Brian Whatcott wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 17:16:23 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote:


Brian's comment: I wasn't miffed. Honest....:-)

Anyway, the way I wrote it was correct. It is "in mare."

"In" as a preposition with a noun in the ablative case can (among its
possible meanings) mean "on." Though with a Mac 26X it could well be
that it's meaning with the accusative ("into") could work also. ;-)

"Mari" is the ablative for "sea." This word does not follow the normal
3rd declension pattern for ablatives. (If my memory serves me, this is
called an "i-stem" noun, but my Latin grammar is not in front of me as I
write this and I am going by memory.)

Vale,
Alan

Salve!

It appears you are saying that 'in mare' implies mare is in the
accusative case, suggesting 'into the sea'.

It appears you are saying that 'in mari' implies mari is in the
i-form ablative case, suggesting 'upon the sea'. And I confirm that
your memory of the i-form neuter serves you well enough.
Though it looks like you are wriggling a little on the hook,
it is my pleasure to relay a paragraph below from the following Latin
grammar.

This Latin grammar URL [below] offers some rules for detecting i-form
3rd declension nouns.

Why a Hong Kong site, I wandered? My best guess is that this is a
legacy of a British colonial past that educated children in the
classics, so that like Indian students they too have lofty educational
objectives at times: for similar reasons....


************************************************** ***********************
http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Wheelock-Latin/lat14.txt
I. Rule for Detecting Neuter i-stem Nouns

(a) If a third declension noun is neuter, and
(b) if its nominative case ends in "-al", "-ar", or "-e",
THEN the noun is a neuter i-stem.

This is fairly easy. You look up a noun and the dictionary tells
you this: "animal, -is (n)". "Animal" is the nominative case.
The next entry tells you the genitive, from which you spot any
stem changes and learn the declension of the noun. The "-is"
entry tells you there are no stem changes and that the noun is
third declension (since "-is" is the genitive ending in the third
declension). The final entry is, of course, the gender, and for
"animal" it's neuter. Therefore, you have a neuter noun of the
third declension whose nominative ends in "-al". So the noun is
an i-stem. Simple, isn't it. So if you remember this rule,
you'll be able to spot, from the dictionary entry alone, all
neuter i-stem nouns of the third declension: if it's a neuter
noun which ends in "-al", "-ar", or "-e", then it's an i-stem.
And how do neuter i-stems decline? They differ from non-i-stem
nouns in four cases:

(1) the ablative singular is a long "-i" instead of the
normal short "-e";
(2,3) the nominative (and therefore the accusative) plural
is "-ia" instead of just plain "-a";
(4) the genitive plural is "-ium" instead of "-um".

Let's have a look. Decline the following neuter i-stem nouns,
and compare them to a regular neuter noun of the third declension
"corpus, -oris (n)":

corpus, -oris animal, -is mare, -is exemplar,-is

************************************************** *************************

On this basis, I conclude that Alan Gomes is no worse at Latin Grammar
than he appears to be.

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Hi, Brian!

Was the "wiggling" to which you referred my typo (subsequently corrected
immediately after I hit "send"--you saw that correction, right?), in
which I (wrongly) typed, "It is in mare" rather than my intended "It is
in mari"?

Anyhow...here's the bottom line:

(1) The ablative for the word "sea" in Latin (mare) is
"mari."

(2) The way you would say "on the sea" in Latin is "in mari."

So my original translation, which started this discussion, is correct.

Regards,
Alan Gomes

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:20:31 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote:


Was the "wiggling" to which you referred my typo (subsequently corrected
immediately after I hit "send"--you saw that correction, right?), in
which I (wrongly) typed, "It is in mare" rather than my intended "It is
in mari"?


I had not seen your correction until now.

Anyhow...here's the bottom line:
(1) The ablative for the word "sea" in Latin (mare) is
"mari."

Yes...


(2) The way you would say "on the sea" in Latin is "in mari."

Yes...

So my original translation, which started this discussion, is correct.

Regards,
Alan Gomes

It seems to me that either form would be usable.

I was exceptionally disappointed to not find an instance of either
usage from the classical authors at Perseus/Tufts however.
The wine-dark sea, and all that....

Ah well.

Brian W

Brian Whatcott wrote:
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:20:31 -0700, Alan Gomes wrote:


Was the "wiggling" to which you referred my typo (subsequently corrected
immediately after I hit "send"--you saw that correction, right?), in
which I (wrongly) typed, "It is in mare" rather than my intended "It is
in mari"?


I had not seen your correction until now.

Anyhow...here's the bottom line:
(1) The ablative for the word "sea" in Latin (mare) is
"mari."

Yes...


(2) The way you would say "on the sea" in Latin is "in mari."

Yes...

So my original translation, which started this discussion, is correct.

Regards,
Alan Gomes

It seems to me that either form would be usable.

I was exceptionally disappointed to not find an instance of either
usage from the classical authors at Perseus/Tufts however.
The wine-dark sea, and all that....

Ah well.

Brian W

Thanks, Brian.

This has been fun (for us, at least), but apologies to the rest of the
group for morphing this thread into a discussion on the joys of i-stem
nouns!!!

But at least Scotty, who asked the original question that REALLY got all
this going, got his money's worth!

--AG

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? I say accusative.

Number Three: All Gaul is divided into three parts.





I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
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 want a refund!

Scotty

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

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:51:08 -0700, Frank wrote
this crap:

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.

I agree 100%

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 shall disagree.

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 disagree.

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


I shall agree that both are appropriate.




I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:27:16 -0400, Horvath
wrote:



Number Three: All Gaul is divided into three parts.





I'm Horvath and I approve of this post.

No it isn't!!!

What about the village of the indominitable Gauls??