# Genetive + what case of Noun



## rominetimma

I'm uncertain of whether the genitive would be followed by a nominative or accusative.

I'm thinking accusative, because nominative is more or less the subject, right ?


----------



## Anne345

It depends on the grammaticla function of the word following the gentive. It is one of the 6 cases !


----------



## rominetimma

Anne345 said:


> It depends on the grammaticla function of the word following the gentive. It is one of the 6 cases !



I think I wasn't specific enough... If one uses a genitive noun and what's a singular noun to follow, is it nominative or accusative ?

Like, "a phoenix' house" – phoenicis domum ?

Nominative: "Phoenicis domus" would be "The phoenix' house (is..)..".

Genitive: "Phoenicis domu's" would be "The phoenix' house's...(+ {accusative?} noun (is..)..).. "

Dative: "Phoenicis domui'" doesn't work ?– "The phoenix' to the house..." ? Unless more is added, as in: "phoenicis domui' co'na'men" – "The phoenix' struggle for the house." / "The phoenix effort to the house." ?..

And the ablative would need more information like the dative, no ?

"A phoenix' house" by itself would be genitive + accusative ?  Like "I bought a phoenix' house" – _Ego "bought" phoenicis domum._ or _Ego "bought" domum phoenicis._.

I'm probably over-confusing things...


----------



## Whodunit

I'm trying to understand your problem. 

First, let me correct your translations:



rominetimma said:


> Like, "a phoenix' house" – phoenicis domus ?
> 
> Nominative: "Phoenicis domus" would be "The phoenix' house (is..)..".
> 
> Genitive: "Phoenicis domūs" would be "The phoenix' house's...(+ {accusative?} noun (is..)..).. " _that would be too complicated in English; translate it as "... of the Phoenix's house" as in "Phoenicis domus ianua destructa est", which would be "The door of the Phoenix's house has been destroyed"._
> 
> Dative: "Phoenicis domui'" doesn't work ?– "The phoenix' to the house..." ?  Unless more is added, as in: "phoenicis domui' co'na'men" – "The phoenix' struggle for the house." / "The phoenix effort to the house." ?.. _no, that's not what you mean, but that would be a possible but strange translation. The translation of "phoenicis domui" would be "to the Phoenix's house" as in "Phoenicis domui nihil afficietur", which would be "Nothing will happen to the Phoenix's house"_
> 
> And the ablative would need more information like the dative, no ? No, it _wouldn't. See here: "Phoenicis domu homines tutantur" (The people are protected by the Phoenix's house)_
> 
> "A phoenix' house" by itself would be genitive + accusative ?  Like "I bought a phoenix' house" – _Ego emebam phoenicis domum._ or _Ego emebam domum phoenicis._.
> 
> I'm probably over-confusing things...



I hope it's clear now. If not, please feel free to ask all your questions.


----------



## rominetimma

Thanks much for the corrections Whodunut – I've had no formal teachings of Latin, but rather have been trying to make sence of it (the cases, mostly) through Wikipedia and online...

I think I understand what you're saying (I just need to relook at the declension of domus again, because I haven't remembered any declensions..).

So, if I just wanted to say "a phoenix' house" or "the cat's ball" or a woman's child" and not use the phrase as a subject/nominative, it is genitive + accusative ?


----------



## Whodunit

rominetimma said:


> Thanks much for the corrections Whodunit – I've had no formal teachings of Latin, but rather have been trying to make sence of it (the cases, mostly) through Wikipedia and online...



Well, that's hard. Latin is a very difficult language, anyway, and if you want to learn it without a teacher, it will be even harder! But good luck. 



> I think I understand what you're saying (I just need to relook at the declension of domus again, because I haven't remembered any declensions..).



_Domus_ is a difficult word to start with. It's a feminine noun in the _u_-declension whose nouns are usually masculine. Additional, it has preserved the locative case in _domi_ (= at home). Anyway, here's the declension of _domus_:

_singular:_
nom: domus
gen: domûs (I'm using the circumflexe for the macron here) (Old Latin: domî)
dat: domuî (Old Latin: domû/domô)
acc: domum
abl: domû (Old Latin: domô)
loc: domî

_plural:_
nom: domûs
gen: domuum (Old Latin: domorum)
dat: domibus
acc: domûs (Old Latin: domôs)
abl: domibus
(loc: domibus)



> So, if I just wanted to say "a phoenix' house" or "the cat's ball" or a woman's child" and not use the phrase as a subject/nominative, it is genitive + accusative ?



Not necessarily. The second case depends on what you want to express. I gave you some examples for a second genitive, a following dative, or an ablative. The genitive can also be placed after the other case, i.e. _Domus phoenicis pulchra est._

Hope it helps.


----------



## GreenWhiteBlue

I think your main problem is that you are thinking in terms of English grammer, where the meaning of the sentence is intrinsically related to the word order.

For example, in English the subject and the object in the sentence 
_My dog bit a man_
and in the sentence 
_A man bit my dog_
are determined by the word order.

In Latin, the word order is not nearly as important; the function of the word in the sentence is mostly shown by the form given the word, and not the placement in the sentence. 

_Ursus edit Hugonem_ would mean "The  bear ate Hugh", but _Hugonem ursus edit_ also means "The bear ate Hugh".  Meanwhile we can say "Hugh ate the bear" either by saying _Ursum edit Hugo_, or _Hugo ursum edit_, or _Ursum Hugo edit_ -- notice that the words can move without changing the meaning of the sentence, but what is important is the difference betwen _ursus_ and _ursum_, or _Hug_o and _Hugonem_.


----------



## Whodunit

GreenWhiteBlue said:


> notice that the words can move without changing the meaning of the sentence,...



Although I assume you already know this, I would like to point out that the typical, classical word order in Latin was _subject-object-verb_. Changing subject and object puts special emphasis on the object. See here:

The dog ate the fish. = Canis piscem edit.
It was the fish the dog ate. = Piscem canis edit.
The dog really _ate_ the fish. = Edit canis piscem.
The dog really _ate_ the fish (and nothing else). = Edit piscem canis.

I know Latin can be confusing sometimes, but German is not much easier.


----------



## rominetimma

Whodunit said:


> Well, that's hard. Latin is a very difficult language, anyway, and if you want to learn it without a teacher, it will be even harder! But good luck.



I've noticed.  Now that I have a general understanding of the cases though, it's very much easier to comprehend how Latin has three words which make up five or six in any other language...




> _Domus_ is a difficult word to start with. It's a feminine noun in the _u_-declension whose nouns are usually masculine. Additional, it has preserved the locative case in _domi_ (= at home). Anyway, here's the declension of _domus_:
> 
> _singular:_
> nom: domus
> gen: domûs (I'm using the circumflexe for the macron here) (Old Latin: domî)
> dat: domuî (Old Latin: domû/domô)
> acc: domum
> abl: domû (Old Latin: domô)
> loc: domî
> 
> _plural:_
> nom: domûs
> gen: domuum (Old Latin: domorum)
> dat: domibus
> acc: domûs (Old Latin: domôs)
> abl: domibus
> (loc: domibus)



I was declining domus based on what I saw at Wikipedia, and it looks like it was exampling Old Latin. I just used it because it an phoenix seemed fine together among the few choices of nouns I could use from Wikipedia.





> Not necessarily. The second case depends on what you want to express. I gave you some examples for a second genitive, a following dative, or an ablative. The genitive can also be placed after the other case, i.e. _Domus phoenicis pulchra est._
> 
> Hope it helps.



Hm...

I understand that the genitive can work with every case... In a noun phrase of "nominative + accusative", would the genitive replace the nominative ?

As in: "The bird bought a house." = "The bird's house." , "The house of the bird.". 

How would the last two sentences be phrased in Latin, if not "Phoenicis domum" or "Domum phoenicis" ?  (And, I know that phoenix is a specific bird and not just a bird, but I don't know "bird" in Latin...)

Is there not one definite way to say just "a house", or just "a bird" ?.. I take it that it would be the accusative case, because anything else adds more meaning to it than if it's accusative (as I see it) – nominative would make it doing something , genitive makes it own something , ablative adds the sence of a preposition to it , dative makes something being given to it... 



GreenWhiteBlue said:


> I think your main problem is that you are thinking in terms of English grammer, where the meaning of the sentence is intrinsically related to the word order.
> 
> For example, in English the subject and the object in the sentence
> _My dog bit a man_
> and in the sentence
> _A man bit my dog_
> are determined by the word order.
> 
> In Latin, the word order is not nearly as important; the function of the word in the sentence is mostly shown by the form given the word, and not the placement in the sentence.
> 
> _Ursus edit Hugonem_ would mean "The  bear ate Hugh", but _Hugonem ursus edit_ also means "The bear ate Hugh".  Meanwhile we can say "Hugh ate the bear" either by saying _Ursum edit Hugo_, or _Hugo ursum edit_, or _Ursum Hugo edit_ -- notice that the words can move without changing the meaning of the sentence, but what is important is the difference betwen _ursus_ and _ursum_, or _Hug_o and _Hugonem_.





Whodunit said:


> Although I assume you already know this, I would like to point out that the typical, classical word order in Latin was _subject-object-verb_. Changing subject and object puts special emphasis on the object. See here:
> 
> The dog ate the fish. = Canis piscem edit.
> It was the fish the dog ate. = Piscem canis edit.
> The dog really _ate_ the fish. = Edit canis piscem.
> The dog really _ate_ the fish (and nothing else). = Edit piscem canis.
> 
> I know Latin can be confusing sometimes, but German is not much easier.




Yeah, I get this part, which is another reason why I wanted to learn Latin – how could three words in any order mean the same thing as five or six words in one order in other languages. 

Since I don't speak Latin nor remember the cases, it helps to remember that in English the accusative is at the end of the sentence, as part of the predicate, and the nominative is the subject, which is usually at the beginning, and cetera...


----------



## Whodunit

rominetimma said:


> As in: "The bird bought a house." = "The bird's house." , "The house of the bird.".



The bird bought a house. = Avis [nom] domum [acc.] emit.
The bird's house. = Avis [gen] domus [nom]. = The house of the bird.



> How would the last two sentences be phrased in Latin, if not "Phoenicis domum" or "Domum phoenicis" ?  (And, I know that phoenix is a specific bird and not just a bird, but I don't know "bird" in Latin...)


_Phoenicis domus_ would be correct, because you want _domus_ to be the nominative according to the English sentence.



> Is there not one definite way to say just "a house", or just "a bird" ?


Yes, you use _domus_ for _a house_ and _avis_ for _a bird_.



> I take it that it would be the accusative case, because anything else adds more meaning to it than if it's accusative (as I see it)


I don't get that. The "normal" form of a noun is always in the nominative: _This house is great_. Here _this house_ is in the nominative, because it is the acting thing.



> nominative would make it doing something


Please elaborate upon this. The nominative is the person/thing acting in the active voice (I [nom] am beating the man [acc.]), and the person/thing suffering in the passive voice (I [nom] am beaten by the man [ablative in Latin]).



> genitive makes it own something


More or less, yes.



> ablative adds the sence of a preposition to it


The ablative on its own express the idea of _by ..._ or _through ..._



> dative makes something being given to it...


Not necessarily. It always depends on the verb and which case it requires. Additionally, there are some grammatical things that are always used with the dative case and are usually translated as the nominative!



> Yeah, I get this part, which is another reason why I wanted to learn Latin – how could three words in any order mean the same thing as five or six words in one order in other languages.


That's not necessarily true. I gave you an example that word order is important, too. If you put the object in front, you will special emphasis on it, which is comparable to the use of the Spanish _yo_ totally out of place where you don't need it.



> Since I don't speak Latin nor remember the cases, it helps to remember that in English the accusative is at the end of the sentence, as part of the predicate, and the nominative is the subject, which is usually at the beginning, and cetera...


It's not advisable to think in English terms when trying to analyze Latin sentences. I have an advantage with German, because we have four cases and genders, too. However, English possesses neither cases nor genders, so it's often hard to convey the idea of the Latin sentence.


----------



## rominetimma

Whodunit said:


> The bird bought a house. = Avis [nom] domum [acc.] emit.
> The bird's house. = Avis [gen] domus [nom]. = The house of the bird.



So even though _domus_ isn't precisely acting, it's nominative... Ok, I just don't see the connection yet, except in "The house of the bird" which I guess is a more 'true' form of possession than English -'s.




> Yes, you use _domus_ for _a house_ and _avis_ for _a bird_.



Ok, nominative.




> I don't get that. The "normal" form a noun is always in the nominative: _This house is great_. Here _this house_ is in the nominative, because it is the acting thing.



Hm... Well, I guess I just saw it wrong then.   (On a sidenote, would "this house" be "hic domus" ?)



> Please elaborate upon this. The nominative is the person/thing acting in the active voice (I [nom] am beating the man [acc.]), and the person/thing suffering in the passive voice (I [nom] am beaten by the man [ablative in Latin]).



I didn't understand it precisely correctly the first time I think, but: the nominative is the one that's "doing", or, acting (in the active voice). Basically, it's the subject to relate it to non Latin languages.





> The ablative on its own express the idea of _by ..._ or _through ..._



It also expresses "with" / "alongside", no ?  As in "I walked _with him_" ?




> Not necessarily. It always depends on the verb and which case it requires. Additionally, there are some grammatical things that are always used with the dative case and are usually translated as the nominative!



Interesting... All languages have their idiosyncrasies !





> That's not necessarily true. I gave you an example that word order is important, too. If you put the object in front, you will special emphasis on it, which is comparable to the use of the Spanish _yo_ totally out of place where you don't need it.



I see what you're saying, but while one could be emphasising the wrong thing or nothing at all if the word order is moved around, it still works in any order, to an extent.





> It's not advisable to think in English terms when trying to analyze Latin sentences. I have an advantage with German, because we have four cases and genders, too. However, English possesses neither cases nor genders, so it's often hard to convey the idea of the Latin sentence.



Yeah, I've noticed.  Modern English doesn't have many things, which makes it hard for us to learn other languages, but rather easy for those of other languages to learn it... I've mostly learned that you can't always use English for examples from Spanish. I've understood a load of Spanish things by logic, I just haven't mental-ised Latin as much like I've done Spanish.


----------



## virgilio

rominetimma,
                 I would suggest a different way of looking at the thing. Here's how I personally see it:
*Nouns* are always nominative. It is the function of a noun to combine with some verb and thereby produce a sentence.
Very often words which look like nouns try to 'get in on the act', so to speak, and 'gatecrash' sentences already formed - like alien birds trying to invade an existing nest. They cannot, of course, combine with the verb of that sentence because that verb already has a noun-'mate'.
These 'noun lookalikes' therefore fail to make it as nouns in that sentence and have to be satisfied with the auxiliary roles of adjective or adverb.
Latin used the word "casus" (a falling away - English "case") to describe these 'wannabes' because they have tried to become *nouns *(i.e. nominative) but have 'fallen short' and failed.
Strictly speaking therefore, as I'm sure Whodunit would agree, the nominative is not a "case" since any nominative has succeeded in 'mating' with a verb to produce a sentence - and so has not 'fallen short'.
The functions of the cases are as follows:
accusative: adverb
genitive:adjective
dative: adverb
ablative: adverb
locative:adverb.

I hope this brief introduction helps.

Best wishes and good luck! Latin for a modern English speaking linguist is unquestionably the best way to avoid the degrading slavery of becoming a parrot-linguist.

Virgilio


----------



## rominetimma

So you're basically saying "true nouns" are only nominative, and that the other cases 'acts a little less nounlessly' ?  I think I get what you mean.


----------



## Cagey

It's generally true, as Whodunit points out, that English does not use case endings.  However, there is one exception with which you are familiar, and that is in the use of pronouns. 

We say, for instance:
He is doing something. (=Latin nominative)
That is his book. (=Latin genitive)
We see him.  (=Latin accusative)
I gave him the book. (=Latin dative)

Some people find this helpful in understanding the Latin use of cases.  Of course, there are Latin usages of these cases that do not correspond to English usage.


----------



## Whodunit

Well, the problem (or better: the good thing) is that I know German, which has four cases. However, the Latin cases are sometimes different than in German (especially because we don't have the ablative):

nominative: _this is the "dictionary form"; the verb always agrees with it._
genitive: _this indicates possession_
dative: _this is the indirect object, which is usually used with a preposition in English, so the verb cannot agree with it_
accusative: _this is the direct object, which is neither the dictionary nor the possessive form, so the verb cannot agree with it_

_Examples:_

nominative: _The dog is cute. I hope that you will arrive soon. There is someone waiting for me._
genitive: _My mother's [two genitives!] passion is to ride a horse. My greatest hobby is football. He loves his dad's [two genitives!] car._
dative: _I am going to explain it to you later. Can you find that out for me? To me, this sounds horrible._
accusative: _I love candy. Why would you call that a flower [two accusatives], it looks ugly? Find another one!_

Expressions like _Good evening_, _Happy birthday_, or _Merry Christmas_ are always accusative in case-based languages, because _I wish [you] a ..._ is just left out.

Hope it helps. 



virgilio said:


> Strictly speaking therefore, as I'm sure Whodunit would agree, the nominative is not a "case" since any nominative has succeeded in 'mating' with a verb to produce a sentence - and so has not 'fallen short'.



Don't be too sure, you know me. 

If you don't consider _creare, ire_, or _esse_ infinitives (because that would be a mood, and a mood changes a verb), you'll be right about the nominative not being a real case. However, what if someone asked you which case _rex_ was? I'd definitely answer _nominative_, but what would you do?


----------



## virgilio

Whodunit,
             You write: "Don't be too sure, you know me."

It's precisely because over the last few months I've come to appreciate your contributions to this forum on a wide range of languages that I feel you would agree.

Re:"If you don't consider _creare, ire_, or _esse_ infinitives (because that would be a mood, and a mood changes a verb), you'll be right about the nominative not being a real case."

Of course, _creare, ire_ and_ esse_ are infinitives - and infinitives, like participles, are not verbs - but, when you suggest that the nominative is "not a real case", you seem to me to 'put the cart before the horse' (do you have that metaphor in German?).
As I pointed out to rominetimma, the nominative is the "real" noun and the "cases" (that is, the 'fallings away") are the unsuccessful gatecrashers which have to be content with the subsidiary functions of "adjective"(genitive) or "adverb" (accusative, dative, ablative, locative)


You continue: "what if someone asked you which case _rex_ was? I'd definitely answer _nominative_, but what would you do?"

I would say, of course, that "rex" was not a "case" but a noun. (I discount the so-called vocative case on the grounds that it is metasyntactic - from the point of view of syntax just a kind of emotional outburst)
If the person then said that he had read that there was a nominative case, I would give him the simple, common-sense answer that he should not believe everything he reads in books nor - their 21st century counterpart - on websites.
By the way, I can't agree with your description of the German accusative as " accusative: _this is the direct object, which is neither the dictionary nor the possessive form, so the verb cannot agree with it"

_In German, as In English, the accusative case houses more adverbs than just direct objects:
z.B.
Jeden Tag ging ich in den Marienplatz hinunter, um meinem Onkel eine Zeitung zu kaufen

I must alas! also disagree with your statement that " dative: _this is the indirect object, which is usually used with a preposition in English, so the verb cannot agree with it.
_ "All English prepositions assist accusatives", so say English grammarians.. Certainly in English - as in Latin - datives can *never* be assisted by prepositions.

Best wishes
Virgilio

_
._


----------



## virgilio

rominetimma,
                  Yes a noun has one function - and one function only - to mysteriously combine - or to use a human metaphor - to 'mate' with a verb. When that happens, a sentence is born. That doesn't stop other words that look like nouns -and are usually described in dictionaries as nouns - from trying to 'dethrone' the successful noun. However their attempts are doomed to failure because once the sentence has been 'born' through the earlier 'noun-verb' union, the verb's energy has already been directed and verbs are not distracted from their aims. It (the verb) is prepared to admit them as 'losers' into its sentence but only if they agree to fulfill the auxiliary functions of adjective or adverb. If they agree, the verb will even allow them to bring their own assistants along (known as prepositions)to help them to function as adjective or adverb.
Of course, any one of these  'noun-look-alikes' is quite free to go and find a verb of its own to 'mate' with and produce a separate sentence, in other words to become itself a real *noun* (i.e. a nominative) but as a 'gatecrasher' in somebody else's sentence it remains a "case", that is, a word that has 'fallen short' (cado, cadere, cecidi, casum - to fall) of making the grade as a noun.
That is why the nominative is not itself a "case" (whatever the textbooks and websites may say) because the nominative is the *reality* of which the "cases" are merely the dreams or glimpses.

Hope this helps.
Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## rominetimma

I think I see what you're saying Virgilio... I might need to read it again, but thanks.


----------

