Antepono

[john abshire]

Ego divitias sapientiae antepono.
For my part I place health ahead of wisdom.
1- where does “for my part” comes from?
2- antepono takes the dative. Why isn’t it reversed, “wisdom ahead of health”?

 

[cinefactus]

divitias is wealth, not health

1. ego is not necessary for the meaning, so it has been put there to emphasise the I
2. because the thing you are putting takes the accusative, and the thing you put it before takes the dative

 

[john abshire]

divitias is wealth, not health

1. ego is not necessary for the meaning, so it has been put there to emphasise the I
2. because the thing you are putting takes the accusative, and the thing you put it before takes the dative

Where does “for my part” come from?

 

[Pacifica]

From ego.

 

[john abshire]

From ego.

Shouldn’t it be dative?
Like mihi? “As I see it”?
(Dative of reference)

 

[cinefactus]

For my part is an English expression to emphasise the I
Ego is a Latin way to emphasise the I. You could also use equidem.

 

[Pacifica]

Shouldn’t it be dative?
Like mihi? “As I see it”?
(Dative of reference)

No. "For my part" isn't a literal translation of ego, of course, but it conveys a similar sort of emphasis in this context. It's similar to pronouncing "I" with an extra stress. I place wealth ahead of wisdom = for my part, I place wealth ahead of wisom.

 

[john abshire]

No. "For my part" isn't a literal translation of ego, of course, but it conveys a similar sort of emphasis in this context. It's similar to pronouncing "I" with an extra stress. I place wealth ahead of wisdom = for my part, I place wealth ahead of wisom.

Ok, I was afraid I missed something and assumed it must be dative of reference because we covered it within the last 3 chapters.

 

[Pacifica]

I can see how you could think that a dative of reference would make sense here, but it isn't the usage. What's being emphasized here is the subject, hence ego in the nominative.