In the following sentence:
VIR SERVOS LABORARE DESEDERO
the book i am using says that ‘SERVOS’ is the subject
in the accusative. Isn’t VIR also the subject? Are they
both the subject?
the best i can make of this:
SERVOS is the direct object
VIR is the subject
Thanks.
Perhaps this is indirect speech?
If you meant “desidero”, blutoonwithcarrotandnail, it can take a subject accusative with the infinitive. “[As] a man, I require servants to work.” Otherwise, I don’t get the future perfect of “desideo” or “desido” with a subject accusative and infinitive: “[As] a man, I will have settled down servants to work”. I didn’t know you could use that there, but lots I don’t know as a learner, of course.
Si “desidero” scripsisse voluisti, canorcaerulecarotâclavoque, hoc verbum casus accusativum cum infinitivo accomodat. Eo casu, verto: “[As] a man, I require servants to work.”
Aliter, verbum ut “desideo” vel " desido", tempore praeterito futuro, cum accusativo infinitivoque me confundit: “[As/when] a man, I will have settled down servants to work(?)”. Multa autem quae nescio qui adhùc discipulus sum, certé.
Yeah, i meant ‘DESIDERO’.
But if it is:
VIR SERVOS LABORARE DESIDERO
You said it can take a subject accusative with the infinitive.
Is that subject accusative ‘VIR SERVOS’ or just ‘SERVOS’.
If it is just SERVOS than what is VIR?
Why isnt VIR in the accusative too?
Thanks.
Clause = clausula, princeps, principis (genitive) = main, subsidiarius -a -um = subsidiary
Ego (qui vir sum) desidero: servos laborare. “I, a man, require servants to work” or “I, as a man, require servants to do work” or “A man such as I requires servants to do work” (I recommend this translation/quam traductionem tibi commendo).
Ego = vir = casu nominativo = principis clausulae vel sententiae subjectivum est.
Servos = casu accusativo = cum infinitivo, OBJECTIVUM sententiae vel clausulae principis AT/SED subsidiariae clausulae SUBJECTIVUM est.
Do you know the term ‘nexus’? It is a term invented by some old, Danish linguist to denote the relation between the action and the agent (i.e. the one doing the action) of a clause.
For example, vir desidero is a nexus relation in that vir does the action denoted by the verb.
You can imagine both a finite nexus (with a finite verb, i.e. conjugated in person, tense, mood and number), as the above example, and an infinite nexus (i.e. with a verb in the infinitive), such as servos laborare, where servos is agent of the action denoted by laborare.
Servos laborare is the object of the nexus relation vir desidero, and is in turn also a nexus in itself.
“qui te fratrem habeam” (Ainsworth, 1808)
Translation: “[ I ] who have such a brother as you” Nice construction, no? He isn’t putting a question but a clause, BTW, I think, or is he? Quà m speciosam formam, nonné? Quaestionem obiter non ponit, sed clausulam, credo. Vel alià s, fortassè.
What does ‘CASU’ mean in english?
What you are talking about is labeling the principal clause, the nominative
clause and the accusative clause? Yes?
Or are you saying that EGO replaces VIR in the sentence and is in the
nominative ‘Case’ (a possible translation for CASU) and that likewise
SERVOS is in the accusative case (subordinate clause)?
The rule in my book is ‘An objective infinitive always has a subject
in the accusative.’ If EGO in your replacement is labeled officially
the nominative case does that mean that:
An objective infinitive always has a subject in the accusative but it
may also have a subject in the nominative (EGO)?
Thanks.
LOL, Adriane, responsa latina non semper ab omnibus comprehenduntur…
Let me try to help out since I’m procrastinating (exams, sigh)…
blutoonwithcarrotandnail: casu is the ablative of casus, which means case in grammar…
VIR SERVOS LABORARE DESIDERO
Basically, using Adrianus’s terminologies, there are two clauses… My English translation would be: I, a man, require slaves to work.
The main clause is VIR DESIDERO, “I, a man, want” while the subsidiary clause is SERVOS LABORARE, “slaves to work”. Can you see that the subject of the main clause is “I, a man” while the subject of the subsidiary clause is “slaves”? So in this one sentence there are 2 different subjects and 2 different verbs, 1 verb belonging to its own subject.
The sentence could go EGO, VIR, DESIDERO SERVOS LABORARE but EGO is unnecessary because of the personal ending in the verb DESIDERO implies the first person. VIR just clarifies that the person speaking is a man (compare this to: ave caesar, morituri te salutamus!).
Your book is right in this case though, because the ‘objective infinitive’ takes an accusative ‘SERVOS’ as its subject i.e. ‘slaves to work’. The nominative ‘VIR’ belongs to ‘DESIDERO’ not ‘LABORARE’.
I hope I haven’t made a mess of this all, haha…
It’s true not everyone will get an answer in Latin, tienyew, but I was just posing a puzzle I thought was doable. Maybe that was a mistake. I didn’t mean to frustrate.
Rectè dicis, tienyew. Problema posui quod intellegi potuit, ut credi. Fortassè erravi. Vexare nolui.