# nāvibus quae ad urbem Rōmānam aut Ostiae essent persequī eōs



## leisulin

cōnsul Ostiam proficīscī jussus est nāvibusque quae ad urbem Rōmānam aut Ostiae essent complētis mīlitibus persequī hostium classem

The consul was ordered to set out for Ostia and to pursue the enemy fleet with ships (manned with soldiers)....ships which were? would be (brought) to? the city of Rome or [ships] from? of? Ostia......I'm not sure why essent is in the subjunctive there (unless maybe it's some kind of purpose clause), but I'm most unsure about the underlined words, in particular, ad urbem Romanam in the accusative, but Ostiae in the genitive (?).  I would have expected them to be parallel but they don't seem to be.  Would someone more skilled than I please shed some light on this for me?


----------



## Scholiast

Salve leisulin!

I don't at once recognise the passage from which this comes (CapnPrep, who knows everything, will identify it in seconds), but it looks like Livy. In any case, however, _ad_ (_urbem R_.) means "at", and what looks like a genitive _Ostiae_ is in fact a locative.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper...9.04.0001:part=1:section=6&highlight=locative 

Σ


----------



## leisulin

I thought ad + the accusative always indicated motion TO that place, and "at" was shown by the ablative......is that wrong?
Also, with the two places being so closely tied in the meaning of the sentence, yet one is in the accusative while the other is in the locative (thanks), it seems there is some sort of differentiation going on between the two.  But what?  Perhaps it requires more context (which I don't have--this text is in fact adapted from Livy, but it probably simplified a little cuz it's in a 2nd year high school text book.


----------



## Scholiast

salvete omnes!

<< Response to deleted post. >>

I am relieved to know that this is _adapted_ Livy. For it is pretty barbarous and clumsy. The subjunctive _essent_ is fine, but _ad urbem Romanam_ is horrendous; intended was presumably _ad urbem Romam_, but even this is bad, not least because Rome was not a harbour-city: that's why Ostia existed.

Σ


----------



## Cagey

Here is the original sentence in Livy.  The parts we are discussing haven't been changed much.  

Itaque extemplo consul Ostiam proficisci iussus nauibusque quae ad  urbem Romanam aut Ostiae essent completis milite ac naualibus sociis  persequi hostium classem ac litora Italiae tutari. [Latin Library: Ab urbe condita 22.11.]


*Added*: I wonder whether _ad_ here is related to this use of 'ad' meaning 'near, close by', from Lewis & Short: 
ad urbem esse (of generals), _to remain outside the city_ (Rome) _until permission was given for a triumph_:  [...] So sometimes with names of towns and verbs of rest: “pons, qui erat ad Genavam,”  Caes. B. G. 1, 7:​ This would explain the difference between the preposition with the accusative here, and the locative _Ostiae._


----------



## Quiviscumque

leisulin said:


> I thought ad + the accusative always indicated motion TO that place, and "at" was shown by the ablative......is that wrong?
> Also, with the two places being so closely tied in the meaning of the sentence, yet one is in the accusative while the other is in the locative (thanks), it seems there is some sort of differentiation going on between the two.  But what?  Perhaps it requires more context (which I don't have--this text is in fact adapted from Livy, but it probably simplified a little cuz it's in a 2nd year high school text book.



L&S under *ad*:
3. Nearness or proximity in gen. = _apud_, near to, by, at, close by (in anteclass. per. very freq.; not rare later, esp. in the historians)
I understand "ships that where in Ostia or near Ostia" (in other little naval stations, perhaps?) But Livy perfers to avoid a third occurrence of "Ostia" and says "urbs Romana". Just my guess.


----------



## Scholiast

Salvete, and apologies:





> Here is the original sentence in Livy.  The parts we are discussing haven't been changed much.
> 
> Itaque extemplo consul Ostiam proficisci iussus nauibusque quae ad   urbem Romanam aut Ostiae essent completis milite ac naualibus sociis   persequi hostium classem ac litora Italiae tutari. [Latin Library: Ab urbe condita 22.11.]


Thank you Cagey. I stand corrected.

_ad urbem Romanam aut Ostiae_ now looks like an instance of pre-Tacitean _variatio_. And perhaps, by way of further clarification for the original poster, one should add that the subjunctive _essent_ is generic, "what*ever* ships were in Rome or at Ostia...".

Σ


----------



## leisulin

Thank you all.  I now fully understand the parts that were unclear to me, in particular the use of "ad" and "essent".  I am grateful that this forum exists and to have your valuable help in my journey, just beginning, of studying Latin.  I hope and presume that this kind of question/post is appropriate and is at least part of what this forum is for.  (FYI:  the books I'm using at the moment are being used a bit for nostalgia's sake...they are my old high school Latin textbooks called _Using Latin 1_ and _2_.  It seems clear that they aren't perfect.  I also have Wheelock available which I plan to dive into next.  If anyone here knows of some truly exceptional beginning texts that happen to do a very good job of teaching Latin grammar, I'd love to hear of them.)


----------

