# magno post tempore Graeci urbem Troiam ceperunt



## Buonaparte

In my book, _Reading Latin _by Jones and Sidwell, the phrase:

'magno post tempore Graeci urbem Troiam ceperunt'

translates into English as:

'A long time afterwards the Greeks captured the city of Troy'

My question is: why is Troy *not* is genitive singular form, ie Troiae?

(a rather puzzled) Buonaparte
P.S. bear in mind I'm merely a beginner Latin student and so may be missing something really quite basic.


----------



## modus.irrealis

Buonaparte said:


> My question is: why is Troy *not* is genitive singular form, ie Troiae?



I can't give a deeper answer, but sometimes Latin uses apposition with some words where English would use "of," and I know this is done with words meaning "city" or "town." Basically you just put the city name right after _urbs_ in the same case as _urbs_, and you say things like _Urbs Roma magna_ _est_.


----------



## Breogan

modus.irrealis said:


> I can't give a deeper answer, but sometimes Latin uses apposition with some words where English would use "of," and I know this is done with words meaning "city" or "town." Basically you just put the city name right after _urbs_ in the same case as _urbs_, and you say things like _Urbs Roma magna_ _est_.



Yes, noun and apposition take the same case, in the above example accusative.

_urbem_ (noun) _Troiam_ (apposition)


----------



## Malakya

You can think something like this:

"A long time afterwards the Greeks captured the Troy City" 
(like New York City = the City of New York).

Bye


----------



## judkinsc

Yeah, it's really just a syntactic difference. It would sound a little awkward to translate it literally into English, so the translators have added "of" to the mix. We do the same thing translating German's compound nouns into English, and the French do the same thing translating some compound nouns in English into French. It just depends on the usage common in the language.

Or, think of it as "the Trojan city," if you like.

There is a formation called the "Accusative of respect" that you'll run across, which does something similar. It relates the subject/verb to something else by putting the latter word into the accusative, often without a preposition. It's not overly common. You could call this form a complementary accusative, or, if it were in another case, a complementary nominative, etc.

Complements happen in other places as well, whenever the case/number/gender matches, consider ...Joannis Lelandis Antiquarii Rebus Brittanicis. (I think that was his title in Latin, but anyway...) ...of John Leland, Antiquarian of [or, "concerning"] British Affairs. Everything in the genitive there translates as one chunk into English. Just match up the case, number, and gender.


----------



## Buonaparte

Ok, so would it be incorrect or poor Latin to write 'Troy' in the genitive form, ie:

'magno post tempore Graeci urbem Troiae ceperunt'?

Would this still translate as:  'A long time afterwards the Greeks captured the city of Troy'?

Buonaparte


----------



## judkinsc

Buonaparte said:


> Ok, so would it be incorrect or poor Latin to write 'Troy' in the genitive form, ie:
> 
> 'magno post tempore Graeci urbem Troiae ceperunt'?
> 
> Would this still translate as:  'A long time afterwards the Greeks captured the city of Troy'?
> 
> Buonaparte




Grammatically, that would be fine. Maybe not in the best style of the Classical writers, but I'd have to look into the different usages to say for sure.


----------



## Breogan

Buonaparte said:


> Ok, so would it be incorrect or poor Latin to write 'Troy' in the genitive form, ie:
> 
> 'magno post tempore Graeci urbem Troiae ceperunt'?
> 
> Would this still translate as:  'A long time afterwards the Greeks captured the city of Troy'?
> 
> Buonaparte



But, this way

'magno post tempore Graeci urbem Troiae ceperunt'

would mean

"A long time afterwards the Greeks of Troy captured the city."


----------



## judkinsc

Breogan said:


> But, this way
> 
> 'magno post tempore Graeci urbem Troiae ceperunt'
> 
> would mean
> 
> "A long time afterwards the Greeks of Troy captured the city."



That would be possible syntactically, but it wouldn't make sense in context; although the Trojans were, racially, Greeks. Latin often has multiple possible translations. 
After thinking about it since I posted the last comment, I'm wondering if "the city of Troy" would not more precisely refer to a man, person, god, etc. named "Troy." The usage of the "urbem Troiae" would seem to indicate that. And, as there's no person named "Troy," I don't think it would be as appropriate to use "urbem Troiae" as "urbem Troiam." 
Ilus, son of Tros, founded Troy, giving the city its other name "Ilium:" Tthe city/place of Ilus.


----------



## Cagey

I think it's more curious that English inserts "of" in "the city of Troy".  The Latin construction is fairly straight forward.  It identifies the city by giving the name in the same case. Here we have the accusative, "urbem Troiam" but both could be in any case; ablative "in urbe Troia"  "in the city of Troy," etc.  Essentially the Latin construction works as apposition does in English, e.g., my hometown, Gridley .... 

However, given the usual usages of "of" (to show possession, or the material something is made from, etc.)  its usage in "the city of Troy" seems odd.  I found the relevant meaning for "of" in the American Heritage Dictionary: "specified as: named or called: the Garden of Eden".  

Each language has its own internally consistent structure, and you have to be cautious about word by word translations from one language to the other.  "Urbem Troiae" would not mean "the city of Troy" in the English sense, but "Troy's city", whoever Troy is.


----------



## virgilio

Buonaparte,
                When two substantives refer in the same simple sentence to the same person, place or thing, they must (in Latin) share the same case - being then said to be "in apposition" to each other.
In your sentence "urbem" and "Troiam" both refer (within the same simple sentence) to the same thing and so must share the same case, a case which here is dictated by their being the object of the verb "ceperunt" and so accusative.
If you were to rewrite the sentence using the genitive case (Troiae) instead of the accusative (Troiam), the meaning would be:
"A long time afterwards the Greeks captured Troy's city" - probably meaning some city 'belonging to, or under the control of, Troy.

Hope this helps
Best wishes
Virgilio


----------

