The Flavors of Favor

How do you express favor in Latin—what verbs, cases and constructions are on your plate? There are a few basic flavors the favor construction.

The most obvious construction is faveō + a dative object. This verb only rarely appears absolutely (without an object).

  • Do you favor my resources, or those of Caesar: meīs rēbus favētis, aut Caesāris?
  • He prefers the stillness of the evening hours: silentiō noctis favet.

Annuō + dative of person + accusative object usually means ‘to grant + someone + something’ but may also appear as annuō + dative of person and merely mean ‘to favor someone.’

  • She favored the better cause: ratiōnī maiōri annuit.

Adiuvō + accusative ordinarily means ‘aid’ but may in certain oblique cases approach ‘favor.’

  • Favor us with your prayers: nōs precibus adiuvā!

The Essential AG: 367.

Genitive of Friendship

Yeah, I made that genitive up, but only to describe a real phenomenon in Latin! Some adjectives of likeness, nearness, and belonging that normally take the dative will occasionally take a possessive genitive. This transition is especially common where the adjective approaches the force of a noun.

  • Fuit hōc quondam proprium populī Rōmānī: this was once peculiar to the Roman people. (~a peculiar trait of)
  • Fuit semper amīcus Cicerōnis: he was always friendly with Cicero. (~a friend of)
  • Adeō patris similis es: you’re just like your master. (~a chip off the old block)

Here’s the full list of adjectives that perform this function—

  • aequālis,  aequāle: of the same age (~a contemporary of)
  • affīnis, affīne: related to by marriage (~kinsman of)
  • aliēnus, -a, -um: belonging to another (~a stranger to)
  • cōgnātus, -a, -um: fellow-born (~kinsman of)
  • commūnis, commūne: common to (~kinsman of)
  • cōnsanguineus, -a, -um: sharing a bloodline (~kinsman of)
  • contrārius, -a, -um: opposite (~the opposite of)
  • dispār: unlike (dispar suī, in philosophical diction)
  • familiāris, familiāre: of close relation (~intimate of)
  • fīnitimus, -a, -um: adjoining (~neighbor of)
  • inimīcus, -a, -um: hostile to (~enemy of)
  • necessārius, -a, -um: connected with (~component of)
  • pār: equal to (~a match)
  • pecūliāris, pecūliāre: personal (~peculiar trait of)
  • propinquus, -a, -um: neighboring (~neighbor of)
  • proprius, -a, -um: personal (~peculiar trait of)
  • sacer, sacra, sacrum: holy (~holy with respect to some deity)
  • similis, simile: alike to (~spitting image of)
  • superstes: surviving (~survivor of)
  • vīcīnus, -a, -um: neighboring (~neighbor of)

Note that this genitive construction is actually more common for proprius, -a, -um than the dative construction.

Similis with the genitive is especially common with personal pronouns (meī, tuī, suī) and within the fixed phrase vērī similis (probable).

I-Stems: Summary [8/8]

Like A&G, I would like to conclude my series on i-stems with a short assessment of the basic rules and variations associated with the i-stem class.

A&G paint a picture of cultural amnesia regarding Roman relations with the i-stem. As I have shown in previous posts, in all but the genitive plural (ium), and the neuter accusative/nominative plural (ia), the unique i-stem endings are rare or optional. (cf. the status of English ‘who/m’).

  • The nominative singular could be -is (sitis, is) but also ēs/-s/x, etc.
  • The accusative singular could be -im but also -em.
  • The ablative singular could be or it could be -e.
  • The accusative masc/fem plural might be -īs but it’s usually -ēs.

AG: 76

It Escapes Many

The impersonal latet (from the sans-passive lateō, latēre, latuī, —) takes either an accusative or a dative in prose and poetry. The accusative is the more common form.

  • It escapes me: mē latet.
  • Most people are unaware: plērōs latet.
  • She doesn’t know yet: eī adhuc latet.

Lateō can also be used impersonally, with the same variation in form:

  • Rome lies safe from enemies: Rōma hostibus latet.
  • The escaped songbirds elude their keepers: passērēs vāgī custōdēs latent.

In practice, a direct object isn’t always necessary.

  • The finest things remain unseen: pulcherrima latent.

(And yep, this word is related to λανθάνω)

The Essential AG: 388cn1, 396c, 396cn

Dative of Agent (2/2)

This post considers places where the Dative of Agent invades what would normally be constructions suitable to the Ablative of Agent.

With Passive Perfect Participles

With passive verbs, the Dative of Agent is most common with perfect passive participles, especially when these are virtually adjectival.

  • It has been deliberated and established by me: mihi dēlīberātum et cōnstitūtum est.
  • This has been provided for by you: tibi haec prōvīsa est.
  • The lights have made me dizzy: lūcibus cālīgātus sum.

Note that, with the final expression, lūcibus may be either Dative or an Ablative of Instrument (but not an Ablative of Agent, since there is no ā/ab). In this case, assume it’s an Ablative of Instrument, which is altogether more common, especially with something inanimate like ‘lights.’


With Passive Verb

The Dative of Agent is not unheard of with standard passive verbs, especially with the poets.

  • He is not seen by anyone: nōn cernitur ūllī.
  • He was favored by the nymph: Nymphō fovēbātur.

With Videor

The construction ‘it seems to x‘ is expressed with videor, vidērī, visus + Dative of Agent.

  • He seemed to me a horse with wings: mihi equis cum ālīs vidēbātur.
  • It seemed otherwise to the gods: dīs aliter vīsum est.
  • It seems to me that you are a slob: sordidus mihi vidēris.

With Probō

According to AG, probāre takes a Dative of Reference, but it’s so regularly attached that it seems like a Dative of Agent. I’m not sure I buy this, but here’s what they mean:

  • This view was approved by both him and me: haec sententia et illī et mihi probābātur.
  • This plan was not approved by the majority: hōc cōnsilium plēris nōn probābātur.

The Essential AG: 375

Dative of Agent (1/2)

My recent posts on the Ablative of Agent sent me back to my earlier work on the Gerund/Gerundive distinction, and I realize that I never fully articulated that gerundives take a Dative of Agent.

  • This province is for you to defend: haec vōbis prōvincia est dēfendenda.
  • I have to fight one thousand matches: mihi est mille certamina pugnandum.
  • The armor you must wear is in the cabinet: arma gestanda tibi in armāriō sunt.

AG would like us to compare this construction to the dative of possession, viewing the gerundive as an ascribed duty for the dative Person:

  • I have to fight one thousand matches: mihi est mille certamina pugnandum.
  • My name is Commodus: mihi nomen Commodus est.

With the Second Passive Periphrastic construction (always gerundive + sum), the Ablative of Agent (ā/ab + ablative) may appear where a dative would be ambiguous.

  • To whom must you submit: quibus est ā vōbis cēdendum?
  • To whom should we give the books: quō ā nōbis librōs legendōs sunt?

The Essential AG: 374

My earlier work on the Gerund/Gerundive divide starts here. Flip posts at the bottom of the page to find the one you want. There are five of them on the topic.

Passive Datives Retained

If a verb operates with an indirect dative, this dative is retained even in the passive variation.

  • They announced these misfortunes to Cato: Cātōnī haec miserea nuntiābant.
  • This misfortunes were announced to Cato: Cātonī haec miserea nuntiābantur.
  • She offered the queen the swans: rēgīnae cycnōs obtulit.
  • The swans were offered to the queen: rēgīnae cycnī oblātī sunt.
  • They protected the children from the coming arrows: puerīs aggressās sagittās prohibuērunt.
  • The arrows were prevented from reaching the children: puerīs aggressae sagittae prohibitae sunt.

Looking at the Latin, it’s pretty clear that verbs of protecting, defending and prohibiting prefer active constructions, whereas verbs of announcing, giving, presenting etc. are more flexible.

The Essential AG: 365

Double Constructions with Verbs of Defending, Prohibiting and Protecting

Normally, we can conceive that interclūdō (hold off) and prohibeō (prohibit) would take an accusative Person with an ablative Object (of separation).

  • He blocked their every approach: hōs totō aditū interclūsit.
  • They prohibit our approach: nōs adventū prohibent.

However, verbs of of defending, prohibiting and protecting may also take the accusative Object and dative Person.

  • He blocked their every approach: hīs totum aditum interclūsit.
  • They prohibit our approach: nōbis adventus prohibent.

Verbs with this Construction:

  • dēfendō, dēfendere, dēfensī, dēfensus: to defend
  • prohibeō, prohibēre, prohibuī, prohibitus: to prohibit or defend
  • interclūdo, interclūdere, interclūsī, interclūsus: to hold off
  • dētineō, dētinēre, dētenuī, dētentus: to hold off
  • muniō, munīre, munīvī, munītus: to wall off, defend
  • servō, servāre, servāvī, servātus: to defend

Recall that interdīcō is an exception: taking dative+accusative or dative+ablative.

For more: http://wp.me/p2eimD-bl
The Essential AG: 364n2

A Forbidding Post

interdīco, interdīcere, interdīxī, interdīctus: forbid
Interdīco (forbid) gets a note of it’s own in A&G because it’s case constructions have varied over time.

  • Earlier writers present interdīco + dative Person & ablative Thing Forbidden
  • Later writers use interdīco + dative Person & accusative Thing Forbidden

Exempla

  • They forbade him fire and water: aquā et īgnī eō interdīxērunt.*
  • Shall we forbid the women from wearing purple: fēminīs purpurae ūsū interdīcēmus?
  • He forbade the actors from appearing on the stage: histriōnibus scaenam accedere interdīxit.

*This was the standard formally for expressing ‘he is banished’

Also, I discovered during the construction of this post that ‘forbid’ is never the past tense of the English ‘forbid.’ It is usually ‘forbade’ and rarely ‘forbad.’ I hope I wasn’t the only person making this mistake… for 21 years…

The Essential AG: 365n1