How to read?
I recently noticed a pattern that, even when word order is scrambled, they’re arranged in such a way that you can reliably discern what’s going on just reading left to right.
For instance, in the sentence
quid si uidisset praetorem curribus altis extantem et medii sublimem puluere circi…
here’s how you might read the bolded bit:
- medii: from extantem, we suspect that this medii indicates location i.e. the praetor is standing in the middle of something
- sublimem: he’s standing in a way that exalts him
- pulvere: more details about where he’s standing---its very dusty
- circi: finally, the thing he’s in the middle of. However from curribus this could already have been reasonably inferred, which may be why circi is placed last: it’s simply less significant.
This pattern can also be seen in the following part of the above sentence:
…in tunica Iouis et pictae Sarrana ferentem ex umeris aulaea togae…
just from pictae Sarrana ferentem, we learn that the praetor is wearing “the Tyrian [something] of a painted [something]“. However, from the context of the just-mentioned tunica, we can reasonably deduce that the pictae indeed refers to the picta toga, and that Sarrana then describes its colors. These deductions are verified by the closing aulaea togae: therefore, these two words function more to confirm existing meaning rather than add anything new.
On the other hand, when the noun is more descriptive than the adjective, it appears to be put first as well. For instance, in the phrase curribus altis, curribus provides much more context than altis, which may justify putting it first.
Subjunctives
Jussive: let it be done. Ex: detur nobis locus, hora, custodes.
Concessive: even if… Ex: ut sis tu similis Caeli Birrique latronum, non ego sum Capri neque Sulci: cur metuas me?
Dative
The general pattern seems to be that the dative establishes a more direct context than the ablative (like the Japanese に). For instance, the ablative of agent usually conveys context that isn’t the main focus of the action, e.g.:
puer ab magistro laudatur.
The focus of the sentence is that the boy is being praised, not the teacher.
However, when the dative of agent is used, e.g. with the gerundive of obligation:
haec vōbīs prōvincia est dēfendenda.
It draws more attention to vobis as the subject of obligation.
Dative of Reference
Ex: inpune ergo mihi recitaverit ille togatas, hic elegos?
Dative of Agent
Ex: nunc sportula primo limine parva sedet turbae rapienda togatae.
Dative Object
Certain verbs like faveo, ignosco, and credo take their objects in the dative rather than the accusative. I think these are usually the verbs that relate more to internal feeling (favor, forgiveness, belief) rather than external action?
i-stems
Certain nouns have dative -i and genitive -ius, such as:
- unus
- nullus
- ullus
- solus
Ex: nota magis nulli domus est sua quam mihi lucus Martis…
Misc.
After si, nisi, num, and ne, all the ali’s fly away…
Usually a “si quis/quae/quod” clause means “si aliquis/quae/quod”.
Ex. si quis erat dignus describi quod malus ac fur (Horace 1.4.3) Ex. si quid promittere de me possum aliud vere, promitto. (Horace 1.4.102-3) Ex. ubi quid datur otii, illudo chartis. (Horace 1.4.138-9)
Adjectives in front of verbs can often be treated adverbially.
Ex. hinc omnis pendet Lucilius. (Horace 1.4.6) Ex. durus componere vers(u)s. (Horace 1.4.8)
Can also be seen with accusative nouns…
Ex. (di) me…finxerunt animi, raro et perpauca loquentis.
est quod: there existed that which…
Ex. erat quod tollere velles. (Horace 1.4.11) Ex. sunt quod quos genus hoc minime iuvat.
Open questions
quamquam ridentem dicere verum quid vetat?
How to know that ridentem doesn’t go with verum?
Conjecture: infinitives don’t usually split the adjective from the noun?