# Avis nidum, araneus cassem, homo amicitiam



## Casquilho

Hi, can you help me please?

I've tried to translate this proverb of Blake, "The bird a nest, the spider a web, man friendship" as _avis nidum, araneus cassem, homo amicitiam_. However, I'm not sure about this use of accusative. Would it be better to use nominative case? What do you think?


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

I think the accusative is the good choice , but I'd prefer a dative expressing the possession : 

_Avi nidus, araneae cassus, homini amicitia.

_


----------



## Casquilho

J.F. de TROYES said:


> I think the accusative is the good choice , but I'd prefer a dative expressing the possession :
> 
> _Avi nidus, araneae cassus, homini amicitia.
> 
> _



Thank you J. F.; that would say literally "A nest to the bird, a web to the spider, friendship to the man", right? By the way, I think the nominative is _casses_, not?


----------



## Hamlet2508

It is indeed.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

You're right and sorry for the blunder  !  Indeed , *_cassus_ is wrong and the word is _cassis, -is_,  but is also used in the plural : _casses, -ium _with the same meaning.

  So : _Avi nidus, araneae casses, homini amicitia._


----------



## stevelogan

J.F. de TROYES said:


> I think the accusative is the good choice , but I'd prefer a dative expressing the possession :
> 
> _Avi nidus, araneae cassus, homini amicitia.
> 
> _





 I do not agree that dative is better. Dative has a sense motion in it - in a concrete or a metaphoric way -  like in  "I give it to you  =_ tibi concedo_".

Here, the meaning is more about "possession" and not any sense of (metaphoric) "location" or "motion": 

"(as long as) bird has nest, spider has web, man has  friendship (to be cared of )".

So .... 

_avis (habet) nidus, araneus cassem, homo amicitiam _

seems far better and _habet_ is grammatical in concordance with all the three nouns....


----------



## Hamlet2508

stevelogan said:


> I do not agree that dative is better. Dative has a sense motion in it - in a concrete or a metaphoric way -  like in  "I give it to you  =_ tibi concedo_".
> 
> Here, the meaning is more about "possession" and not any sense of (metaphoric) "location" or "motion":
> 
> "(as long as) bird has nest, spider has web, man has  friendship (to be cared of )".
> 
> So ....
> 
> _avis (habet) nidu_*m*_, araneus cassem, homo amicitiam _
> 
> seems far better and _habet_ is grammatical in concordance with all the three nouns....



You may have missed the fact that this is_* a possessive dative. *_Never knew that the dative conveyed a sense of movement.


----------



## stevelogan

Hamlet2508 said:


> You may have missed the fact that this is_* a possessive dative. *_Never knew that the dative conveyed a sense of movement.


 
I did not missed, I just omitted. I was only expressing  a preference between dative and  accusative in this example.
There are also the "ethical dative" _vale mihi,_ the  "advantage dative" _pugno *patriae *_(Ifight for my country).
Dative comes from _cāsus datīvus_, "case for giving", a translation of Greek δοτικὴ πτῶσις, _dotikē ptôsis_ "inflection for giving".
Is it so difficult to see that the "action of giving" have a sense of motion in it? Well maybe.
Any language has many inflection and facets, and our personal preferences can be driven by different aspects. 
Dative is a preference, as long as accusative is, in this sentence.


----------



## J.F. de TROYES

As you know, _Domum habeo _is frequently turned into _Domus mihi est. _That's why I've chosen to use datives.


----------



## CapnPrep

stevelogan said:


> Is it so difficult to see that the "action of giving" have a sense of motion in it? Well maybe.


No, it is not difficult, but despite its name, the dative case does not always express an "act of giving" and many uses of the dative include no "sense of motion". Assuming that the relationship between the nouns in the English is one of possession, the dative of the possessor is in fact a "far better" choice for the Latin translation than the accusative of the thing possessed, especially if we wish to preserve the verbless construction.

The fact that Blake left out the verb in English means that possession is not the only possible interpretation of this proverb. We could imagine that he meant that birds build nests and use them for shelter/protection, spiders need their webs for nourishment, etc., and in the same way, man has a need to construct friendships, man finds refuge and strength in friendship, etc. The dative construction is again the best way to leave all of these possibilities open in Latin: As a nest [is] to the bird (_avi_), as a web [is] to the spider (_araneae_), so friendship [is] to man (_homini_).


----------



## stevelogan

J.F. de TROYES said:


> As you know, _Domum habeo _is frequently turned into _Domus mihi est. _That's why I've chosen to use datives.



yes, and you will say "nomen mihi est" instead of "nominem habeo". I don't know, preferences come out from use and readings.
Some expressions seems better then some grammatically-equivalent ones only because one prefer to read some authors  other prefer other ones.... 
Dative is far good, as I said...


----------



## CapnPrep

stevelogan said:


> yes, and you will say "nomen mihi est" instead of "nominem habeo".


Particularly since the accusative of _nomen_ is *nomen*, not *nominem*.


----------



## stevelogan

CapnPrep said:


> Particularly since the accusative of _nomen_ is *nomen*, not *nominem*.



Oh my bad, I made a mistake that's terrible.

Returning to the topic i.e. the translation of this short motto... I said I had a slight preference (it is not a rule)  for accusative, in this particular sentence.

I gave an explanation, that is centered on consideration: when we  transalte in Latin tto think that  every expression can have a sense an origin or a reason or an ethimogical pathway  behind it. Taking (also) this into account could help form a personal taste or style.

I wrote (and spoke) a lot in Latin, and after a while- when you spoke - you tend to concentrate more on what you want to express than grammar, like in every living and spoken language. Of course it is a bery bad thing to make mistakes.  
This approach generate some grammar errors sometimes, but it can give you the perception that language is a living thing, besides grammar. Even for Latin.

Dative to express possession is very used, common and perfectly suitable, no question. 
Maybe the fact is that, is common. Maybe too common. To scholastic in my way.
In a three partitioned short motto like that, I'd (only me) I'd prefer to use accusative. 

But ....Dative for possession is perfecty suitable and common...


----------

