# arbitror Verrem hoc fecisse



## Buonaparte

Forum,

arbitror Verrem hoc fecisse

My textbook gives the above sentence as a translation for 'I think that Verres did this'. 

My question is why use 'hoc', as opposed to say 'hunc' or 'hanc'?

Buonaparte


----------



## Anne345

There is noting to indicates which gender is to be used.  So you must use neuter.


----------



## la italianilla

_Hic, haec, hoc_ -> dem. pron.
I cannot understand the role of "hunc" or "hanc" ...it's an objective subordinate. Bye


----------



## brian

Think of the English as being "this _thing_" unless otherwise stated. Then the Latin is something like "hoc _factum_" (or something similar understood). Unless explicitly stated, the noun/substantive to which an adject refers is always neuter by default.


----------



## la italianilla

brian8733 said:


> Think of the English as being "this _thing_" unless otherwise stated. Then the Latin is something like "hoc _factum_" (or something similar understood). Unless explicitly stated, the noun/substantive to which an adject refers is always neuter by default.



Perfect explication, and I add that it must be neuter-> is the object (of the subordinate objective):

arbitror -> I think that 
Verrem hoc fecisse -> Verro did this (or did that) -> it could be translated as "I did this thing".


----------



## wonderment

brian8733 said:


> Unless explicitly stated, the noun/substantive to which an adject refers is always neuter by default.



um...not quite. _hoc_ is explicitly neuter, just as _hunc_ is masculine and _hanc_ feminine. In Latin, any adjective can be turned into a noun; the gender of that noun is determined explicitly by the gender of the adjective—there is no “neuter by default” mode. 

e.g: _hoc_ (neuter) = this thing, _hunc_ (masculine) = this man, _hanc_ (feminine) = this woman 



la italianilla said:


> arbitror -> I think that
> Verrem hoc fecisse -> Verro did this (or did that you'd need _illud_ for that ) -> it could be translated as "I did this thing".--please see below



Just to clarify:

_arbitror Verrem hoc fecisse_ = I think that Verres did this (thing).
_arbitror hoc fecisse_ = I think that I did this (thing). 
_arbitror hunc hoc fecisse _= I think that this man did this (thing).


----------



## brian

wonderment said:


> um...not quite. _hoc_ is explicitly neuter, just as _hunc_ is masculine and _hanc_ feminine. In Latin, any adjective can be turned into a noun; the gender of that noun is determined explicitly by the gender of the adjective—there is no “neuter by default” mode.
> 
> e.g: _hoc_ (neuter) = this thing, _hunc_ (masculine) = this man, _hanc_ (feminine) = this woman



Sorry, I did not explain myself carefully enough.  By "explicitly" I meant that unless the adjective has a noun that is either explicitly stated in the sentence, explicitly referred to earlier (functioning as an antecedent) in the work, or understood from the context, then the adjective is neuter by default.

If "hunc" means "this man," it is explicitly so because either he has been referred to earlier or because the reader knows that it is a man that the writer is writing about.

I suppose the point I was trying to make is that it helps for beginners to think of adjectives without nouns as being modifiers of an understood "thing/factum," which thus explains why they tend to be neuter. Of course, it's not true at all that "factum" (or any other real neuter noun) is understood when a writer writes "hoc."


----------



## la italianilla

wonderment said:


> la italianilla said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perfect explication, and I add that it must be neuter-> is the object (of the subordinate objective):
> 
> arbitror -> I think that
> Verrem hoc fecisse -> Verro did this (or did that you'd need illud for that)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just to clarify:
> 
> _arbitror Verrem hoc fecisse_ = I think that Verres did this (thing).
> _arbitror hoc fecisse_ = I think that I did this (thing).
> _arbitror hunc hoc fecisse _= I think that this man did this (thing).
Click to expand...


I know it...it's clear the the "I" of "I did" is an error by distraction of attention...that's why I wrote the subjct "Verro" just a few words before! 
By the way, thanks for the correction 
About "illud"...of course you're right, the first translation is: 
_Hic, haec, hoc -> this
ille, illa, illud -> that_

But it's not so simple...from the IL dictionary (Castiglioni Mariotti, 1999):



> Hic, haec, hoc -> dem. pron.
> questo/a (-> Italian word for _this_)
> *ciò* -> Italian word for _this_ and _that_ (depending of the case)



From the Italian dictionary De Mauro on line:



> ciò
> pron.dimostr.inv.
> FO
> 1 questa, quella cosa



EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to write that, in Italian:
questo/a/i/e -> this /these
quello/a/i/e -> that /those


----------



## wonderment

Thanks for letting me know--I can see better now the place for possible mistranslation. 



la italianilla said:


> But it's not so simple...from the IL dictionary (Castiglioni Mariotti, 1999):
> 
> Hic, haec, hoc -> dem. pron.
> questo/a (-> Italian word for this)
> ciò -> Italian word for this and that (depending o*n* the case)



aah, this is key--with ciò you must choose between ‘this’ _or_ ‘that’ depending on context (for they are not interchangeable in English usage). And in context, _hic/haec/hoc_ can never be ‘that’, only ‘this’.


----------



## la italianilla

Thanks for the explanation wonderment  I didn't imagine that...
Maybe because I used to translate from Latin into Italian...never did into English 
Bye!


----------

