# two objects in one clause



## cheshire

*(1) Veritatem* *Temporis filiam esse* dixit​
*(2) Veritatem* *Temporis filiam esse* dicitur.​ 
Veracity is the daughter of time, they say. What's the difference between (1) and (2)?

I heard that word order is relatively free in Latin, but I don't think this is the case, for this example seems one of two objects in one clause. What if we change the word order and write "Temporis filiam veritatem esse dixit (dicitur)"?


----------



## clara mente

It seems to me that you are on a grammatical precipice here. You have presented both sentences as indirect/ reported discousre which implies the use of "verba sentiendi et declarandi" i.e. verbs of sensing and declaring which , although used here, may not be the best way to go. For example, if we substitute the verb "dixit/dicitur" for vocatur, we call now throw this entire sentence into the copulative world, thus ending up with "Veritas temporis filia vocatur." 
     Sentence #1 implies an unspecified subject (ala he/ ille) and would be more prone to fall into reported discourse. The second, however, would be better served, for the sake of clarity, to follow the copulative route as presented above. This avoids the double acc. confusion of which you asked. In short, when there is no other alternative, keep the acc. subject and object in English(analytical) word order.


----------



## vachecow

dixit means "hes has said" while dicitur means "he is told"


----------



## modus.irrealis

cheshire said:


> What's the difference between (1) and (2)?



I think (2) is most literally rendered into English as "it is said that..."



> I heard that word order is relatively free in Latin, but I don't think this is the case, for this example seems one of two objects in one clause. What if we change the word order and write "Temporis filiam veritatem esse dixit (dicitur)"?



Everything I've read says that with such sentences, their meaning is completely ambiguous outside of context. I think a famous example of this is the oracle

*aio te Aeacida Romanos vincere posse*

which can either mean "I say, Aeacides, that you can defeat the Romans" or "I say, Aeacides, that the Romans can defeat you," and the result is the oracle can claim it was right no matter what happens .


----------



## vachecow

I agree with modus......forget what I said earlier, it should be "It is said"


----------



## jazyk

I agree with Modus, too.


----------



## virgilio

cheshire,
            Both sentences are OK, though the second would probably have being differently expressed in classical Latin.
Re your query, are you aware of the syntax rule that  substantives in apposition to each other are either both nouns or otherwise share the same case.
"veritatem" and "filiam" are in apposition to each other, since they are being declared to be the same thing. They must therefore share the same case.
By the way, your description of them as objects is erroneous, I'm afraid.
The only ' verb object' in sentence 1 is the whole phrase "veritatem esse temporis filiam - object of "dixit"; the same phrase is the subject of "dicitur" in sentence 2.
Since the phrase represents an indirect statement the two accusatives "veritatem" and "filiam" are respectively subject and complement of the verbal element 'encased', so to speak, within the substantive "esse".
In short, aint no objects in sight!
Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

cheshire,
           On re-reading my last post I really must apologise for the rather arrogant way I described your description of "veritatem" and "filiam" as objects.
I do beg your pardon.
The situation with regard to them is an interesting one. If we say that either "veritatem" or "filiam" is an 'object' - which I take to mean 'verb object' - the first question that arises is whether you can "say" a "daughter" or whether you can say "truth". You can, of course, say *a* truth - that is a true thing - but that is hardly what is meant, I think, here.
The second question that arises is  how far does "dicere" actually mean "to say". It is said to to be derived from the Greek verb "deiknymi" or "deiko" which means "to show"or "demonstrate". So let's take an equivalent English expression using more concrete terms for the sake of greater clarity.
haec verba Metellum esse sapientem demonstrant
These words show Metellus to be wise.
We can dispense with the "esse" as superfluous - as many languages do.
haec verba Metellum sapientem demonstrant.
The question is "Is 'Metellum' here the object of "demonstrant"?".
Do these words show *Metellus*?  I think not. They show not the man but a fact about him.
That is what I  - rather too unceremoniously - tried to say before.

With best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## cheshire

Thanks everyone for your detailed explanation. I enjoyed reading it, although I don't understand a few points due to my lack of knowledge.

I understand virgilio's suggestion that in Sn = Sp (Subject [nominative] = subject [predicate]), the position of Sn and Sp doesn't much matter. I do agree with this claim.

However, I'm not yet sure whether "temporis" modifies "veritatem" or "filiam." Can it only be determined by the context? Why do we know if "temporis" modifies "filiam"? Does word order play any role here?


----------



## virgilio

cheshire,
            "temporis" must qualify "filiam" in order to make any kind of sense of this odd sentence, I suggest.
"He said that truth was time's daughter " sounds vaguely more probable than "He said that daughter was times' truth", though even the more probable one sounds pretty meaningless. Maybe it meant something to the fellow who wrote it.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Whodunit

virgilio said:


> cheshire,
> "temporis" must qualify "filiam" in order to make any kind of sense of this odd sentence, I suggest.
> "He said that truth was time's daughter " sounds vaguely more probable than "He said that daughter was times' truth", though even the more probable one sounds pretty meaningless. Maybe it meant something to the fellow who wrote it.
> 
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 
We would call that _genitivus explicativus_, because it's a genitive that explains the object or subject. Thusly, it can't be omitted. Compare English:

_Truth is the time's daughter._
Would _Truth is the daughter_ make sense or at least mean the same as the original sentence?

_This is my mum's car_.
Would _This is the car_ mean the same as the sentence above?

You see, the genitive is used. However, in your example it is more of logic than of grammar to find out which noun is explained by the genitive. This is very often the case with a copula that requires the nominative (there are only a few copulas that do not require the nominative) in Latin, because you can vary the syntax:

Canes quadrupedes sunt.
Dogs are quadruped animals.

The sentence is unambiguous in English, but can be in Latin*, because it can also be understood as "Quadruped animals are dogs", which is wrong by logic, though. 

*To emphasize the word _canes_, you may put it to the front.


----------



## virgilio

Whodunit,
             Yeah, yeah, yeah. OK, very funny.

Virgilio


----------



## virgilio

Whodunit,
             Please excuse my last post. I thought for a moment that you were joking with that "genitivus explicativus" - an odd term considering that any word in any correctly-formed sentence could be described as "explicativus".
    If you were serious, I apologise.
Best wishes
Virgilio


----------



## Whodunit

virgilio said:


> Whodunit,
> Please excuse my last post. I thought for a moment that you were joking with that "genitivus explicativus" - an odd term considering that any word in any correctly-formed sentence could be described as "explicativus".
> If you were serious, I apologise.
> Best wishes
> Virgilio


 
I wasn't joking. In English, this kind of genitive is called _genitive of description_.


----------



## virgilio

Whodunit,
             Yes, I see that now. I'm sorry I misunderstood you. 
Having scanned the list of descriptions of genitive functions on the link you gave, I wonder whether it might not be much simpler just to recognise that the genitive case of any substantive is no longer a substantive but *is* an adjective.
In Virgil's _Eclogues_ for example you find things like:
"_cujum pecus?"_  (whose flock?) 
which indicates that he treated "cujus" as a permanent adjective (as its collateral Greek form would in any case suggest).
I suggest that once we recognise the fact that, when a noun ceases being  *nomin*ative, it ceases also being a noun, a lot of things become much simpler.
Explicative terminology can often cloud very simple principles.

Best wishes
Virgilio


----------

