pugio bruti p.L

[john abshire]

Clodius adulescentem non vehementer percusserat. Adulescens conversus Clodium pugno percussit. Lapis Clodio e manu cecedit. Adulescens eum rursus pugno percussit. Clodius iratus exclamavit et adulescenti caput pugno vehementer percussit. Tum adulescens Clodio ventrem percussit ea manu qua pugionem tenebat. Clodius pugionem prehendit eumque manibus ad se traxit.
"Da," clamavit Clodius, "mihi pugionem!"
Ad hoc, "Non est tuus!" inquit alter, "Mitte pugionem!"
Et Clodius et adulescens pugionem manibus suis tenebant.

Clodius had not struck the young man violently. The young man having turned around struck Clodius with his fist. The stone dropped out of the hand of Clodius. The young man struck him with his fist again. Angry Clodius shouted and his head struck ______________________________________________________. Then the young man struck the belly to Clodius by his hand in which he was holding a dagger. Clodius seized the dagger and drug him towards himself with his hands.
Clodius shouted, "Give the dagger to me!"
To this the other said, "It is not yours. Let go of the dagger!"
Both the young man and Clodius were holding the dagger with their hands.

please review,
especially the bold print.
thank you

 

[cinefactus]

non vehementer should be taken together to mean something like molliter
caput is neuter, and is the object.
he struck Clodius' belly, with the hand that was holding THE dagger.

 

[john abshire]

non vehementer should be taken together to mean something like molliter
caput is neuter, and is the object.
he struck Clodius' belly, with the hand that was holding THE dagger.

How is ventrem Clodio = Clodius’ belly?
And Clodio e manu = “out of the hand of Clodius” (out of Clodius’ hand)
?

 

[cinefactus]

I am taking it as a Dative of Reference, but I am hoping @Pacifica will bail me out

 

[Pacifica]

I am taking it as a Dative of Reference, but I am hoping @Pacifica will bail me out

That's right.

Note though, John, that the datives go with the verbs, not with the nouns, as I explained in this link I've referred you to a couple of times before: THREAD: dat-of-possession-and-those-times-when-a-dat-translates-to-a-possessive-in-english

(I'm a little busy right now so I haven't looked at the rest of the translation.)

 

[john abshire]

That's right.

Note though, John, that the datives go with the verbs, not with the nouns, as I explained in this link I've referred you to a couple of times before: THREAD: dat-of-possession-and-those-times-when-a-dat-translates-to-a-possessive-in-english

(I'm a little busy right now so I haven't looked at the rest of the translation.)

Yes you have.
I haven’t seen enough examples of “dative of reference” to recognize it through the confusion.
Clodio ventrem percussit; “he struck Clodius’ belly”, where Clodio is dative of reference.

Clodio e manu cecidit; remembering and checking my notebook; I found the e,ex; with a noun in ablative but treated as genitive. “Out of clodius’ hand”, even though clodius is ablative and linked with e, not manu.
Or, better said; both manu and Clodio are linked with e, and the English translation just comes out “out of Clodius’ hand”.
?

 

[Pacifica]

Clodio e manu cecidit; The dropping wasn’t done to Clodius, at least it is hard to see;

It happened to Clodius; it's something that affected Clodius.

Clodio seems more to go with e or manu

No, it doesn't.

 

[john abshire]

It happened to Clodius; it's something that affected Clodius.

No, it doesn't.

I edited before I read this, but still;
When considering a “dative of reference”; Does the dative have to be a person?
”Clodius hit the table with his fist.”
Clodius pugno menso percussit.
Or/
Clodius pugno mensam percussit.
?

 

[Pacifica]

When considering a “dative of reference”; Does the dative have to be a person?

No. The nature of things makes it so that it's more often than not a person, but it doesn't have to be.

”Clodius hit the table with his fist.”
Clodius pugno menso percussit.

This, however, doesn't make sense. A dative of reference does not replace a direct object.

Note also that the dative of mensa is mensae.

 

[john abshire]

No. The nature of things makes it so that it's more often than not a person, but it doesn't have to be.

This, however, doesn't make sense. A dative of reference does not replace a direct object.

Note also that the dative of mensa is mensae.

Clodius mensam pugno percussit.
Clodius hit the table with his fist.
Assuming this is correct; try this one;
Clodius mihi mensam pugno fregit
Clodius broke my table with his fist.?
The breaking was done to me, at least to my table.?

Clodius broke the leg of a table.
Clodius mensae pedem fregit. ?
Where mensae is dative?

 

[Pacifica]

Clodius mensam pugno percussit.
Clodius hit the table with his fist.
Assuming this is correct

It is.

try this one;
Clodius mihi mensam pugno fregit
Clodius broke my table with his fist.?
The breaking was done to me, at least to my table.?

You could say that.

Clodius broke the leg of a table.
Clodius mensae pedem fregit. ?
Where mensae is dative?

That is possible too, but I think the genitive would be more usual where an inanimate object is concerned.

 

[Bitmap]

Clodius mihi mensam pugno fregit
Clodius broke my table with his fist.?
The breaking was done to me, at least to my table.?

You could say that.

Depending on context, it could also mean "Clodius broke somebody else's table for me." or "Clodius broke some random table for me (so I don't have to do it myself)."

I don't know why Clodius would do that, but there are contexts where you just smash up somebody else's table to show him that he shouldn't mess around with you ... and there are contexts in which you just need firewood and need an axe-skilled gentleman to take apart your table.

 

[john abshire]

It is.

You could say that.

That is possible too, but I think the genitive would be more usual where an inanimate object is concerned.

Thanks

 

[Clemens]

I wonder if the dative of reference is easier for a speaker of a Romance language to grasp.

 

[Pacifica]

Probably.

 

[Bitmap]

My guess would be that it's the easiest to grasp for speakers of languages that still have a dative.

 

[Bitmap]

... or for people who understand what a beneficiary object is.

 

[Bitmap]

Speaking of which, I should add that I always thought the term "dative of reference" is one of the most useless terms ever ... I mean, has there ever been a case that is not a reference of some sort? (With the possible exception of the nominative)

 

[Clemens]

My guess would be that it's the easiest to grasp for speakers of languages that still have a dative.

I think it's more a question of idiom. French doesn't have a separately marked dative (except on third-person pronouns) but the syntax is exactly the same as in Latin. The same goes for Arabic (at least in some contexts) which has never had a separate dative case.

 

[Clemens]

Speaking of which, I should add that I always thought the term "dative of reference" is one of the most useless terms ever ... I mean, has there ever been a case that is not a reference of some sort? (With the possible exception of the nominative)

Interestingly, one of my Latin grammars doesn't mention a dative of reference, but gives similar examples under a "dative of interest" which it classes as a type of indirect object.