# mons petrae / mons petrosus [noun in the genitive used adjectivally?]



## Michael Zwingli

Hi, there.

I hope that this question does not appear highly sophomoric, as I am sure some of my questions do.

Today, I am questioning whether a noun in the genitive case can be used adjectivally within a sentence in Latin. For instance, are the following constructions valid as replacements for the given correspondents:  _Ecce mons petrae_ for _ Ecce mons petrosus_, _Ecce mons lapidis_ for _Ecce mons lapidosus_, _Ecce mons saxosus_ for _Ecce mons saxi_ for _Ecce mons saxosus_, or _Ecce mons calcis_ for _Ecce mons calculosus_?

Thanks for your help and forebearance.

Mike.


----------



## bearded

Michael Zwingli said:


> whether a noun in the genitive case can be used adjectivally within a sentence in Latin. For instance, are the following constructions valid ….


Hello
No, I don't think they are valid._  Mons petrae_ would only mean ''mountain of the stone'', not stony mountain.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete amici!

While in this specific instance I agree with bearded (# 2), phrases such as...

_homo summae sapientiae_ ('a man of the deepest wisdom')

...can be accounted equivalent to _homo sapientissimus_ ('a very wise man').

I'm not sure whether there is a rule about when, grammatically or stylistically, this (so-called) 'descriptive genitive' is preferred over the adjectival phrase. I'm sure there must be something on this in A&G, but right now I haven't time to chase down the chapter and verse.

Σ


----------



## Snodv

A & G says both genitives are legitimate, calling _homo summae sapientiae_ a "genitive of quality" (apparently only when the genitive noun has an adjective, as in this instance) and giving these examples of a "genitive of material": _talentum auri_ "a talent of gold" and _flumina lactis_ "rivers of milk."


----------



## Snodv

Whoa!  Probably no one cares now, but I just reread this and realized I wasn't using Allen & Greenough.  It was Gildersleeve and Lodge.


----------



## Sardokan1.0

Snodv said:


> Whoa!  Probably no one cares now, but I just reread this and realized I wasn't using Allen & Greenough.  It was Gildersleeve and Lodge.



I don't know if this could be useful to you, but in Sardinian, the Romance language closest to Vulgar Latin the most used form is that derived from *"-osus"*.

Actual toponyms present in the countryside :
_
Monte Pedr*osu* = stony mountain
Monte 'ent*osu* = windy mountain
Monte Ren*osu* = sandy mountain
Monte Fen*osu* = hay mountain
Funtana Gutti*osa* = dripping fountain
Badde Umbr*osa* = shady valley

etc.etc._


----------



## bearded

Same thing in Italian: we would say _monte pietroso _(from acc. of 'mons petrosus', i.e. montem petrosum). In my opinion, a 'genitive of material' would be more appropriate if the _whole object_ was made of the same material, but on a mountain there is presumably some earth under the stones... 'Flumina lactis' is of course correct because milk replaces _all the water _in those rivers.


----------



## Snodv

Sounds reasonable!


----------

