer or can one choose to do so as one wants?
Valete,
Carolus Raeticus