Donatus est

john abshire

Well-Known Member

  • Patronus

Sumpta virilii toga militaribus donis donatus est, ..............
After receiving the toga virilis he was presented with military badges...........

Me- with the toga virilis having been assumed (after receiving the toga virilis), he was given _________.
??
If donatus est can be translated “he was presented” I can understand militaribus donis = “with military badges” the two nouns being in the ablative.
Otherwise, how does toga militaribus donatus est translate to “he was presented with military badges”?
 

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
If donatus est can be translated “he was presented” I can understand militaribus donis = “with military badges” the two nouns being in the ablative.
There is only one noun in the ablative in militaribus donis donatus est (namely donis), but yes, donatus est can translate to "he was presented" and the thing he was presented with will be in the ablative.

"He was given military badges" is also a correct translation, just mirroring the Latin grammatical construction slightly less literally.
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Otherwise, how does toga militaribus donatus est translate to “he was presented with military badges”?
It doesn't, because toga militaribus donatus est doesn't make sense. Toga belongs with sumpta in the previous ablative absolute, and militaribus goes with donis.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member

  • Patronus

There is only one noun in the ablative in militaribus donis donatus est (namely donis), but yes, donatus est can translate to "he was presented" and the thing he was presented with will be in the ablative.

"He was given military badges" is also a correct translation, just mirroring the Latin grammatical construction slightly less literally.
Isn’t “military badges” the direct object? And therefore should be accusative?

Or, is the translation of donatus est= I was presented, a special case where what is presented is in the ablative?

Edit; last sentence added
 
Last edited:

Pacifica

grammaticissima

  • Aedilis

Location:
Belgium
Isn’t “military badges” the direct object?
No. There is no direct object here. There is a subject, "he", a passive verb, "donatus est/was presented", and an ablative phrase, or prepositional phrase in English, "militaribus donis/with military badges".
Or, is the translation of do= I present, a special case where what is presented is in the ablative?
The verb used here is not do, but dono.

While do is constructed with the accusative of the thing given and the dative of the person it's given to, dono often takes the accusative of the person who's being given something and the ablative of the thing given (though it can also be constructed like do). Of course, when the verb is passive, like here, what would have been the direct object of the active verb becomes the subject and therefore nominative.
 

john abshire

Well-Known Member

  • Patronus

No. There is no direct object here. There is a subject, "he", a passive verb, "donatus est/was presented", and an ablative phrase, or prepositional phrase in English, "militaribus donis/with military badges".

The verb used here is not do, but dono.

While do is constructed with the accusative of the thing given and the dative of the person it's given to, dono often takes the accusative of the person who's being given something and the ablative of the thing given (though it can also be constructed like do). Of course, when the verb is passive, like here, what would have been the direct object of the active verb becomes the subject and therefore nominative.
I see now, dono, donare = I present
I assumed do, dare = I give, as you suspected.
Thank you
I was not familiar with the verb dono, donare

Edit; last sentence added
 
Last edited:
Top