Source: https://www.textkit.com/greek-latin-forum/viewtopic.php?p=1502
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 04:44:12+00:00

Document:
Are you learning Latin with D'Ooge's Beginners Latin Book? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback and comments from others.
Bingley is right. There isn't really such thing as "E" ending nouns. That's a vocative case of masculine second declension. If you meant to use the genitive it would be "Marci", or if you want to address him directly (O Marcus!) you would change his name to "Marce".
<br /><br />Grammatically possible, but if your answer is supposed to be based on the dialogue, no.<br /><br />Non Marcus qui equum illum habet sed legatus.
<br />Curatne ancilla equum legati?<br /><br />Curat ancilla equum legati.<br /> or<br />curat equum legati ancilla.
To know the word order it helps to ask the question to which you already know the answer.<br /><br />"Quis equum legati curat?", "ANCILLA marci equum legati curat"<br /><br />"suntne multi episcopi in casa tua?" "SUNT (multi episcopi in mea casa) " <br /><br />Sometimes it gets to a point where the answer is obvious where a verb comes in. That 'sunt' basically means 'yes', or, as I like to think of it "There does be"<br /><br />ps everybody sorry about the monotony of my examples! Verborum copiam non habeo!
Last edited by benissimus on Sun Sep 05, 2004 5:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Non Marcus qui equum illum habet sed legatus. <br /><br /><br />I haven't learned these words yet : qui, illum, habet, or sed.<br /><br />I'm guessing that the gist of what you're saying is this : Not Marcus, but the horse which belongs to Legatus.
<br /><br /><br />qui = who, as a relative pronoun<br />illum = that<br />habet = has, owns<br />sed = but<br /><br />(It is) not Marcus who owns the horse but the legate.
BLD will cover all of that in time!<br /><br />and thanks beniss! I feel more free knowing that I can put words wherever I feel!
So it's a rather structured, yet slightly freeformed, language. It's that freeformedness (is that a word?) which makes learning the language a challenge.
Remember how we studied the three main parts of a language, Morphology, Syntax, and Lexicon? A basic rule is that the more you put into one, the less you need of the others. Latin is heavy on morphology, so it does not depend as heavily on syntax as most of our modern languages (though it certainly does adhere strongly to syntax in certain constructions).
quid ancilla equō lēgātī dat ?
shouldn't it be equum instead ? can't consider equus as a direct object in the phrase instead of dative case (to the horse) ? why ?
cuius equum ancilla cūrat ?
thanks in advance your opinions !
In this sentence, quid is the direct object of the verb 'dat'. Usually, you can find the direct object by asking "what?" e.g. what does the maid servant give? Even though this is the translation of part of the sentence in this case, it it still valid: the direct object is 'quid'.
Then, you can find the indirect object by asking: 'to whom'. To whom does the maid servant give something? To the horse -ergo: the horse is in the dative case.
cūrat takes an accusative, even though it is translated by care for. English uses a lot of phrasal verbs, where Latin would use a verb + direct object.
I gather your problem lies in the use of cases, if not, skip this mail .
The verb is the main part of the sentence, without verb no full sentence. It tells you what's been done.
The boy is standing: 'the boy' is subject, 'is standing' is the verb.
The boys are standing: the verb is now plural, and so is the subject.
You can also ask the question: who is doing the verb?: in this case: who is standing? The boy.
The boy reads a book : 'the boy' is still the subject, 'reads' the verb, and 'a book' is the direct object.
You can ask the question: what is the subject doing?; in this case: what is the boy reading? A book.
Not every verb can take a direct object. In my earlier example, you cannot be standing something (OK, with a different meaning, there may be quite a lot what you can't stand ). Verbs that can take a direct object are called transitive verbs, verbs that cannot take a direct object are called intransitive.
The indirect object (in Latin the dative) is the thing or person affected by the verb, but not the direct object of it. In English, it is usually preceded by 'to' or 'for', but changing the word order will enable you to skip the preposition. Indirect objects are most often found with verbs meaning 'give'.
The boy gives a book to his friend . 'the boy' is subject, 'gives' is the verb, ' a book' is the direct object, and 'to his friend' is the indirect object.
The boy gives his friend a book . Same as above, but as you can see, the 'to' has gone.
In it's simple form, the indirect object is the person or thing who benefits (or suffers) from the thing that is done to the direct object.
I'm sure there are people who can explain all this a lot better than I can. Google on 'indirect direct object', and browse through the results.
oh i'm feeling so dumb i have been studying everyday latin but i forgot about transitive verbs... yeah, it explains it all !!!
The book does cover this in enough detail for this point in the language.
First, look at the section on the Dative Relation, § 43.
Here you are told that the relation is expressed by the preposition "to/towards/for". However...you are immediately told that it does not cover motion towards. You are given examples of such motion: "She went to town; he ran towards town; Columbus sailed for America." So keep in mind the idea that motion is not the dative case.
1. The sailor announces the flight.
2. The sailor announces the flight to the farmers.
In the first sentence you can identify the subject object and verb. In the second sentence, they haven't changed but we've added an indirect object, "to the farmers".
Let's play a little substitution game here. The accusative case is in § 37 and tells us that it answers the question "What?" so everyplace we ws have the accusative case, we'll substitute the word WHAT.
1. The sailor announces WHAT.
2. The sailor announces WHAT to the farmers.
1a. WHAT does the sailor announce?
If you use the table from § 33 you might think that the farmers answers the question WHOM...except for that preposition to. TO WHOM is what § 44 tells you the dative case covers.
2a. The sailor announces WHAT TO WHOM.
Now let's take the current sentence: quid ancilla equo legati dat?
First let's use our substitution, which in this case is really easy because we are given the WHAT.
WHAT does the maid give?
So quid is the direct object.
The maid gives WHAT TO WHOM.
TO WHOM does the maid give the WHAT? equo legati. indirect object, dative case.
OK, now the real problem sentence: cuius equum ancilla curat ?
Ingrid has mentioned to you that curat takes the accusative. This is mentioned in the text as well but you may have missed it. At the beginning of § 77 you are told to learn the special vocabulary. In that vocabulary you are given the verb curat and told its meaning is to care for and you are told that it takes the accusative case. That last part is the important part.
When you are given a word definition and told that it takes a particular case you are being directed to use that case over another according to the rules of the language. In this case, the verb carat, to care for, has a preposition built into it. so there is no preposition "for" to add when it is used in a sentence, like the one we have.
The made cares for WHOM?
Back to § 37 and we find the accusative case answers the question WHOM. So the definition of the verb and the sentence match up.
WHOSE WHAT does the maid care for?
i'm trying my best to learn every vocabulary, personal ending and such; i just need to review more frequently, maybe a few things i've learned before, two or three days later i just forgot 'em, and that's such a shame !

References: § 43
 § 37
 § 33
 § 44
 § 77
 § 37