On Jul 23, 4:27 pm, Horvath wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 19:20:34 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote
this crap:
But at least Scotty, who asked the original question that REALLY got all
this going, got his money's worth!

I was going to let this drop, but this has proven to be an interesting
discussion.
We should agree on three things:
Number One: The Romans had no word for "Oceans," so "Mare," or
"Maris," should suffice.
Number Two: Does the preposition "in," cause the noun to be ablative
or accusative
Number Three: All Gaul is divided into three parts.
..

I've abstained til now but here's my $.02.

1. The Romans used the personification of the god Oceanus to refer to
the sea/ocean. (And that's where we got the current English word,
obviously.) So, there's one accurate substitute for mare; and as a
bonus, it has an indisputable ablative singluar ending. grin There's
also the commonly used pontus. Sailors might prefer aequor which
implies being on the surface of it. And poets like profundus, implying
the unknowable depths. All perfectly fine substitutes for mare.

2. and 3. "In" can certainly take an accusative, like your example
from Caesar (in partes tres). However just as often it takes an
ablative of place, which is what I'd consider appropriate in this
case. IMO, this one is definitely ablative of place. Example, the
classic Latin tongue-twister: in mari meri miri mori muri placet.

I freely admit that if I'd gone to the effort to create a Latin
version of this phrase, I'd have used "mare" forgetting about the
irregular "-i" ablative singluar. But it's definitely ablative not
accusative. I'd be more inclined to argue about the overall
construction as a literalist translation of the English words instead
of a rethinking of it in Latin. But the basic idea was fun and funny
and I'm in no mood to quibble.

Frank